Criminology Research Council grant ; (12/82)
The report of this research is entitled 'Research Report: Delinquency, A Failure in Language Coping?' by Dr Patricia Brown. The study was an investigation into whether the verbal difficulties of adjudicated delinquents may be considered a function of their social-class membership or whether these difficulties can be related to the process of delinquency itself.
To guide the study, the findings from a number of different areas of psychological research were considered, and a model of 'thoughtless' delinquency was developed. The model linked the occurrence of delinquency to a motivational problem with language whereby the young person, on the basis of early negative experiences, may have learned defensively to close off in interpersonal words / verbal thought situations. As a result, the quality of language knowledge and use could be affected. Also, because the flow of verbal thought might be interfered with, there could be a truncating of plans related to verbal interpersonal problem solution which, if occurring frequently, could lead to delinquency. Within this theory, social-class membership was seen as having a secondary role in relation to language coping deficits which might occur.
Three segments of this theory were tested in the study. First, whether there is more limited motivation to deal with language and a predilection for action rather than words on the part of delinquents as compared with non-delinquents; second, whether there is a problem with language processing and expression for delinquents in comparison with non-delinquents, and whether the language expression of delinquents is further exacerbated or attenuated by social-class membership; and third, whether a disruptive effect of language inhibition on planning in verbal inter-personal situations might be inferred from a difficulty in interpersonal cognitive problem solving for delinquents compared with non-delinquents.
The sample of 189 subjects tested comprised adjudicated delinquents and non-delinquents from working class and from middle class, the delinquents being further subdivided into institutional, probation, and police-cautioned groups. Tests administered were varied on verbal, interpersonal, and planful dimensions, and their opposites, an attitude to language test and a picture-vocabulary test being additionally given.
The results demonstrated that the language coping profile related to delinquent status was different from that obtained on the basis of social class. The profile for delinquent-status groups was consistent with a motivational problem in the use of language for delinquents rather than any deprivation in access to it, while that for social class suggested more limited educational and cultural opportunity for the working class. Compared with non-delinquents and irrespective of social class, delinquents were found not to like the use of language as much, did not think it as important, and liked movement activities more. This was construed as a more limited motivation to approach language, and as a preference for action. Also, irrespective of social class, delinquents had more limited vocabulary knowledge, so the quality of their language interchanges would be poorer than that of non-delinquents.
On the other hand, a broader spectrum of comparative language difficulties was found to be attributable to social class than to delinquent status, the working class, in addition to showing poorer vocabulary knowledge than the middle class, also using a more limited amount of and less complex speech, these latter differences not being in evidence for delinquent groups compared with non-delinquents. Moreover, no one individual language problem evidenced by delinquents was exacerbated once social class was taken into account. However, since evidence was reported to suggest that the majority of adjudicated delinquents come from the working class, and the working class in this study showed a range of comparative language difficulties, the likely most frequent presentation of delinquents to the courts and to police would constitute an amalgam of the two profiles: adjudicated delinquents would, in the main, be poorly motivated towards language and prefer movement, would have some limitation in vocabulary, and use fewer words and less complex speech constructions than non-delinquents. This comparative limitation in language efficacy by adjudicated delinquents has a singularly important implication for strategies of remediation: therapeutic interventions that are fairly exclusively reliant on language would be contraindicated.
In the search for a link between language-coping characteristics and delinquent process, no explicit evidence was found. No disruptions to the planning process were evident on the interpersonal verbal planning task employed, which focused on the ability to produce steps to problem solution. However, a finding of significantly less frequent introspection, evidence of thinking before action or segments of action, by delinquents compared with controls, was interpreted as a possible manifestation of a 'no thought' strategy by delinquents, when engaged in verbal inter-personal problem solving. It was argued that this less frequent introspection could potentially affect the quality of the solution chosen as compared with the sequential steps taken to solution, as was measured, since perhaps a range of options might then not be considered before a plan of action is embarked on, and the consequences of actions might not be sufficiently perused, initially. Tests of those aspects of interpersonal problem solving were not used in the study. Further research would be needed to elucidate this finding concerning introspection and whether it might constitute a link to the process of 'thoughtless' delinquency.
In terms of the theory proposed, two of the three components tested received some support, an adequate test of the third being ultimately lacking. Revisions to the theory were forced by the research findings. However, it was considered that with incorporation of the revisions specified, the theory would remain a useful model from which to pursue questions posed by the outcomes of the study.