In my first article (1975), 20 sub areal of the emotion of anger was defined, in the second article (1976), the structure of anger was analysed, and 7 factors were extracted. In the third article (1977), more concrete emotional terms to esteem real emotional states were investigated and 17 concrete terms were selected. In the present article, the scale value of the each statements (133 items) was estimated using 17 concrete emotional terms, and then above statements were factor-analysed and 8 factors were extracted. Next, the factor-score of each subjects (Control: 50 males and 50 female, Delinquents: 54 males) were calculated to clarify the characteristics of negative emotions possessed by the young people.

The results are as follows.

1) The following 8 factors were extracted through factor analysis:

　a) Irrational anger which is based upon some envy.

Many of the subjects who got high factor-score (over one S.D., naming high subjects) are delinquents.

　b) Anger against any sort of inequality in society and against unfair treatment due to such inequality.

Many of the high subjects are females and many of the subjects who got low factor-score (below minus one S.D., naming low subjects) are delinquents.

　c) Anger toward self-centered persons who want to have their own way.

The low subjects are many among males and delinquents and are very few among females.

　d) Anger against what they cannot possess and what they cannot do.

Both high and low subjects are many among males and most of delinquents got moderate

factor-score.

　e) Anger toward the way how other people react to difficult situations in which they (the subjects) find themselves.

Many of the high subjects are males and many of the low are delinquents.

　f) Anger toward any disconfort in interpersonal environment.

Many of the high subjects are delinquents and many of the low are males.

　g) Anger toward violations of what is forbidden by law or what is regard as staboo.

The high subjects are many among delinquents and few among males.

　h) Anger toward uneasiness caused in themselves.

The high subjects are many among delinquents and few among males.

2) The following results were obtained through analysis of terms responded. The terms most frequently used among each groups are:

　a) Males.

　　　　in Japanese　　　　　in English

　　　　shikataganai　　　　　I can’t help it

　　　　atamanikuru　　　　　I get mad

　　　　fuyukaida　　　　　　It’s unpleasant

　　　　maa-iijanaika　　　　　I couldn’t careless

　　　　omoshirokunai　　　　It’s a drag

　b) Females.

　　　　shikataganai　　　　　I couldn’t help it

　　　　fuyukaida　　　　　　It’s unpleasant

　　　　atamanikuru　　　　　I get mad

　　　　yarikirenai　　　　　　I can’t stand any more

　　　　omoshirokunai　　　　It’s a drag

　c) Delinquents.

　　　　shikataganai　　　　　I can’t help it

　　　　nantonaku-iyada　　　Somehow or other I don’t like it

　　　　atamanikuru　　　　　I get mad

　　　　kinikuwanai　　　　　That gives me the creeps

　　　　omoshirokunai　　　　It’s a drag

3) The following became clear through analysis of scale value. (I refer only to item numbers).

　a) The items No. 3, 4, 9, 11 and 19 are judged as having high scale value equally by the 3 groups. The items 3, 4, 9 and 19 are not included in any factors.

　b) The items No. 10 and 26 are common to males and females, and the items No. 15 is common to females and delinquents. These 3 items are all included in the third factor.

　c) The items which are judged as having high scale value only one group are as follows: (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

Three investigations were carried in a juvenile training school in Japan on the assumptions of Part I of this article.

In Research 1, a tentative typology (Typology 1) was constructed from interpersonal axes by using questionnaires, interview method and semantic differential tests.

In Research 2, the validity of the typology was checked by using questionnaires to staffs. And the dimensions for constructing a treatment typology which is based on the typifications of staffs and inmates were investigated by using a method which is similar to Q-sort technique.

In Research 3, a treatment typology (Typology 2) was constructed as the results of Research 1 and 2 and of intensive case analyses. The dimensions of typology are interpersonal orientation, interpersonal skill and value orientation.