rxkdyhlvvxhvylhzlqjrudffhvvlqjwklvilohfrqwdfwxvdw1& … · it vias a more val i d experiment...

130
MEN!\RD CORRECTIONAL CENTER JUVENILE TOURS IMPACT STUDY Greater Egypt Regional Planning and Development Commission P. O. Box 3160, 608 E. College Carbondale, IL 62901 Phone: (618) 549-3306 . August 1979 The preparation of this document has been funded in part through a grant from the Illinois Law Enforcement Commi 5S i on and the Enforcement Assistance Administration according to the pro- visions of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1974, as amended. Publication No. GERPOC-79-534. If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

Upload: vuongquynh

Post on 05-Jul-2019

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

MENRD CORRECTIONAL CENTER

JUVENILE TOURS

IMPACT STUDY

Greater Egypt Regional Planning and Development Commission P O Box 3160 608 E College

Carbondale IL 62901 Phone (618) 549-3306

~-~-nAugust 1979

The preparation of this document has been funded in part through a grant from the Illinois Law Enforcement Commi 5S i on and the La~ Enforcement Assistance Administration according to the proshyvisions of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1974 as amended Publication No GERPOC-79-534

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRSgov

GREATER EGYPT REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPt~ENT COlMISSION

Commission Members

Franklin County Williamson County

RA Bonifield John Hamilton Albert Chiaventone William Humphreys John Ch u11 en Jack Murray George Tomlinson Curtis Palmer

Jackson_ County Assembly of Local Governments

Russe11 Ell i ott William SChettler Gary Hartleib Bill I(e 11 ey Conservancy District Sharon Kowal zi k

Charles Prather Jefferson County

Municipal Representatives Carl Baker Chades Covington Leland Brown Benton Stan Partridge Archie Jones Carbondale Gene Wells Robert rmstrong Duquoin

Robert Butler Marion Perry County Raymond Baril Mt Vernon

Joe Wi 11 i ams t~urphysboroDr Allen Y Baker John Pellow West Frankfort J Pa u1 ~1cNutt Vi ctOI Provart Gene Sci1umaier

Executive Committee

Chairman - C J Covington1st Vice Chairman - George Tomlinson 2nd Vice Chairman - Bill Kelley 3rd Vice Chairman - Vic Provart 4th Vi ce Cha i rman - Archie Jones Secretary - Jack t~urray Treasurer - Curtis Palmer

Commission Staff

A S Kirkikis - Executive Director James R Rush - Acting Executive Director Ronald Clark - Director of Current Planning Christine Svec - Planner III Wayne D Hartin - Criminal Justice Training Coordinator William M Harris - Planner II Sharon Yeargin - Planner II Jan Dorfler - Planner I Jim Duke - Planner I Tony Crebs - Planner I Morris Eaton - Planner I Frank Pallini - Planner I David Huir - Planner I Angela Kazakevicius - Planner I Dave Woodard - Planner I Victoria Freund - Planner I Alan Meyers - Planner I

Jacllt VanZandt - Evaluation Specialist II Stephen Knox - Citizens Resource SpecialistMargie ~1itchell - Administrator II

Barbara Hays - Secretary IIIBookkeeper Debra Borecky - Secteta ry II Joy Andrelvs - Secreta ry

Deborah stout - Clerical Aide

II Candace Fozard - Secretary II

Wendell Keene - Planning Technician II Bill Tennert - Planning Technician II Albert Bustos - Research Analyst I Kay Clary - Research Analyst I Oliver Hoard - Research Analyst I

Person Primarily Responsible For This Report

TIIBLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD bull bull 1

Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION 3

Chapter 2 - METHODOLOGY bullbullbullbull 5 Testing Instruments 6 Statistical Tests bullbull 8

Chapter 3 - EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS 9 Testing Outcomes bull 9 Behavi 01 Fo 11 ow-up 11 Other Findings bull 12

thapter 4 - PRISONERS VIEW bull 13

Chapter 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOI1t1ENDATIONS 19 Recommenda t i OilS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull 19

Appendi x 1-A - t TEST FOR INDEPE~1DENT tmiddot1EANS OVERALL TOURS - Tables 2A - 2 K bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 21

Appendix I-B - t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS OVERALL TOURS - Tables 3-4K 33

lIppendi x 1-C - t TEST FOR I NDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE - Tables 5 - 6K bull bull bullbull 47

Appendix 1-0 - t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS CONTACTED BY POLICE - Tables 7 - 8K bullbull 59

Appendix l-E - t TEST FOR IiWEPENDENJ 11EANS ONlY THOSE SUBJECTS PETITIONED TO COURT FOR LEGAL VIOLATIONS - Tables

9 - 10K bull bull bull 73

Appendix I-F - t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE - Tables 11 - 15K bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull 87

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pa~

1A - PRE TOUR CRIMINAL HISTORY EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN THE JUVENILE-MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 9

1B - POST TOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 11

1 C - POST TOUR POll CE CONTACTS OF middot1ENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS STRATIFIED AS NOT CONTACTED POLICE CONTACTED AND COURT CONTACTED 11

FOREgtIORD

Deterring youth from crime and the juvenile justice system has been a pre-occupation iith aiminal justice and related agencies for several decades By setting vlaYIia)d youth straight it is assumed that they will be unlikely to turn to crime in adulthood and live more fruitful lives However deteni ng youth has proven far from simple and a myri a d of plograms have been developed to dea 1 Vii th the Jrob 1 em Some are total failures some ~elp a little few are glowing successes

The concept of youths touring prisons to see Vlhere they might end up if they brea k the 1alv is not a new idea However a rebi rth of th i s idea has gained much noto)iety recently as a )esult of the docUnentalY Scared Straight filmed at Ral1Jay Plison in NeVI Jersey Claims of glovling success at tUIning del inquent youth around Vlere reported The toU)S and Scaring Youth Straight caught the nations fancy ~i1l1Y replications were attempted including the Menard Prison Tours in Illinois

A Rutgers Un i vers ity crimi no logy professor undertook an intense study of the claims of program success No significant difference between youths touring the plisons and a control group of non-toUt youth was found In fact there Ilere negative findings and the tOU)S have since been curtaileo The value of the tour concept is now considered dubious

The Menard tours vlere undertaken in an attempt to find out vlilat effect the idea of scaring or at least educating youth straigllt Vlould have It vias a more val i d experiment that the Ralllay experiment and took pl ace over a years time span

Tile Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Evaluation program was requested to evaluate the inpact of tours on youth Rogel Higgins the Director of the Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon was responsible for designing

A juvenile justice detelrant proglam

-1shy

the experiment coordinating the tours and collecting the data Acknowledgement of appreciation is expressed to the Illinois LaYI EnfOlcement Commission Statistical Analysis Center For their computation of statistical information and to the Lifers Group who responded to questionnaires and to all those involved who aided in this evaluation

Funds for the eVilluation ~Iere plovided by Illinois Law Enforcement COlrmission with matching fundings proviclCd by the Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Regional counties incJuding Alexander Franklin Gallatin Hamilton Hardin Jackson Jefferson Johnson liassac Perry Pope Pulaski Saline Union and IJilliamson COllnties

-2shy

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCT ON

Scared Straight an unrehearsed film of confrontive dialoguebetween hard core prisoners and juvenile offenders at Rahway Correctl0nal Center in New Jersey has been 11ailed by many as a major breal(tllrough in deterring young people from the juvenile justice system The film has won an aca rJemy m-Ia rd I t Vias l1a rra ted by tha t expe rt TV cd me fi ghte r Lt Colombo (actor Peter Falk) Scared Straight is an appealing theatrical quick fix approach Officials in many states have receivshyed pressure from citizens to implement similar prison tour programs

The Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon Illinois in cooperation I-lith the Lifers GIOUp of Henald 11cximum Security Correctional Center undertook an experiment to measure the actual effects of juvenileshycorrectional center tours

The Police Intervention Group serves juveniles and their families in the Mt Vernon area Its goal is to divert youth from the juvenile justice system Mt Vernon (population 17000) is located in south central Illinois The Lifers Group is a group of inmates at ~lenald Correctional Center serving 20 years or more for mainly felonious crimes

~lenarc IvBS built a centuly ago of sand stone and is located in southshyeastern Illinois On tile Missouri - Illinois border It has a rated capacity of 2620 and presently houses 2596 inmates It is dlealy and crowded and houses only high Iisk seriolls offenders Rather than scaring youth straight the 1lenard inmates entered into dialogue vlith the juveniles in an atte~pt to eCJcate them about plison life There IvdS little stlutting yelling 01 bullying as depicted in Scared Stlaight The dialogue was graphic and honest Prior to the dialogue juveniles lle)e taken on a tour of sections of the COrlectional Center including several cell blocks and the dining aiea

The first several tor dialogues were confrontive graphic and fra~k A panel 0- five inmates spoke in turn about the daily 1l10notolllY tlaUlTa end danger of prison life They 10 spoke of hOl1 they started a life of

-3shy

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 2: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

GREATER EGYPT REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPt~ENT COlMISSION

Commission Members

Franklin County Williamson County

RA Bonifield John Hamilton Albert Chiaventone William Humphreys John Ch u11 en Jack Murray George Tomlinson Curtis Palmer

Jackson_ County Assembly of Local Governments

Russe11 Ell i ott William SChettler Gary Hartleib Bill I(e 11 ey Conservancy District Sharon Kowal zi k

Charles Prather Jefferson County

Municipal Representatives Carl Baker Chades Covington Leland Brown Benton Stan Partridge Archie Jones Carbondale Gene Wells Robert rmstrong Duquoin

Robert Butler Marion Perry County Raymond Baril Mt Vernon

Joe Wi 11 i ams t~urphysboroDr Allen Y Baker John Pellow West Frankfort J Pa u1 ~1cNutt Vi ctOI Provart Gene Sci1umaier

Executive Committee

Chairman - C J Covington1st Vice Chairman - George Tomlinson 2nd Vice Chairman - Bill Kelley 3rd Vice Chairman - Vic Provart 4th Vi ce Cha i rman - Archie Jones Secretary - Jack t~urray Treasurer - Curtis Palmer

Commission Staff

A S Kirkikis - Executive Director James R Rush - Acting Executive Director Ronald Clark - Director of Current Planning Christine Svec - Planner III Wayne D Hartin - Criminal Justice Training Coordinator William M Harris - Planner II Sharon Yeargin - Planner II Jan Dorfler - Planner I Jim Duke - Planner I Tony Crebs - Planner I Morris Eaton - Planner I Frank Pallini - Planner I David Huir - Planner I Angela Kazakevicius - Planner I Dave Woodard - Planner I Victoria Freund - Planner I Alan Meyers - Planner I

Jacllt VanZandt - Evaluation Specialist II Stephen Knox - Citizens Resource SpecialistMargie ~1itchell - Administrator II

Barbara Hays - Secretary IIIBookkeeper Debra Borecky - Secteta ry II Joy Andrelvs - Secreta ry

Deborah stout - Clerical Aide

II Candace Fozard - Secretary II

Wendell Keene - Planning Technician II Bill Tennert - Planning Technician II Albert Bustos - Research Analyst I Kay Clary - Research Analyst I Oliver Hoard - Research Analyst I

Person Primarily Responsible For This Report

TIIBLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD bull bull 1

Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION 3

Chapter 2 - METHODOLOGY bullbullbullbull 5 Testing Instruments 6 Statistical Tests bullbull 8

Chapter 3 - EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS 9 Testing Outcomes bull 9 Behavi 01 Fo 11 ow-up 11 Other Findings bull 12

thapter 4 - PRISONERS VIEW bull 13

Chapter 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOI1t1ENDATIONS 19 Recommenda t i OilS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull 19

Appendi x 1-A - t TEST FOR INDEPE~1DENT tmiddot1EANS OVERALL TOURS - Tables 2A - 2 K bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 21

Appendix I-B - t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS OVERALL TOURS - Tables 3-4K 33

lIppendi x 1-C - t TEST FOR I NDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE - Tables 5 - 6K bull bull bullbull 47

Appendix 1-0 - t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS CONTACTED BY POLICE - Tables 7 - 8K bullbull 59

Appendix l-E - t TEST FOR IiWEPENDENJ 11EANS ONlY THOSE SUBJECTS PETITIONED TO COURT FOR LEGAL VIOLATIONS - Tables

9 - 10K bull bull bull 73

Appendix I-F - t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE - Tables 11 - 15K bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull 87

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pa~

1A - PRE TOUR CRIMINAL HISTORY EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN THE JUVENILE-MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 9

1B - POST TOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 11

1 C - POST TOUR POll CE CONTACTS OF middot1ENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS STRATIFIED AS NOT CONTACTED POLICE CONTACTED AND COURT CONTACTED 11

FOREgtIORD

Deterring youth from crime and the juvenile justice system has been a pre-occupation iith aiminal justice and related agencies for several decades By setting vlaYIia)d youth straight it is assumed that they will be unlikely to turn to crime in adulthood and live more fruitful lives However deteni ng youth has proven far from simple and a myri a d of plograms have been developed to dea 1 Vii th the Jrob 1 em Some are total failures some ~elp a little few are glowing successes

The concept of youths touring prisons to see Vlhere they might end up if they brea k the 1alv is not a new idea However a rebi rth of th i s idea has gained much noto)iety recently as a )esult of the docUnentalY Scared Straight filmed at Ral1Jay Plison in NeVI Jersey Claims of glovling success at tUIning del inquent youth around Vlere reported The toU)S and Scaring Youth Straight caught the nations fancy ~i1l1Y replications were attempted including the Menard Prison Tours in Illinois

A Rutgers Un i vers ity crimi no logy professor undertook an intense study of the claims of program success No significant difference between youths touring the plisons and a control group of non-toUt youth was found In fact there Ilere negative findings and the tOU)S have since been curtaileo The value of the tour concept is now considered dubious

The Menard tours vlere undertaken in an attempt to find out vlilat effect the idea of scaring or at least educating youth straigllt Vlould have It vias a more val i d experiment that the Ralllay experiment and took pl ace over a years time span

Tile Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Evaluation program was requested to evaluate the inpact of tours on youth Rogel Higgins the Director of the Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon was responsible for designing

A juvenile justice detelrant proglam

-1shy

the experiment coordinating the tours and collecting the data Acknowledgement of appreciation is expressed to the Illinois LaYI EnfOlcement Commission Statistical Analysis Center For their computation of statistical information and to the Lifers Group who responded to questionnaires and to all those involved who aided in this evaluation

Funds for the eVilluation ~Iere plovided by Illinois Law Enforcement COlrmission with matching fundings proviclCd by the Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Regional counties incJuding Alexander Franklin Gallatin Hamilton Hardin Jackson Jefferson Johnson liassac Perry Pope Pulaski Saline Union and IJilliamson COllnties

-2shy

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCT ON

Scared Straight an unrehearsed film of confrontive dialoguebetween hard core prisoners and juvenile offenders at Rahway Correctl0nal Center in New Jersey has been 11ailed by many as a major breal(tllrough in deterring young people from the juvenile justice system The film has won an aca rJemy m-Ia rd I t Vias l1a rra ted by tha t expe rt TV cd me fi ghte r Lt Colombo (actor Peter Falk) Scared Straight is an appealing theatrical quick fix approach Officials in many states have receivshyed pressure from citizens to implement similar prison tour programs

The Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon Illinois in cooperation I-lith the Lifers GIOUp of Henald 11cximum Security Correctional Center undertook an experiment to measure the actual effects of juvenileshycorrectional center tours

The Police Intervention Group serves juveniles and their families in the Mt Vernon area Its goal is to divert youth from the juvenile justice system Mt Vernon (population 17000) is located in south central Illinois The Lifers Group is a group of inmates at ~lenald Correctional Center serving 20 years or more for mainly felonious crimes

~lenarc IvBS built a centuly ago of sand stone and is located in southshyeastern Illinois On tile Missouri - Illinois border It has a rated capacity of 2620 and presently houses 2596 inmates It is dlealy and crowded and houses only high Iisk seriolls offenders Rather than scaring youth straight the 1lenard inmates entered into dialogue vlith the juveniles in an atte~pt to eCJcate them about plison life There IvdS little stlutting yelling 01 bullying as depicted in Scared Stlaight The dialogue was graphic and honest Prior to the dialogue juveniles lle)e taken on a tour of sections of the COrlectional Center including several cell blocks and the dining aiea

The first several tor dialogues were confrontive graphic and fra~k A panel 0- five inmates spoke in turn about the daily 1l10notolllY tlaUlTa end danger of prison life They 10 spoke of hOl1 they started a life of

-3shy

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 3: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Commission Staff

A S Kirkikis - Executive Director James R Rush - Acting Executive Director Ronald Clark - Director of Current Planning Christine Svec - Planner III Wayne D Hartin - Criminal Justice Training Coordinator William M Harris - Planner II Sharon Yeargin - Planner II Jan Dorfler - Planner I Jim Duke - Planner I Tony Crebs - Planner I Morris Eaton - Planner I Frank Pallini - Planner I David Huir - Planner I Angela Kazakevicius - Planner I Dave Woodard - Planner I Victoria Freund - Planner I Alan Meyers - Planner I

Jacllt VanZandt - Evaluation Specialist II Stephen Knox - Citizens Resource SpecialistMargie ~1itchell - Administrator II

Barbara Hays - Secretary IIIBookkeeper Debra Borecky - Secteta ry II Joy Andrelvs - Secreta ry

Deborah stout - Clerical Aide

II Candace Fozard - Secretary II

Wendell Keene - Planning Technician II Bill Tennert - Planning Technician II Albert Bustos - Research Analyst I Kay Clary - Research Analyst I Oliver Hoard - Research Analyst I

Person Primarily Responsible For This Report

TIIBLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD bull bull 1

Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION 3

Chapter 2 - METHODOLOGY bullbullbullbull 5 Testing Instruments 6 Statistical Tests bullbull 8

Chapter 3 - EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS 9 Testing Outcomes bull 9 Behavi 01 Fo 11 ow-up 11 Other Findings bull 12

thapter 4 - PRISONERS VIEW bull 13

Chapter 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOI1t1ENDATIONS 19 Recommenda t i OilS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull 19

Appendi x 1-A - t TEST FOR INDEPE~1DENT tmiddot1EANS OVERALL TOURS - Tables 2A - 2 K bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 21

Appendix I-B - t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS OVERALL TOURS - Tables 3-4K 33

lIppendi x 1-C - t TEST FOR I NDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE - Tables 5 - 6K bull bull bullbull 47

Appendix 1-0 - t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS CONTACTED BY POLICE - Tables 7 - 8K bullbull 59

Appendix l-E - t TEST FOR IiWEPENDENJ 11EANS ONlY THOSE SUBJECTS PETITIONED TO COURT FOR LEGAL VIOLATIONS - Tables

9 - 10K bull bull bull 73

Appendix I-F - t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE - Tables 11 - 15K bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull 87

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pa~

1A - PRE TOUR CRIMINAL HISTORY EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN THE JUVENILE-MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 9

1B - POST TOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 11

1 C - POST TOUR POll CE CONTACTS OF middot1ENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS STRATIFIED AS NOT CONTACTED POLICE CONTACTED AND COURT CONTACTED 11

FOREgtIORD

Deterring youth from crime and the juvenile justice system has been a pre-occupation iith aiminal justice and related agencies for several decades By setting vlaYIia)d youth straight it is assumed that they will be unlikely to turn to crime in adulthood and live more fruitful lives However deteni ng youth has proven far from simple and a myri a d of plograms have been developed to dea 1 Vii th the Jrob 1 em Some are total failures some ~elp a little few are glowing successes

The concept of youths touring prisons to see Vlhere they might end up if they brea k the 1alv is not a new idea However a rebi rth of th i s idea has gained much noto)iety recently as a )esult of the docUnentalY Scared Straight filmed at Ral1Jay Plison in NeVI Jersey Claims of glovling success at tUIning del inquent youth around Vlere reported The toU)S and Scaring Youth Straight caught the nations fancy ~i1l1Y replications were attempted including the Menard Prison Tours in Illinois

A Rutgers Un i vers ity crimi no logy professor undertook an intense study of the claims of program success No significant difference between youths touring the plisons and a control group of non-toUt youth was found In fact there Ilere negative findings and the tOU)S have since been curtaileo The value of the tour concept is now considered dubious

The Menard tours vlere undertaken in an attempt to find out vlilat effect the idea of scaring or at least educating youth straigllt Vlould have It vias a more val i d experiment that the Ralllay experiment and took pl ace over a years time span

Tile Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Evaluation program was requested to evaluate the inpact of tours on youth Rogel Higgins the Director of the Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon was responsible for designing

A juvenile justice detelrant proglam

-1shy

the experiment coordinating the tours and collecting the data Acknowledgement of appreciation is expressed to the Illinois LaYI EnfOlcement Commission Statistical Analysis Center For their computation of statistical information and to the Lifers Group who responded to questionnaires and to all those involved who aided in this evaluation

Funds for the eVilluation ~Iere plovided by Illinois Law Enforcement COlrmission with matching fundings proviclCd by the Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Regional counties incJuding Alexander Franklin Gallatin Hamilton Hardin Jackson Jefferson Johnson liassac Perry Pope Pulaski Saline Union and IJilliamson COllnties

-2shy

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCT ON

Scared Straight an unrehearsed film of confrontive dialoguebetween hard core prisoners and juvenile offenders at Rahway Correctl0nal Center in New Jersey has been 11ailed by many as a major breal(tllrough in deterring young people from the juvenile justice system The film has won an aca rJemy m-Ia rd I t Vias l1a rra ted by tha t expe rt TV cd me fi ghte r Lt Colombo (actor Peter Falk) Scared Straight is an appealing theatrical quick fix approach Officials in many states have receivshyed pressure from citizens to implement similar prison tour programs

The Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon Illinois in cooperation I-lith the Lifers GIOUp of Henald 11cximum Security Correctional Center undertook an experiment to measure the actual effects of juvenileshycorrectional center tours

The Police Intervention Group serves juveniles and their families in the Mt Vernon area Its goal is to divert youth from the juvenile justice system Mt Vernon (population 17000) is located in south central Illinois The Lifers Group is a group of inmates at ~lenald Correctional Center serving 20 years or more for mainly felonious crimes

~lenarc IvBS built a centuly ago of sand stone and is located in southshyeastern Illinois On tile Missouri - Illinois border It has a rated capacity of 2620 and presently houses 2596 inmates It is dlealy and crowded and houses only high Iisk seriolls offenders Rather than scaring youth straight the 1lenard inmates entered into dialogue vlith the juveniles in an atte~pt to eCJcate them about plison life There IvdS little stlutting yelling 01 bullying as depicted in Scared Stlaight The dialogue was graphic and honest Prior to the dialogue juveniles lle)e taken on a tour of sections of the COrlectional Center including several cell blocks and the dining aiea

The first several tor dialogues were confrontive graphic and fra~k A panel 0- five inmates spoke in turn about the daily 1l10notolllY tlaUlTa end danger of prison life They 10 spoke of hOl1 they started a life of

-3shy

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 4: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

TIIBLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD bull bull 1

Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION 3

Chapter 2 - METHODOLOGY bullbullbullbull 5 Testing Instruments 6 Statistical Tests bullbull 8

Chapter 3 - EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS 9 Testing Outcomes bull 9 Behavi 01 Fo 11 ow-up 11 Other Findings bull 12

thapter 4 - PRISONERS VIEW bull 13

Chapter 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOI1t1ENDATIONS 19 Recommenda t i OilS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull 19

Appendi x 1-A - t TEST FOR INDEPE~1DENT tmiddot1EANS OVERALL TOURS - Tables 2A - 2 K bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 21

Appendix I-B - t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS OVERALL TOURS - Tables 3-4K 33

lIppendi x 1-C - t TEST FOR I NDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE - Tables 5 - 6K bull bull bullbull 47

Appendix 1-0 - t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS CONTACTED BY POLICE - Tables 7 - 8K bullbull 59

Appendix l-E - t TEST FOR IiWEPENDENJ 11EANS ONlY THOSE SUBJECTS PETITIONED TO COURT FOR LEGAL VIOLATIONS - Tables

9 - 10K bull bull bull 73

Appendix I-F - t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE - Tables 11 - 15K bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull 87

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pa~

1A - PRE TOUR CRIMINAL HISTORY EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN THE JUVENILE-MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 9

1B - POST TOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 11

1 C - POST TOUR POll CE CONTACTS OF middot1ENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS STRATIFIED AS NOT CONTACTED POLICE CONTACTED AND COURT CONTACTED 11

FOREgtIORD

Deterring youth from crime and the juvenile justice system has been a pre-occupation iith aiminal justice and related agencies for several decades By setting vlaYIia)d youth straight it is assumed that they will be unlikely to turn to crime in adulthood and live more fruitful lives However deteni ng youth has proven far from simple and a myri a d of plograms have been developed to dea 1 Vii th the Jrob 1 em Some are total failures some ~elp a little few are glowing successes

The concept of youths touring prisons to see Vlhere they might end up if they brea k the 1alv is not a new idea However a rebi rth of th i s idea has gained much noto)iety recently as a )esult of the docUnentalY Scared Straight filmed at Ral1Jay Plison in NeVI Jersey Claims of glovling success at tUIning del inquent youth around Vlere reported The toU)S and Scaring Youth Straight caught the nations fancy ~i1l1Y replications were attempted including the Menard Prison Tours in Illinois

A Rutgers Un i vers ity crimi no logy professor undertook an intense study of the claims of program success No significant difference between youths touring the plisons and a control group of non-toUt youth was found In fact there Ilere negative findings and the tOU)S have since been curtaileo The value of the tour concept is now considered dubious

The Menard tours vlere undertaken in an attempt to find out vlilat effect the idea of scaring or at least educating youth straigllt Vlould have It vias a more val i d experiment that the Ralllay experiment and took pl ace over a years time span

Tile Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Evaluation program was requested to evaluate the inpact of tours on youth Rogel Higgins the Director of the Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon was responsible for designing

A juvenile justice detelrant proglam

-1shy

the experiment coordinating the tours and collecting the data Acknowledgement of appreciation is expressed to the Illinois LaYI EnfOlcement Commission Statistical Analysis Center For their computation of statistical information and to the Lifers Group who responded to questionnaires and to all those involved who aided in this evaluation

Funds for the eVilluation ~Iere plovided by Illinois Law Enforcement COlrmission with matching fundings proviclCd by the Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Regional counties incJuding Alexander Franklin Gallatin Hamilton Hardin Jackson Jefferson Johnson liassac Perry Pope Pulaski Saline Union and IJilliamson COllnties

-2shy

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCT ON

Scared Straight an unrehearsed film of confrontive dialoguebetween hard core prisoners and juvenile offenders at Rahway Correctl0nal Center in New Jersey has been 11ailed by many as a major breal(tllrough in deterring young people from the juvenile justice system The film has won an aca rJemy m-Ia rd I t Vias l1a rra ted by tha t expe rt TV cd me fi ghte r Lt Colombo (actor Peter Falk) Scared Straight is an appealing theatrical quick fix approach Officials in many states have receivshyed pressure from citizens to implement similar prison tour programs

The Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon Illinois in cooperation I-lith the Lifers GIOUp of Henald 11cximum Security Correctional Center undertook an experiment to measure the actual effects of juvenileshycorrectional center tours

The Police Intervention Group serves juveniles and their families in the Mt Vernon area Its goal is to divert youth from the juvenile justice system Mt Vernon (population 17000) is located in south central Illinois The Lifers Group is a group of inmates at ~lenald Correctional Center serving 20 years or more for mainly felonious crimes

~lenarc IvBS built a centuly ago of sand stone and is located in southshyeastern Illinois On tile Missouri - Illinois border It has a rated capacity of 2620 and presently houses 2596 inmates It is dlealy and crowded and houses only high Iisk seriolls offenders Rather than scaring youth straight the 1lenard inmates entered into dialogue vlith the juveniles in an atte~pt to eCJcate them about plison life There IvdS little stlutting yelling 01 bullying as depicted in Scared Stlaight The dialogue was graphic and honest Prior to the dialogue juveniles lle)e taken on a tour of sections of the COrlectional Center including several cell blocks and the dining aiea

The first several tor dialogues were confrontive graphic and fra~k A panel 0- five inmates spoke in turn about the daily 1l10notolllY tlaUlTa end danger of prison life They 10 spoke of hOl1 they started a life of

-3shy

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 5: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pa~

1A - PRE TOUR CRIMINAL HISTORY EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN THE JUVENILE-MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 9

1B - POST TOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL YOUTH INVOLVED IN MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER TOURS 11

1 C - POST TOUR POll CE CONTACTS OF middot1ENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS STRATIFIED AS NOT CONTACTED POLICE CONTACTED AND COURT CONTACTED 11

FOREgtIORD

Deterring youth from crime and the juvenile justice system has been a pre-occupation iith aiminal justice and related agencies for several decades By setting vlaYIia)d youth straight it is assumed that they will be unlikely to turn to crime in adulthood and live more fruitful lives However deteni ng youth has proven far from simple and a myri a d of plograms have been developed to dea 1 Vii th the Jrob 1 em Some are total failures some ~elp a little few are glowing successes

The concept of youths touring prisons to see Vlhere they might end up if they brea k the 1alv is not a new idea However a rebi rth of th i s idea has gained much noto)iety recently as a )esult of the docUnentalY Scared Straight filmed at Ral1Jay Plison in NeVI Jersey Claims of glovling success at tUIning del inquent youth around Vlere reported The toU)S and Scaring Youth Straight caught the nations fancy ~i1l1Y replications were attempted including the Menard Prison Tours in Illinois

A Rutgers Un i vers ity crimi no logy professor undertook an intense study of the claims of program success No significant difference between youths touring the plisons and a control group of non-toUt youth was found In fact there Ilere negative findings and the tOU)S have since been curtaileo The value of the tour concept is now considered dubious

The Menard tours vlere undertaken in an attempt to find out vlilat effect the idea of scaring or at least educating youth straigllt Vlould have It vias a more val i d experiment that the Ralllay experiment and took pl ace over a years time span

Tile Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Evaluation program was requested to evaluate the inpact of tours on youth Rogel Higgins the Director of the Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon was responsible for designing

A juvenile justice detelrant proglam

-1shy

the experiment coordinating the tours and collecting the data Acknowledgement of appreciation is expressed to the Illinois LaYI EnfOlcement Commission Statistical Analysis Center For their computation of statistical information and to the Lifers Group who responded to questionnaires and to all those involved who aided in this evaluation

Funds for the eVilluation ~Iere plovided by Illinois Law Enforcement COlrmission with matching fundings proviclCd by the Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Regional counties incJuding Alexander Franklin Gallatin Hamilton Hardin Jackson Jefferson Johnson liassac Perry Pope Pulaski Saline Union and IJilliamson COllnties

-2shy

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCT ON

Scared Straight an unrehearsed film of confrontive dialoguebetween hard core prisoners and juvenile offenders at Rahway Correctl0nal Center in New Jersey has been 11ailed by many as a major breal(tllrough in deterring young people from the juvenile justice system The film has won an aca rJemy m-Ia rd I t Vias l1a rra ted by tha t expe rt TV cd me fi ghte r Lt Colombo (actor Peter Falk) Scared Straight is an appealing theatrical quick fix approach Officials in many states have receivshyed pressure from citizens to implement similar prison tour programs

The Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon Illinois in cooperation I-lith the Lifers GIOUp of Henald 11cximum Security Correctional Center undertook an experiment to measure the actual effects of juvenileshycorrectional center tours

The Police Intervention Group serves juveniles and their families in the Mt Vernon area Its goal is to divert youth from the juvenile justice system Mt Vernon (population 17000) is located in south central Illinois The Lifers Group is a group of inmates at ~lenald Correctional Center serving 20 years or more for mainly felonious crimes

~lenarc IvBS built a centuly ago of sand stone and is located in southshyeastern Illinois On tile Missouri - Illinois border It has a rated capacity of 2620 and presently houses 2596 inmates It is dlealy and crowded and houses only high Iisk seriolls offenders Rather than scaring youth straight the 1lenard inmates entered into dialogue vlith the juveniles in an atte~pt to eCJcate them about plison life There IvdS little stlutting yelling 01 bullying as depicted in Scared Stlaight The dialogue was graphic and honest Prior to the dialogue juveniles lle)e taken on a tour of sections of the COrlectional Center including several cell blocks and the dining aiea

The first several tor dialogues were confrontive graphic and fra~k A panel 0- five inmates spoke in turn about the daily 1l10notolllY tlaUlTa end danger of prison life They 10 spoke of hOl1 they started a life of

-3shy

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 6: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

FOREgtIORD

Deterring youth from crime and the juvenile justice system has been a pre-occupation iith aiminal justice and related agencies for several decades By setting vlaYIia)d youth straight it is assumed that they will be unlikely to turn to crime in adulthood and live more fruitful lives However deteni ng youth has proven far from simple and a myri a d of plograms have been developed to dea 1 Vii th the Jrob 1 em Some are total failures some ~elp a little few are glowing successes

The concept of youths touring prisons to see Vlhere they might end up if they brea k the 1alv is not a new idea However a rebi rth of th i s idea has gained much noto)iety recently as a )esult of the docUnentalY Scared Straight filmed at Ral1Jay Plison in NeVI Jersey Claims of glovling success at tUIning del inquent youth around Vlere reported The toU)S and Scaring Youth Straight caught the nations fancy ~i1l1Y replications were attempted including the Menard Prison Tours in Illinois

A Rutgers Un i vers ity crimi no logy professor undertook an intense study of the claims of program success No significant difference between youths touring the plisons and a control group of non-toUt youth was found In fact there Ilere negative findings and the tOU)S have since been curtaileo The value of the tour concept is now considered dubious

The Menard tours vlere undertaken in an attempt to find out vlilat effect the idea of scaring or at least educating youth straigllt Vlould have It vias a more val i d experiment that the Ralllay experiment and took pl ace over a years time span

Tile Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Evaluation program was requested to evaluate the inpact of tours on youth Rogel Higgins the Director of the Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon was responsible for designing

A juvenile justice detelrant proglam

-1shy

the experiment coordinating the tours and collecting the data Acknowledgement of appreciation is expressed to the Illinois LaYI EnfOlcement Commission Statistical Analysis Center For their computation of statistical information and to the Lifers Group who responded to questionnaires and to all those involved who aided in this evaluation

Funds for the eVilluation ~Iere plovided by Illinois Law Enforcement COlrmission with matching fundings proviclCd by the Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Regional counties incJuding Alexander Franklin Gallatin Hamilton Hardin Jackson Jefferson Johnson liassac Perry Pope Pulaski Saline Union and IJilliamson COllnties

-2shy

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCT ON

Scared Straight an unrehearsed film of confrontive dialoguebetween hard core prisoners and juvenile offenders at Rahway Correctl0nal Center in New Jersey has been 11ailed by many as a major breal(tllrough in deterring young people from the juvenile justice system The film has won an aca rJemy m-Ia rd I t Vias l1a rra ted by tha t expe rt TV cd me fi ghte r Lt Colombo (actor Peter Falk) Scared Straight is an appealing theatrical quick fix approach Officials in many states have receivshyed pressure from citizens to implement similar prison tour programs

The Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon Illinois in cooperation I-lith the Lifers GIOUp of Henald 11cximum Security Correctional Center undertook an experiment to measure the actual effects of juvenileshycorrectional center tours

The Police Intervention Group serves juveniles and their families in the Mt Vernon area Its goal is to divert youth from the juvenile justice system Mt Vernon (population 17000) is located in south central Illinois The Lifers Group is a group of inmates at ~lenald Correctional Center serving 20 years or more for mainly felonious crimes

~lenarc IvBS built a centuly ago of sand stone and is located in southshyeastern Illinois On tile Missouri - Illinois border It has a rated capacity of 2620 and presently houses 2596 inmates It is dlealy and crowded and houses only high Iisk seriolls offenders Rather than scaring youth straight the 1lenard inmates entered into dialogue vlith the juveniles in an atte~pt to eCJcate them about plison life There IvdS little stlutting yelling 01 bullying as depicted in Scared Stlaight The dialogue was graphic and honest Prior to the dialogue juveniles lle)e taken on a tour of sections of the COrlectional Center including several cell blocks and the dining aiea

The first several tor dialogues were confrontive graphic and fra~k A panel 0- five inmates spoke in turn about the daily 1l10notolllY tlaUlTa end danger of prison life They 10 spoke of hOl1 they started a life of

-3shy

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 7: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

the experiment coordinating the tours and collecting the data Acknowledgement of appreciation is expressed to the Illinois LaYI EnfOlcement Commission Statistical Analysis Center For their computation of statistical information and to the Lifers Group who responded to questionnaires and to all those involved who aided in this evaluation

Funds for the eVilluation ~Iere plovided by Illinois Law Enforcement COlrmission with matching fundings proviclCd by the Greater Egypt Criminal Justice Regional counties incJuding Alexander Franklin Gallatin Hamilton Hardin Jackson Jefferson Johnson liassac Perry Pope Pulaski Saline Union and IJilliamson COllnties

-2shy

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCT ON

Scared Straight an unrehearsed film of confrontive dialoguebetween hard core prisoners and juvenile offenders at Rahway Correctl0nal Center in New Jersey has been 11ailed by many as a major breal(tllrough in deterring young people from the juvenile justice system The film has won an aca rJemy m-Ia rd I t Vias l1a rra ted by tha t expe rt TV cd me fi ghte r Lt Colombo (actor Peter Falk) Scared Straight is an appealing theatrical quick fix approach Officials in many states have receivshyed pressure from citizens to implement similar prison tour programs

The Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon Illinois in cooperation I-lith the Lifers GIOUp of Henald 11cximum Security Correctional Center undertook an experiment to measure the actual effects of juvenileshycorrectional center tours

The Police Intervention Group serves juveniles and their families in the Mt Vernon area Its goal is to divert youth from the juvenile justice system Mt Vernon (population 17000) is located in south central Illinois The Lifers Group is a group of inmates at ~lenald Correctional Center serving 20 years or more for mainly felonious crimes

~lenarc IvBS built a centuly ago of sand stone and is located in southshyeastern Illinois On tile Missouri - Illinois border It has a rated capacity of 2620 and presently houses 2596 inmates It is dlealy and crowded and houses only high Iisk seriolls offenders Rather than scaring youth straight the 1lenard inmates entered into dialogue vlith the juveniles in an atte~pt to eCJcate them about plison life There IvdS little stlutting yelling 01 bullying as depicted in Scared Stlaight The dialogue was graphic and honest Prior to the dialogue juveniles lle)e taken on a tour of sections of the COrlectional Center including several cell blocks and the dining aiea

The first several tor dialogues were confrontive graphic and fra~k A panel 0- five inmates spoke in turn about the daily 1l10notolllY tlaUlTa end danger of prison life They 10 spoke of hOl1 they started a life of

-3shy

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 8: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCT ON

Scared Straight an unrehearsed film of confrontive dialoguebetween hard core prisoners and juvenile offenders at Rahway Correctl0nal Center in New Jersey has been 11ailed by many as a major breal(tllrough in deterring young people from the juvenile justice system The film has won an aca rJemy m-Ia rd I t Vias l1a rra ted by tha t expe rt TV cd me fi ghte r Lt Colombo (actor Peter Falk) Scared Straight is an appealing theatrical quick fix approach Officials in many states have receivshyed pressure from citizens to implement similar prison tour programs

The Police Intervention Group of Mt Vernon Illinois in cooperation I-lith the Lifers GIOUp of Henald 11cximum Security Correctional Center undertook an experiment to measure the actual effects of juvenileshycorrectional center tours

The Police Intervention Group serves juveniles and their families in the Mt Vernon area Its goal is to divert youth from the juvenile justice system Mt Vernon (population 17000) is located in south central Illinois The Lifers Group is a group of inmates at ~lenald Correctional Center serving 20 years or more for mainly felonious crimes

~lenarc IvBS built a centuly ago of sand stone and is located in southshyeastern Illinois On tile Missouri - Illinois border It has a rated capacity of 2620 and presently houses 2596 inmates It is dlealy and crowded and houses only high Iisk seriolls offenders Rather than scaring youth straight the 1lenard inmates entered into dialogue vlith the juveniles in an atte~pt to eCJcate them about plison life There IvdS little stlutting yelling 01 bullying as depicted in Scared Stlaight The dialogue was graphic and honest Prior to the dialogue juveniles lle)e taken on a tour of sections of the COrlectional Center including several cell blocks and the dining aiea

The first several tor dialogues were confrontive graphic and fra~k A panel 0- five inmates spoke in turn about the daily 1l10notolllY tlaUlTa end danger of prison life They 10 spoke of hOl1 they started a life of

-3shy

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 9: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

crime and its consequ2ilces The juveniles Ilere then offered tile opportunity to ask questions Or offer comments There Ilas some provocation and baiting of the juvenies by inmates but not nearly so much 1IS depicted in Scared Straight There iete six bi-monthly tours in 1978

In the last foul tours the dialogues became more settled but ren12illed graplic and frank The nature of the last four dialogues changed somewhat in that folloling a brief prisoner pana] introduction the juveniles broke up into fOlIr sub-groups with one or two inmates grouped Iit~ four 0[ five juveniles Thmiddotis sub-gloup arrangement seemed to enhance information flovl and intimacy

-4shy

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 10: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

--

Chapter 2

ItETHODClLOGY

The methodology of this venture was a classical experimental design whereby an experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) group were randomly selected flOm a population of adolescent ma-es aged 13 to 18 years residing in Franklin and Jefferson Counties (botil located in Southern Illinois) This population was stratified into three sub-groups (1) youths who had been petitioned to juvenile court (2) youths who had been contacted by the police but not referred to court (3) youths who had neel been contacted by po 1ice_

There were a total of 161 youths in the experiment 94 in the tour group and 67 in the control group

Originally it llas proposed that thele vauld be about 15 youths ill each tour group However due to cancellations no-shows and other influences the numbers in the tours and control groups varied slightly in each tour

TOUI COl1tml Total

178 Tour 1 16 3 19

378 2 10 24 34

578 3 16 16 32

778 4 16 11 27

978 5 10 6 16

1178 6 20 6 26

Unknmrn 9 3 7 67shy91 161

-5shy

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 11: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

to nrco tE-1

Bec()u~(~ of (andom ~Elecion and (QPtrol group utiliztio1 th IO flnce hteS not cOI1eivel as (1 L to elicity_ OthEr poss-ible VDidity ttl included tile difft~tencF iil seoscns of the tO~lr-~ c)nd slight di fference -i rI j uvcld I t - i ffrwt di a1CiSJ)e bcti(2rt the tours

It iiJS hypothesized m~Cn scores 00 tlO ps)~sonJlit) lld dTi~~ucillal tests ltJould not significClntly diffei~ beforc thf tours jinq tile toUt~ and control groups ~ after the tours if thcie lES an offlct mean scores should di significantly It vias further ized that crii-lira

w

Dchidcr-s shoJld 12TY ~d~llificcll(lj umiddot-tci tIl S vllen[

comparing tOUI~ and conrQl groups tOllr gl~lrs ShG01110 0 s~gnifieallt deer-east in crinriltai activity- f secondary hputhes-is as tiiJt the type of juvenile just-jee contact (sub-~gr~oup C2lL0~iOry) v-Ould affect test res u1ts

The null hypothesis steted that the tours would no 51 1 cant eilunge as measured by test SCQres Gr c)iminEd behiJvi(jrs~

days (1

nd01 f S 521 shyiud cO~ltjol

Tile Jesness InvBlltolV is lIsed in the classifictioll and trcatlnfllt of disturbed ehildnn and adole3c(~nts Althou(]11 tV i ry 12S ce~iSlled for use titil delinquents there a( relisojjs~to j-jv tlQ~ th sc~Jes 11 pl~ove u 1 vJith 2doleo3n in d vrJriety of sl~tir9s~ It SCQj~es 11 personali Chl~iJ sties n(11 SCEdc -i~ en a 1e~Jre5Sion cmiddotquation that nos attit tes pCr~onJmiddotmiddotl tLJits -into an indc- jdost I Vt 0 (clir(~ (J~(Ci2d Tnc[x) VIit)hs n12iJSU

on th_~ Jesness Invelltoi-Y includc

1 Social ialacijustmcnt Scale (SH) - 63 middotitcills SOCirll lErljustment l~efelS 0 set of iltti associated with d~0uat2 010 dis d soci 1 i Cl as de~i I~cd by the rxtcnt to lh a YOL1TI-S-harls

do not 12et env i Olri1E-IFa 1 0P1~( nds ina pc~rS01IS ho

-6shy

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 12: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

2 Value Orientation Scale (VO) - 39 items Value Orientation refers to a tendency to S1121e attitudes ilnd opinions charactelistic of persons in the lower socioeconomic classes

3 Immilturity SCille (Imm) - 45 items IWl11iltudty Ieflects the tenciency to display attitudes and perceptions of self and others that are usual for porsons of a younger age than the subject

jI Autism Scale (Au) - 28 items Autism measures a tendency in tllinking and perceiving to distort reality according to ones pelsolla 1 des -j Ies or needs

5 Al ienat-jon Scale (Al) - 26 items Al ienation refers to the plesence of distrust and estrangement in a persons attitudes toward others especially tDIald those representing authormiddotity

6 Manifest Aggression Scale (MA) - 31 items Manifest Aggression reflects an awareness of unpleasant feelings especially of anger and frustration a tendency to react r~adily with these emotions and an obviollS disconlfort concerning the presence and control of these feelin9s

7 Withdrawal Scale (Wd) - 24 items Viithdralfal indicates the extent of a youths dissatisfaction with self and others and a tendency toward isolation from others

8 SDcial Anxiety Scale (51) - 24 items Social Anxiety refels to conscious emotional discomfort in getting along with people

9 Repression Scale (Rep) - 15 items Repression reflects the exclusion from conscious awaren~ss of feelings and emotions that the individual nOImally would be expected to expelience 01 it reflects Ilis failure to label these emotions

10 Denial Scale (Den) - 20 iteills Denial indicates a reluctance to acknowl~dge unpleasant events or conditions encountered in daily 1iving

11 Asocial Index Asocialization refers to a generalized disposition to Iesolve social 01 pelsonal problems in ways that show a dislegald fOI social custOIllS or rules

The populat-ion Illean (iL) for each scale on the clesness Inventory Ianges from 45-55 fOI avelage subjects middotrjtll a population standard deviation ( (J) of about 10

-7shy

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 13: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

The Pi2rS--)-Ln-is Chilcn=ns Self Concept Scole in~cSUi~(~S self concept based 011 bci10ViOj illtellactual selloo1 status pllysical ~PI)enrQnce 211d attl-ibut(=s anltiety~ po))ulality and Ili)ppiness~ Elnd ~taLis-ractioll

The PCJPUlFltion ijlFcln (-) fOI~ tile [)ic(s--j-iElri-js is uhout ~o ith a pGpshy

ulation sialirJanJ o8viccion (C) of about 12

Statistlel Tests

lhree statistical tests For significance were utilized

1 Students t test for significance for related means

2 Students t test fot si9nifiClt111Ce foi independent ITfCcns

3 Clli-S4uare test relationships for data arranged on a bivariate tabl e

Symbolically stated tile statistical tests appear

(Null Hypothesis) Ho i = ~ (i = tour means)

(Alternative Hypothesis) Ila X1middotY ( = contlol Iilean)

test (a) t test for independent mean comparison

(b) t test fOI nlated mean cornpalisDn (t = (c) chi-squale test fOI significclnt lelatiol1ships (y) =

c = 05

The ]esness IllvEntolmiddoty anci Piels-llalTis tests yield intervill data

-8shy

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 14: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Charte 3

EXPERIME~iT FTNDli~GS

The mean age was 1513 the tou groups and 31 fo the contol giOUp The percent of bldcks os 1595 for the tOUl groups and 1641~ for 00111-01 groups All involved in the tOUtS Ie)-e males The criminal history 10- both gloups Vlere clilssifi2d as (1) court contacted (2) police contacted and (3) non-contacted

Table IJ

TOllr Contra 1 Total----shy -~-

NOIl-contaced ( ~T)36 3EiO 17 ( 25) 53 ( -- ~~

~I PolicE contacted 31 ( J 27 58 ~bi )3) 40)

Court cDl1tacted 27 ( 29 ) 23 34i ) Lll)

9~ (10m) 67 ( 100)) 161 (loa)

296 IdP L = 05 I1S)

The table indicates that t1e1e is no si[lni cilnt diffETence betWeen tOUl and control glOUpS concell1ing cllilrinal 11istOlY

ThL1S jn~ a~Fmiddot se riJce B C nlll IYistcn)I 1-2 tOLlY and c~yt 9 lcn vdcl1 m~~middot~ch=cJ -he olly ciars Ikich CDLJd calise this e mnt eli cl2VdJcd -rrorl clssjal [0 (uQsi~middot2p2j~middotlmentamiddot iIJtld JE sl-jpound1hi diffl~f~nces hett-2en til~ styes of the six tours and some quest-ions cOllcelninSJ va-icJ-itV o- the criminal his 1y subgroipin~Js It is the ClutliDlS 0pinion that those factors arent stl01l9 enough to devalue this experiment

-9shy

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 15: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

The al1a1ysi~ of tIle prOSliecii ~s

Test siqwi di -(nccs rEne n~gt ill (tou) aiHi to 1 (noll-t()LF) groups bCrOl2 Bl1d the tours ( i ir[ s 1i~ )

2 l-est for sigllificBrlt difmiddotr2renCfgt~~ bt~~cn tllCJ IT~i)llS men t21 1 (tou-middot) grCJup (E Qrt2r the tours (related s 15)

3 Test for 5191i 3nt difflri~rC-s betmiddot2fl1l the meGn til e~rGl~i-iVltal (tOU1) a~l( cent (nun-L)ur) qi-Ci~iP~_ Lr~-or-(~ tOL~S for ellch s Jl ct ilflirl2-j rristoryH (CiJUI~l I polic(- cJj-tacttd~ non-cul1tactt~c) to see vlhich swcup Jas leat) affected bv the tours acconli to the tests (i sailples) shy

4 Test for s-ignifirant di nnC2S b2t2en the meElns of the experimental (teur) ~frcurs n tours slbgr0up of Ci 11211 historj (rec-ted S_Tll-)

or

There VJe12 some impQrtDlt exceptio-Is to the 1 tlend of the n~ll effect of the tours

1 lhele Iere several instances of significant difference between the experimFntol and contYol groups t score means b~for~e after ilnd be and zrfte~ the tours any of theSe cJ-ifTereDces occurnd due to a s- n~Ficilrlt C121ge i1 co~t-ol groups scot~e ffi0illlS

follmdilg tOl eIlC no Si~F1i 2icant nE in the eXE~iil0ntal

~FOUPS t seOf 1112poundl 1

~jhy thcse diffr~nnc(s OCC~11Td is p bly dlJe to cOlfcullding iIlFlllencs beyond the cuntiol of tile 11i nlIllal des i gil

2 1111011 alla1yzillg test reslJlts of e rinentll 9YCP pl-e cHd post 1 t Itiliziwi t12 centr)l q VdYl l(s ifesL (~JCJ)ession 1lt-1 1I-i-(l I ll~- I c1~ltf-rl 5[1)0J l ~I ~ --~J _ ~~r~ hlicil In~ sirc~be

I (i l~in~~l tCS1 nsl L fn ) ut-i 1 i~-jnq con Tf~ p Opl~il~- 1 ty

lilqu2ncy (- soci 1 i jficdllt c_cc=i trlcil is an ulck-llc-be Qutcm

-10shy

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 16: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

UehDV~Drs of t2 ment01 cinJ cJntrol g)OUP youth ltl2ye monitoted following tile tours tH~d SU(iiia in ~ 1979 Fi fte2n months had ltipsod 10 11 DVi l9 first tour fivo since the last tour It is not sl~~~prisin9 t li)P youth fl~om the fifst sever~(ll tours 1212 involved in crimillal behnvior following tho tours more time had elapsed

Table llJ POST TOUP CRIimfL Cn liITY OF DPE~H1ENTPL MID CONTROL --YOUTfrl1~V(~Vtj-liTTf(r~rf-11 C(j(RlEflc)i1L-ctiTEr~ rrJLJRS shy-----~-- ----~---~---------~~~------------

Tour Contol Totol Il ---- ----Post Tour Criminal Hi

Contacfid-bYI)oTlc--u

16 ( 17 ) 8 ( 12 ) O 24 ( 1)~~

Q)NOll Contact(d 73 ( L~ 59 ( l37 ( 85)

Total 94 ( 100) 67 ( 100) 161 (loo)

()(2 = 273 Idf~ OS N )

This cdule i~-IJmiddoticat2ltJ th~d th~r-~ is no iqllll nt lelationship betieen po1 icc cantu fo 11 ()i tIle to~rs fInd t ~rGtJP (tour cr control) tile youth vIas in TI1 tOul groups hO-12Jcr h2d ploportiol12tly 13d mcne police CDI1iac tQUi~S tlVHl con(rol ~FOtP ~lsol tlllve vias no signif in crlrn0 types (or Seriousn0ss of crimes) committed by he tOlj~ and control group youth fullowillg the tours

s folIOll1

Po TOtH Contni 1 Tour

1lt 2) 2

)01 ice contilcted 5 3lt ) 3 ( 33) 8 ( Il )

I~ot contacted 1 ) 1

1 i Jrll

11l ( 58)COIJlt Co I1tiJ cted

(-C[J0 J J 1-) 8 24 (WD )

() nf 113 lt= bull ~ I

0025 not i IlC 1 investigations (istul~bances or statlls offenses

-11shy

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 17: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

i

Tht mcjority (14) of thoe youth f110 hcve thus far cnrnmi iJ C~ililmiddotinal offense loli1l9 the tours had plio( CQlwt conticct HO10VOr of those 14 10 VJer-e tour partici)2ultS It vcHld 589111 tlElt thi group (CCGft CGnt]c vDutb) rc()2lly 1 nntiviJtt~l t CiP t crine ns a lTsLdt of the tours Ti12 i~S~ test indicated a li~h2r pl~opensity of asocial

In 2 tHI sc()rcs -[0) Cfjlaquo (on j_Cu~ )iticip nt~ j ll)middotjng the tour Chelll rec OlC~ til L2hElVIOi ane t-li1fJ illdictrte that thf iolJrs IIE1 Ilave an aciv(rse 1 on youth ~tho havc had ccnt3ct Jith tllc0 court plior to thr talliS Ilso the 2gtJI~i1lEntal (tour) gjmiddotoup exJTibited more crjnin31 ampctivity than the contl~o1 group

Other Fi ndiE9s

Tilere ~Jere no sigllificallt carrel iOJ1S between age of youth alld Cri11inal activity for youth in tilt e_ltr)l~~im~nt2 1 fInd contro-I groups Or pound211 the time of tours and sL1ccesive cl~inrlna1 activity HOrE thou~Jh no~ significantly mCIc Youth commit a reporterJ offense ill the first SeV(clill vleeks fol1olVin~j E tour than milny lJeeks or lenths later

IntervielJS i3 mail surveys of tour PiHtici Ilts thei parents teachers indicbd unanimous s rt ffJl the p HO1eVf0i~ tIE r Zlnd parellts noted no major bet13vioral ch~ in yout~ who participa in the tours

-12shy

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 18: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

spa ~ith I~e ~2~ ten ill~a C~ illvol If vCtlCi

toiiS Cthe s~un2 ten ~lCY(nll in 2Ve(y tcn) F Vf resi~o to (1 rn~1i 1

[

tllO fOI E

lj to - ~

r~i scn2-S

oc r Th i(2t a rJ [)- Vi J

i I~ ~rj th seci aly yeeI jt] l01( ill2lbers of fltr-d ll (3 group

JAlll~e5 0si2r~1 nhtFul -i ~Jr~ Ccjil

representatives a-iso S2nt U -lcttc-y ic- ind-ic2 the ininrJl2s nuJ iCl

inplt inU tlf tDJY dcmiddotve1opnElt 111(1 --2j~r2 monitored thro nil-rlt-I censolsllip Lij~c)C~1houi tile ri--o~Jr~art It 10uld b2 intenstiliJ to 1-1101 they Joulc iWll chan9c~d [HOgi2r1 tnJcture 0( e Clnd 11011 it niouitJ

affected impact 011 the juveniles

~G~ses Jre os follows

s -ronn )~eflSDns fD)

I 11

21 (Jc J~~c

h ur s2rtnc~

l i i i

lln in fOllr 01 five of

2 1- () 1 ifE ith

All

i

-13shy

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 19: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

3 To your knO~l edge how honest were other pri soners about di scuss i ng prison life with juveniles

_-- Vely

1 SomelJhat

Comments a The inmate that answered II somewhat II indicated that some prisoners told of incidences that happended to others and claimed them as personal incidents

4 What in your opinion was the basic intent of your dialogue with the juveniles

o scare them

---- Educate them

o Answered Questions Only

o Other

Comments a HI see no reason to scare the juveniles because the fear 1i11 leave them but facts (education) wont II

b IIIf scaring them would help then that was also my intent II

c I only tried to get them to stop and think my honesty could have scared them - but plison is a place to fear Of living in

d (The juveniles) were very smart I think a little smarter than myself

5 In your opinion did you feel that the youth you talked with were (multiple answers)

--_ Frightened

3 Interested

1 Bored

3 Shocked

__ Other

-14shy

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 20: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

--

COlF Il tS for- grint

a L~

n~IV-=r~

c~2~IjD

Ill to ICisi they nO

it to S2iY

c

of e d

~ i ds I

(l ~

dor

t )~~ I i c~vc heG

n C l~i ng I fOUIe

1j i t

nor nal ci t ifO

6 ciid -1 (multiplc crii(S)

S~Hi

J it(~~ted

Other

COI1fl0nts a II j 012 to te 1( trutJ-l rbout pr15015 to alyone 110 is interested It is just so daml bRd in al) US prisons that YUllng kids find it hard to believe

b I b21i2ve in a progra1 like this I hOPE- (the juv(ni1cs) have thf sense to lilrlke El d0cis-ion 0 ifllat they vtant Gut Ii II

r to

11

1illl bullbull II

IGood Luk 1 )

c

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 21: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

8 Do you feel that the tours are a ___5__ good 0 bad idea

All respondents answered that the tours are a good idea

Comments a Because it 5 educa ti ona1 and no one can tell them better than one who has experience as a prisoner

b It depends IIho is in charge that person would have to have a business head which is not the case for our social service workers and certainly not prison vlOrkers

c Once a youth sees the ins i de of a prj son and feels the awe of such a place

d Because it brings the youth closer in touch with real ity

e I feel by allowing the juveniles to speak to the prisoners and realizing that the amount of time we have served here is wasted and that is the consequence of breaking the law

9 Would you 1ike to participate in similar dialogues ~lith other youth touring prisons

5 Yes

Comments a A feJ of my reasons are I dont Nish for anyone to follow my errors and to shOlv juveniles the opportunities thats vaiting for them

b To help prevent them from making the mistakes I made

c Kids are like the stock market to me so many different factors I 110uld nevel turn dmvn helping one

d Prisons today are filled with once youth offenders The only real way to fight against crime is at the juvenile level

10 Do you think that if you had gone on such a tour when you were a youth it would have made any difference about your attitudes towards crime

3 Yes 2 No

Comments a I honestly bel i eve if I witnessed the reality of what prison life was seen an institution such as Menard or any other maximum security prison it would have made an impact upon me

b n I I~as bom to roam I believe the system has just locked me up on account of my tempelment Some of those kids have the same problem

-16shy

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 22: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

d use ill

I~o t so buj -~~

VtlY had__c__

yOu~Jl it -Eft [l V2rjI

b pictllre in their m n

b nlentu] h 11 1

c fC

12 P120s2 i ~e aGj tours prisons be1o~I

Q lFind the l~-iiJt hixtUtl PI~ivdte lnGSS 611d soci01 service types sUDjJQrtive Cind 1l01p-jq~ middot~Ill r-- ~ ~-jC---C1 H

I I~ (1 _ ~~

b II bullbullbullbullbull perha

c III feel thut PenGIlts 0 7 P(O ew youth slou~d also visit tile PilS011S bull would 11 to see l8n j 12S (1( -iii ()r~ rnO~F 1(i~ is~ bull I Ctli t)y to ot12rs utll) lCi U) in jEji 1 II

ttl Sf

t

-17shy

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 23: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

111

cCJntirtll f -1 ll~ C~

(HI]

to

(( ~ 11 ( 1(- son JLTS ri j il i c - ~ i -i- n (j Pt (~i ~ - j (0 d Clay rlctully

(~nd ar(~ (J

SGic ( tigt-

ii

- i 1

lt-shy(

imiddot

~ - r ~I 1 p dC

I~~j iii -Jr j(5

L rs HJY I~ lt~t-jiiCi

I

L

~ j t i~ t1(~il~

Ci

SDel t

i l~ S lri~

jculd apPsGr thac (0+ to do

r- n] Uhf sone m liVOi~tll

n J l] f(Ol-S

)~I i_gt (Jl th J nCI Vi ~iI0

IJ cnn i

i

- shy

11 iill

I

cCliG

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 24: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

b As one inmate expressed consider offering tours to parents of youth and offer follow-up counseling Thi s may affect more ca ri ng fronyJilrents vihose chi 1 dren may othenvi se end up in tha t terri b 1 e place

c The main actors the inmates should be given more planning responsibilities It is more likely that they Nill take mO)e stock of the program if they can offer more input at the des i gn stage of the plan

d Consider eliminating high risk youth from tour participation (High risk youth are those who have committed serious crimes and have been contacted by the courts)

There may be benefits to be derived from the tours as part of an overall treatment but not as an isolated event in an adolescents life

u

-20shy

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 25: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Appendix 1-A

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS OVERALL TOUR

(R) XOX (R) X X

~ = 05

-21shy

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 26: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

--

Table -2A Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladiustment Scale

Experimenta1 Control EXperimental Control Degresstmiddotleiln ~1ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 4681middot 5200 1490 1048 152 43 PRE

1ST-TOUR 4820 5419 1568 1014 140 -236 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I N

rgt There was a ~ignifical1t difference between the experimental and control groups mean scores both before after the tours This difference was not due to effects of the tours as it occurred before as well

as after the tours Rather it may have beenthe result of confounding influences

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 27: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Experimenta 1 ~1ean

Control ~al1_

RE~TOUR 5564 5467

OST-TOUR 5427 5419

Table- 2B middotJesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Sta1card Deviation

1048

1213

(Method t test for independent samples)

N W

Control Standard Deviation

1014

1285

Degress Freedolil J-Val~

152 58 PRE

140 04 POST

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of tours

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 28: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

PRE-TOUR

Experimental

5694

Contra 1 Mean

5712

POST-TOUR 5701 5971

Table - 2-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1260

1319

Control Standard Deviation

1292

1344

Degress

152

T-Value

-05 PRE

140 -119 POST

(Method t test independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

jgt I Retain the nulfhypothesfs there is no significant effect on immaturity asa result of the tours

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 29: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Experimental Control ~lean Mean

(E-TOUR 5781 5664

5771 57811ST -TOUR

Tabl e - 2-D ltJesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1071

Control Standard Deviation

1057

1155 922

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -48 PRE

140 -06 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours I Retain the null laquohypothesfs there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 30: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 2-pound Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Contro 1 Experimenta 1 Contra 1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5642 5842 1027 9 75 152 -123PRE-TOUR PRE

5760 5925 1168 986 140 - 90POST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the toursN 0

Retain the lhypothesfs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 31: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Tab1 e - 2-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta1 Control Experimental Control Degress tgt1ean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~-TOUR 5409 5305 981 1036 152 64 PRE

5207 51 37 1236 1120 140 34 ST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours J

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest agression as a result of the tours

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 32: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Experimentalf1ean

Control Mean

RETOUR 5336 5153

OST-TOUR 5280 4825

Table - 2-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrallal Scale

Experimental Standard DeViAtion

1095

69

Control Standard Deviation

1010

1013

DegressFreedom ---shy T-Value

152 108 PRE

140 257 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant difference concerning withdrawl between the eXperimental (tour) and control groupsI (non-tour) before the tour However the control group displayed the major change following the tour notN

I 00 the experimental group This change is probably the result of a testing confoundness and not a result of

the tours

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 33: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 2-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

PRE-TOUR

Experimental ~1ean

4670

Control Mean

4471

Experimental Standard Deviation

988

Contra1 Standard Deviation

927

DegressFreedom

152

T-Value

128 PRE

POST-TOUR 67 4191 1246 1113 140 138 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and controlIf (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anXiety as a result of the tours

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 34: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Experimental ~1ean

Control Mean

RE~TOUR 5340 5276

OST-TOUR 5334 5426

Table ~ 2-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1182

1317

Control Standard Deviation

1145

1148

Degress Freedom I-Value

152 34 PRE

140 -44 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups befo~e or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 35: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

ExperimentalMean ___

Control Mean

PRE~TOUR 4569 4744

POST-TOUR 4599 4588

Table - 2-J Jesness Inventory

Oenial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 56

77

Control Standard Deviation

1081

989

DegressFree_dam I-Value

152 -96 PRE

140 -49 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

1 W I Retain the-nul] hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 36: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

ExperimentalrleilnL___

Control Meiln

PRE-TOUR 4393 4891

POST-TOUR 4646 5121

Table - 2-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1464

1455

Control Standard Deviation

1404

1354

Degress Freedom T-Value

152 -212 PRE

140 -199 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There was a significant difference (increase) concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) W and control groups bot~ before and after the tours This is probably a result of confounding influences for I this variable and not a result of the tours

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 37: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Appendix 1-8

t TEST FOR RELATED ~lEANS OVERALL TOURS

(R) X 0 X

0( = 05

-33shy

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 38: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5571

55B4

t test for related samples)

Table - 3

Piers-Harris

Experimental Standard Deviation

1247

1376

Degrees t-VaJlle Freedom

B2 -12

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

W -4gt0 I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on self concept as a result of the tours

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 39: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 4-A Jesness Inventory

Social t1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta I Mean

PRE- TOUR 4682

POST-TOUR 4820

(Method ttest for related samples)

I

Experimenta I Standa rd Devi ati on

1309

1491

Degrees walue Freedom

84 -97

JI There is no sign ifi cant change concerni ng socia I rna 1ad1 us for the experimentaT group following I

the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours no si cant effect on social maladjustment

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 40: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table _ 4-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DevjatjQO Ereedom 5556 1056 84 135PRE-TOUR

5427 D13POST -TOUR

(Method ttest for related samples)

w I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following the

CTgt toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no siqnificant effect on value orientation

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 41: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Table - 4C Jesness Inventory

- Inmaturity Sca1 e

Experimenta1 Mean

5652

5601

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1244

1319

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -39

I There is no s1 cant change concerning iml1aturity for the experimental group following the tours W I Retai n the null hypothesi s the tours had no 5i gnifi cant effect on inmaturi ty

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 42: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 40 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Oe~iatian freedom

PRE-TOUR 5771 1077 84 00

POST-TOlJR 5771 1155

(Method ttest for related samples)

I W ~ There is no significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on autism

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 43: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 4-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValleMean St~ndard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5626 1035 84 -150

POST-TOUR 5760 1168

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experlmentalgroup following the tours W OJ) I

Retain the null hYpothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 44: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Tab le - 4-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 54 bull21 989 84 245

POST-TOUR 5207 1236

(Method t test for related samples)

There was a significant change concerning mal)ifest aggression for the experimental group folmiddotlowing I - the tour Reject the hypothes s accept the altemat i ve hypothes is the tours do seem to o I affect a desirable (decrease) change on manifest aggression

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 45: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

PRE-TOlR

POST-TOUR

(rlethod

I -lgt I There is no

~un

Retain the

Table - 4-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

ExperimentalMaan ___

5327

5280

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1109

1069

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 45

significant change concerning withdrawl for the experimental group following the

1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 46: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table _ 4-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom 4679 993 84 217PRE-TOUR

4469 1247POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples) I ~ N I There was a significant change concerning so~ial anxiety for the experimental group fol1owing the tour

Reject the 1 hypothesis the tours seem to affect a desirable (decrease) change on social anxiety

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 47: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 4-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Experimenta1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5354 1168 84 18

POST-TOUR 53 1317

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I W I There is no 5 i gnifi cant change concerni ng re press i on for the experimenta 1 group foll owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 48: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 4-J Jesness Inventory

Experimenta1 MeilJIn__

4562PRE-TOUR

4600POST-TOUR

(Method t _test for related samples) I ~

f There is no significant change concerning

Denial Scale

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

11 56

1177

de~ial for the experimental

Degrees t-Value Freedom

84 -34

group following the to~rs

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 49: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 4-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta Experimental Degrees t-VaJlleMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4389 1452 84 -141

POST-TOUR 4646 1455

(Method ttest for related samples) I

jgt J1 I There is no significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group folluling the tours

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no si cant effect on asocial index

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 50: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Appendix l-C

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT MEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 51: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

RE~TOUR

DST-TOUR

1 ()) 1

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 5

Piers Harris

ExperimentalNean

5813

Control Mean

6061

Experimental ~tandard Deviation

1072

Control Standard Deviation

1093

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

-78 PRE

5745 6300 1240 1368 45 -140 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self-concept between the experimental (tour) and control (l1on-tour) groups before Dr after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on self-concept as a result of the tours

-t

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 52: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-A Jesness Inventory

Social r1aladjustment Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Control Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

455D 4856 11 21 1400 48 -84RE~TOUR PRE

4519 4744 1545 1470 45 - 48 OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and I

lgt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours ltJ)

Retain-the null hy~othesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 53: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON-CONTACTED Table - 6-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~

537S 4900 1197 1121 48 139tE-TOUR PRE

5300 4781 1437 1544 45 114lST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and gt control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain-the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 54: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 6-C NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5947 5994 1361 1444 48 -12IE-TOUR PRE

6071 5769 1543 1327 45 67)ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning i~naturity between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours en ~

Retain the ]hypothesis there is no significant effect on i~turity as a result of the tours

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 55: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

RETOUR

OST-TOUR

I en I) I

Table - 6-D

NON-CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

ExperimentalMean

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

DegressFreedom

5519 5578 1318 871 48

6071 5769 1543 1327 45

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesfs there is no significant effec on autism as a result of the tours

T-Value

- 17 PRE

67 POST

(non-tour)

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 56: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-E Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Control DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation FreedQm T-Valug

~ETOUR 5538 5400 1039 1134 48 43 IRE

5619 69 1351 1084 45 65JST-TOUR POST

hod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour)en w groups before or after the tours

Retain the nullhypothesIs there is no significant effect on alienation as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 57: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON-CONTACTED

Table - 6-F Jesness Inventory

~lanifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress11ean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

~E-TOUR 5206 4728 1049 1157 48 118 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5003 4706 1509 1170 45 69 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and control tn (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullmiddothypothesfs there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 58: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON-CONTACTED Table - 5-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

iE-lOUR

Experimental tmiddot1eao

4550

Control Mean

4417

EXperimenta1 Standard Deviation

773

Control Standard Deviation

718

Degress Freedom

48

T-Value

50 PRE

JST-TOUR 4319 4013 1254 956 4S 86 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

ltJ1 U1

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social ety as a result of the tours

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 59: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON- cornACTED

Table - 6-1 Jesness Inventory

Renression Scale

Control Experimcntal Contra1 Degressr~e( n Mean Standard Deviation Freedom T-Valug

RE-TOUR 5734- 5583 1337 48 44 PRE

OST-TOUR 5829 44 51 45 143 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning repression between the experimental (tour) and control 1

lt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours 01 I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no signficant effect on repression as a result of the tours

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 60: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON-CONTACTED

ExpcTimenta1 Control HeBD Mean

480amp 5389RE-TOUR

4781 5138OST -TOUR

Table - 6-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1199

1432

Control Standard Deviation

1086

932

Degress Freedom T-Value

48 -1 75 PRE

45 - 90 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no significant fference concerni denial between the experimental (tour) and control groups fJ1 before Ot after the tours Retain nu llhypothes is there is no effect on denial as a result of the tours

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 61: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Expelimenta 1 Control Mean

RE-TOUR 4269 4961

OST-TOUR 4439 4768

Table - 6-1lt Jcsness Inventory

Isocial Index

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

1235

Control

1411

Degress tteerilil1

48 81 PRE

1449 1242 45 78 POST

t test for independent samples)

I Inere was no significant difference concering asocial index between the exerimental (toui) and il f contra 1 groups before and ilfter the tours

Retain the null hypothesis There is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of tours

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 62: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Appendix 1-D

t TEST FOR INDEPENDENT HEANS ON~Y THOSE SUBJECTS CO~HACTED BYOLICE

-59shy

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 63: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 7 Piers-Harris

POll CE CONTflCTED

Expelimenta 1 Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

E-TOUR 51 37 5304 1423 1288 55 -46 PRE

OST-TOUR 5164 5420 1536 1297 -66 POST

(t~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control m (non-tour) groups before or after the tours o 1

Retain null hypothes is there is no s i gni fi cant effect on se 1f concept as a result of the tours

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 64: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLI CONTCTED Table -Jesness Inventory

Soci a 1 ~ja 1 adi ustment Sca 1 e

RE-iOUR

Experimenta 1 Control ~lean

5307

Experimental Standard Deviatioll

1356

Control Standa Id Devi

1431

on Degress Freedom

56

I-Value

-143 PRE

OST-TOUR 86 5680 1434 1405 52 -231 POST

hod t test for independent samples)

-The)e was no significant difference concerning social maladjustment bebleen the experimental (tour) and control g)OUPS before the tours There was a significant diffelence fall owi ng the tours However

cDntrol groups mean was inCleased and the experimental glOUrS mean stayed about the same The difference was fllobablv due to a confounding influence rather than a result of the

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 65: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE C]ITJICTED

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

rn 0

Table - 8-B Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 11 (Jl

Control r~ean

Experimental Standilrd_ Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom-----shy

5794 5730 817 933 56

5576 5800 11 61 1000 52

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the

T-Value

28 PRE

-75 POST

tours

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 66: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

Table -Jcsncss Inventory

TmrH ttlri t( __ SCo 1e

mental Control Me~n_

Exp-erimentl Standard fleviation

Contro 1 ~tillldad QeviiJioll

Oegress T-ValLle ----shy

E- TOUR fb45 5859 1100 1279 56 -1 01 PRE

lST- TOUR 56~ 6281 1091 1027 52 ~2B

( t tost independent samples)

difference concerning immaturity betvleen the experimental (tour) cant ro1m Then Ias no s VJ There was a significant difference following the tOlllS

showed the largest mean increase betvleen ore and post tests It is difficult to say

groLils beforeI

had any effect on the tour participants likely confounding intluences affected the outcome

tile

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 67: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

OST-TOUR

m -f~

POLICE CQciTACTEQ

Table - 8-0 Jcs nes s I nventory

fHltic-r- 5a1 o

r tletD

5972

Control Experimental Standard Deviation

7

9

Contra 1 Standard Deviation

1013

864

Degress Freedom

56

52

T-Value -1 21

- 48

PRE

POST

U~ethod t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experi groups before or after the tours

1 ( ) (non-tour)

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 68: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLiCE CONTACTED

L~pc~rimenta1 Cant roo1

5742 67JRE~TOUR

rl21 0OST- TOUR

( lMrIl~ L t test for independent s

e - 8-E Jesness Irventory

Alienntion Scale

Egtperimenta1 Stjlndard Deyjati on

994

952

es)

ContQ 1 Standard Devi atior

84

947

Degress Fre(~qom 1~yall1e

~

0

52 - 73 POST

Then is no significant diffelence concering i ena ti on behieen tile expelimenta1 (tau) and control (non-tour)

I befole or after the tours Q) en I effect on iOlltation as a result of tho tours1 hypothests thele is no signiRet2ill

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 69: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Mean

Control Mean

RE-TOUR 5652 5570

OST-TOUR 5493 5440

Table - 8-F Jesness Inventory

~1anjfest AqGression Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

965

1057

Contro 1 Standard Deviation

938

1045

Degress Freedom T-Value

56 32 PRE

52 19 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) and I control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours Ol

Ol I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on fest aggression as a result of the tours

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 70: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

was nl_ifl1( )

Table -POLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

1middotli thdJSlIIO 1 ScaE

E~p(- rIlPl1ti11 Control Experimenta Control Degress n ~tandard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom i-Val

5278 12 944 56 110 PREREshy

SG21OSTshy

hJd

1 0 _I 1

4888 8 2B 52 2 POST

t test for independent samples)

no significant difference concerninG 1 betlleen the ~xpelimental (tOUl-) and contlol ~P~01JpS before tile toUYS There ViaS-- a difference followinq tours t me~n difference was tile gmup pre-post thus is probably the )esul t

influccllces

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 71: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Control Mean Mean

RE-TOUR 4845- 4568

OST-TOUR 4628 4228

Table - 8-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experi menta1 Standard Deviation

1259

1465

Control Stand~Ld~eviation

926

1271

Degress Freedom

56

T-Value 95 PRE

52 106 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

CII 00

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 72: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLl iOiiTACTED e -Jesnrss I

G-1

Repl~essiol1 Scale ----~-

Ex lfe

~

~

Control ~lean

1211 1061

Degrcss I -~Vft1JJ~

p

QST~TOUR iF) 28 56 02 29 52 ~ -t POT

( IG~n 1 ~ L U- t test for independent s es)

Thel~e was no signi difference concerillg renre bet~leen the experimenta 1 (tour) and control b~ore r foil there was a significant difference possibly

t of J0

rcct the null hypothesis the tOU1S may h3ve affected the repnssion scale for those youth also ve been contacted by police for ~inor infractions

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 73: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 8-JPOLICE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

1032 854 56 -27lRETQUR 4239 4307 PRE

4238 4512 858 918 52 -113OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) I groups before or after the tours

o

Retain the null hypothesis there is no siDnificant effect on denial as a result of the tours

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 74: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POll COfITACTEfl

time Control

j 1TOUR 47

LliL 66 52 12-TOUR

Table - 8-K Jesness j

sectIJci w~~ -~

Experimental St all~axsL

16

Control ~~ 1 d ~Loncar lJeVlaL10n

1317

Dcgress freegqm T-Vaiue

-62

52 -203 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There was no sianificant difference (non-tolll) groups befOle the tour pn post meiln di fference occurred significant rlifferenc~ is probably

concel-ning asocial index betlieen the experimental (tour) and control re middotJas il significant differonce following the tours P 1a rge

vitil the contm1 group and not the e)(porimenta 1 (jroIJPs result of confoundina influences

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 75: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Appendix l-E

t TEST FOil I I~DEPEIWENT iEANS ONLY THOSE SUBJECTS PETlIIOiIED 10 COURT FOR LEGIL VIOUmOliS

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 76: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Table - 9 Jesness Inventory

Piels Harris

Experimental Control Experimenta 1 Contro1 DegressMean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

lETOUR 5640 5325 1130 1347 43 85 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5792 5588 1308 1255 40 50 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning self concept between the experimental (tour) and control I

(non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect onself concept as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 77: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10- Jesness Inventory

Social ~1aladjustment

ExperimentalIlea n

Control Mean

ExperimentalStandard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

472Q 5357 1546 1015 44 -162RETOUR PRE

5232 5688 1450 1434 39 - 99OST -TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social maladjustment between the experimental (tour) and control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours (J1 I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social maladjustment as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 78: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-B

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Control Experimenta1 Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Devia~iOD EreedoIO T-Value

5516 5614 1086 860 44 -34~E-TOUR PRE

5412 5462 974 1228 39 -151ST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning value orientation between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours en Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on value orientation as a result of the tours

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 79: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

CONTACTED Table - 10-C Jesness Inventory

IrnmaturilY Scale

Expedmenta 1 Control Experimental Control Degress ~lean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5556 5281 1311 1108 44 76RE-iOUR PRE

5332 5694 1182 1734 39 - 80OST-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning immaturity between the experimental (tour) and control I (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on immaturity as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 80: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-D

Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean ~ean Standard I)evi atioL Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

596Q 5700 1071 1190 44 78~E-TOUR PRE

5596 5775 949 931 39 -59l5T-TOUR POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning autism between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

I

0gt I Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on autism as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 81: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Table shy lO-E

Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Degress~jean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

tE-TOUR 5552- 5933 1081 751 44 -101 PRE

)ST-TOUR 5748 5169 1031 748 39 -141 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

I There is no si9nificant difference concerning alienation between the experimental (tour) and control -J 0 (non-tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on alientation as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 82: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED

Experimenta1 Control ~~eaJL Mean

5368 5371E-TOUR

5128 5094IST-TOUR

Table - lO-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aqgression Scale

Experimental Standard~viation

877

1017

Control Stan~ard Deviation

950

1099

DegressFreedom T-Value

44 -Ul PRE

39 10 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning manifest aggression between the experimental (tour) andI co o control (non~tour) groups before or after the tours I

Retain the nullhypothesis there is no significant effect on manifest aggression as a result of the tours

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 83: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

RE-TOUR

OST-TOUR

00

lO-GTab1 e -CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control Oegress Mean Mean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5004 5123 802 1069 44 -43 PRE

4920 5013 955 876 39 -31 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning withdrawal between the experimental (tour) arid control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on withdrawal as a result of the tours

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 84: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

~E-TOUR

)ST-TOUR

I co N I

COURT CONTACTED Table - 10-H Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Mean

460

Control Mean

4395

Experimental Standard Deviation

852

Control Standard Deviation

1104

Degress Freedom

44

T-Value

74 PRE

4464 4313 953 1034 39 48 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning social anxiety between the experimental (tour) control (non~to~r) groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on social anxiety as a result of the tours

and

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 85: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

tE-TOUR

lST-TOUR

I

eI

COURT CONTACTED Table - lO-I Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

Experimental Control Experimental Control DegressMean Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Freedom T-Value

5132- 4995 1218 1053 44 40 PRE

51 88 5200 1025 1302 39 -03 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concernlng repression between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) groups before or after the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis there is no significant effect on repression as a result of the tours

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 86: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Table w 10-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimenta 1 r~eall

Control Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Control Standard Deviation

Degress Freedom T-Value

4676 4752 1196 l1Q4 44 w22IE-TOUR PRE

1091 1067 39 814792 4513 POST)ST-TOUR

(Method t test for independent samples)

~ There is no significant difference concerning denial between the experimental (tour) and control (non-tour) f groups before or after the tours

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on denial as a result of the tours

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 87: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

ExperimentalNean

Control Mea~

RE- TOUR 4488 5071

OST-TOUR 5112 5300

Table - lO-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

1542

28

Control Standard Deviation

1257

1530

DegressFreedom T-Value

411 -139 PRE

39 - 40 POST

(Method t test for independent samples)

There is no significant difference concerning asocial index between the experimental (tour) and control I

agt (non-tour) groups before or after the tours (J1

I

Retain the null hypothesis there is no significant effect on asocial index as a result of the tours

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 88: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Appendix l-F

t TEST FOR RELATED MEANS ONLtTHOSE SUBJECTS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE POLICE

-87shy

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 89: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON CONTACTED Table -11Pi ers Harri s

Experimenta1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5839 1079

30 60 POST-TOUR 5745 1240

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

0gt 0gt There is no significant change concernin~ self concept for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 90: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - l2-A Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard DeviatiQn Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4555 1137

30 22 POST-TOUR 4519 1545

(Method t test for related samples)

I 00 ~ There is no significant change concerning Social Maladjustment for the experimental group followi

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had-no significant effect on Social Maladjustment

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 91: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 12-8 ~Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5400 1210

30 87 POST-TOUR 5300 1437

(Method t test for related samples) J ~ There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental grou~ following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Value Orientation

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 92: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NON CONTACTED

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimental Mean

5903

6071

t test for related samples)

Table - 12-C Jesness Inventory

Immaturity Scale

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1361

1543

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

3D 91

There is no s i gnifi cant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group foll owing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 93: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 12-C Jesn~ss Inventory

NON CONTACTED

Aut sm Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation freedom

PRE-TOUR 5532 1338

30 73 POST-TOUR 5721 1479

(Method ttest for related samples)

I 0 There is no significant change concerning AUtism for the experimental group followng the tours N I

bullRetain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 94: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 12-0 Jesness Inventory

CONTACTED

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5548 1054

30 -46 5619 1351POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

I lt0 W There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group followin9 the I tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 95: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

CONTACTED

Table 12-E Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 5239

5003POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

1050

1509

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 l24

I 10 There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

I

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 96: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(Method

Experimenta 1 Mean

5352

5252

ttest for related samples)

Table - l2-F Jesness Inventory

Withdrawal Scale

Expe ri menta1 Standard Deviation

1095

1280

Degrees t-Value Freedom

30 48

I 0 There is no significant change concerning witbdrawal for the experimental group following the rn toursI

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 97: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 12-G Jesness Inventory

NON CONTAcTED

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedom

t-Valve

PRE-TOUR 4552 785

30 132 POST-TOUR 4319 1254

(Method ttest for related samples)

b There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group fonowing the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 98: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 12-H Jesness Inventory

NON CONTlCTED

Repression Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value [1Jan Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5719 1063

30 -58 5829 1414POST-TOUR

(~)ethod t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 99: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

NOt CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4755

POST-TOUR 4781

(Method ttest for related samples)

Table 12-1 Jesness Inventory

Deni a 1 Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1183

1432

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

30 -11

I ltD co There is no significant change concerning Denial for the experimental group following the I tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Denial

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 100: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

CONTACTED

Table - 12-J Jesness Inventory

Asocial Study

Experimental Mean

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

Degrees Freedo11]

t-Va1ue---

PRE-TOUR 4271 1255

30 -57 POST-TOUR 4439 1449

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concern ng Asoci a 1 Study for the experimental group fo II owi ng the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Asocial Study

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 101: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CorHIICTED Table - 13

Piers Harris

Sel f Concept

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5200 1465

26 -03 POST-TOUR 5207 1548

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following g the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 102: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

ICE CONTACTED

Table - l4-A Jessness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4776 1297

28 -04 POST-TOUR 4786 1434

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning social maladjustment the experimental group followigt ~ the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 103: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r1ethod

Table -14-B Jessness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimental Maan

5759

5576

ttest for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

833

11 61

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

28 86

There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group following N the tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 104: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED Table Jesness

- 14-C Inventory

Immaturity Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

Experimental Mean

5466

5624

Experimental Standard Deviation

1035

1091

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Valu~

-80

(Method t t~st for related samples)

~ 8 I

There is no significant change concernin~ immaturity for the experimental group followi~g the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on immaturity

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 105: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimenta 1 1eiJn__

PRE-TOUR 5862

POST-TOUR 5972

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-0 Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

Experimental ~ndard Deviation

692

902

Degrees t-Va1ue Freedom

28 -76

I There is no significant change concerning sm for the experimental group following the a tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on Autism

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 106: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - l4-E I CE CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5686 1004

28 147 5921 1084POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

~ There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group follDwi~g the U1 tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on alienation

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 107: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED Table - l4-F Jesness InventQry

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

Experimental Sta ndl rd Deyjat i on

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

PRE-TOUR 5679 993

28 1 64 POST-TOUR 5493 1057

(i~ethod ttest for related samples)

~ There is no s i gnHi cant change concerning manifest aggressi on for the experi mehta1 group fo 11 owi ngr the tours

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 108: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

Table - 14-G Jesness Ihventory

Withdrawal Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

5579 1300PRE-TOUR

2B -26 5621 80BPOST-TOUR

(t4ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental grOup fo11 owin~ the o tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesiS the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 109: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(r~ethod

I

Table _1 1esness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimenta 1 Mean

4876

4628

t test for related samples)

Experimental SiaruarrLlleliatinn

1269

1465

Degrees t-Value Ereedom

28 1 32

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following co the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 110: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLI CE COtITACTED Table - 14-1 Jesness Inventory

Repression Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

ExperimentalMean

51 55

4928

Experimenta 1 Standard Deviation

1675

1302

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

1 19

I

5 10 I

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group followingthe tours

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on repression

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 111: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

Expe rimenta 1 Mean

PRE-TOUR 4259

POST-TOUR 4238

(r~ethod t test for related samples)

Table -14-J Jesness Inventory

Denial Scale

Experimental Standard Deviation

1066

858

Degrees Freedom

28

t-Value

16

i

There is tours

no significant change concerning 0etlial for the experimental group following the

I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on DeniaL

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 112: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

POLICE CONTACTED

Experimental Mean

PRE-TOUR 4431

POST-TOUR 4466

(Method t test for related samples)

Table -14-K Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimental Standard Deviation

1604

1441

Degrees t-Value Freedom

28 -10

I There is no si gnifi cant change concerning asoci al index for the experimental group foll owing the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on asocial index

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 113: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Table - 15

Piers Harr1 s

Self Concept

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 56 1130

24 -71 POST-TOUR 5792 1308

(Method ttest for re1 ated samp1 es)

I There is no significant change concerning self concept for the experimental group following the tours I

Retain the 1 hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on self concept

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 114: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

CONTACTED Table - 16-A

Jesness Inventory

Social Maladjustment Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-VaJlJe Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOI)R 4720 1546

24 -196 POST-TOI)R 5232 1450

(r~ethod ttest for related samples)

I I-

There is no si gnifi cant change concerning sod a1 adjustment for the experimental grD~p following I- W

the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on social maladjustment

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 115: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Tab1 e -16-8

Jesness Inventory

Value Orientation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean standaDL12evialion Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5516 1086

24 64 POST-TOUR 5412 974

(Method t test for related samples)

I There is no significant change concerning value orientation for the experimental group- following the tours I

Retain the null hypothesis The tours had no significant effect on value orientation

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 116: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 16-C Jesness InventoryCOURT CO~ITACTED

Immaturity Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5556 1311 24 81

POST-TOUR 5332 1182

(Method t test for related samples)

I gt- gt- U1 There is no s i gni ficant change concerning immaturity for the experimental group fo 11 owi ng the toursI

Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on immaturity

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 117: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 16-0COURT CONTACTEO Jesness Inventory

Autism Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(tiethod

I

ExperimentalMean

5960

5596

t test for related samples)

EXperimenta1 Standard Deyiation

1070

949

Degrees t-Value Freedom

24 262

There was significant change concerning autism for the experimental group following the tours I Reject the null hypothesis the tours had a significant (desirable) affect on autism

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 118: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 16- E COURT CONTACTEQ Jesness Inventory

Alienation Scale

Experimenta 1 Experimenta 1 Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5652 1081

24 - 62 POST-TOUR 5748 1031

(r1ethod ttest for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning alienation for the experimental group following the I tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on alienation

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 119: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 16-F Jesness Inventory

Manifest Aggression Scale

Experimental Experimenta 1 Degrees t-ValueMean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOVR 5368 877 24 160

POST-TOUR 51 28 1017

t test for related samples)

I 00 I There is no significant change concerning manifest aggression for the experimental group following

the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on manifest aggression

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 120: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

COURT CONTACTED Table - 16-G Jesness Inventory

Withdrawa1 Scale

PRE-TOUR

POST-TOUR

(t4ethod

Experimental Mean

5004

4920

ttest for related samples)

Experimenta1 Standard Deviation

802

955

Degrees Freedom

t-Value

24 49

There is no significant change concerning withdrawal for the experimental group following the tours bull lt0 Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on withdrawal

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 121: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 16-HCOURT CO~TACTED Jesness Inventory

Social Anxiety Scale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 4608 852 24 107

POST-TOUR 4464 953

(Method t test for related samples)

There is no significant change concerning social anxiety for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on social anxiety

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 122: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 16-1 Jesness InventoryCONTACTED

Repression~cale

Experimental Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

PRE-TOUR 5132 1218 24 -25

POST-TOUR 51 88 1025

(Method t test for related samples)

I I- N I- There is no significant change concerning repression for the experimental group following the tours I Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on repression

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 123: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 16-J Jesness inventorY

COURT cOnTIICTED Denial Scale

PRE-TOVR

POST-TOUR

(Method

I gt- N

Experimenta 1 Mean

4676

4792

t test for related samples)

Experimental Standard Deviation

11 96

1091

Degrees Freedom

24

t-Value

Jr

-70

N There is no significant change concernin9 denial for the experimental group following the tours Retain the null hypothesis the tours had no significant effect on denial

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 124: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt

Table - 16-KCOURT CONTACTED Jesness Inventory

Asocial Index

Experimenta1 Experimental Degrees t-Value Mean Standard Deviation Freedom

4488 1542PRE-TOUR 24 -206

5112 1428POST-TOUR

(Method t test for related samples)

N W There is significant change concerning asocial index for the experimental group following the tourS I

Reject the null hypothesis the tours had undesirable significant effect on asocial index

Page 125: RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1& … · It vias a more val i d experiment that the Rall\'lay experiment and took pl ace over a year's time span. Tile Greater Egypt