In this study on the change of juvenile delinquencies after WWII, the auther picked up “Inpudence” (ZOCHO) as a key cancept for understanding juvenile delinquents prevailing in the recent years.

Juvenile delinquencies of the classic type, resulting from poverty and social disorder, were predominant in the post war period, followed by delinquencies committed by dropped-outs in the afluent society, delinquencies as a play, and delinquencies for enjoyment. Dependency was focused on as a major personality characteristics in this second wave of juvenile delinquencies. A third type of delinquencies have heen increasing in number since around 1977, shortly after the first oil crisis. In auther’s view an increasing number of juveniles tend to show ego-inflation, reberious attitude toward social norms, and inpudent behaviors.

The backgrounds of each type of delinquencies were studied in relation to the social change for the last few decades from the end of the war. It suggested that the macroscopic approach was necessary in the classification of juvenile delinquents.

The comparative study of dependent youths and inpudent youths with regard to the types and motives of delinquencies, social attitude, etc. led to the following conclusion. It is important and essential for the prevention of delinquencies of the latter type and the treatment of such delinquents to establish the adult authority and to aware them there is a limit to what they can do.

This is a pilot study to examine the prisoners’ attitude in answering a questionnaire. A questionnaire was carried out to the sentenced male prisoners(N=86, average age=43 yrs. old, and average IQ=81). The questionnaire consisted of 40 items; 19 items were opinion-survey-type questions to reflect the prisoners’ opinions on prison life, term of imprisonment, correctional workers’ attitude toward prisoners, and causes of their offense; and the other 21 items were personality-inventory-type questions to ask them their attitude and personality traits. Each question item was addressed to the subjects in two types of questioning. “Does the statement hold good with you?” was the one type of questioning, which was called self-oriented questioning. “Guess whether the statement holds good with other prisoners or not.” was the other type, which was called others-oriented questioning. Thus, two rating values, namely self-oriented rating and others-oriented rating, were obtained for each statement.

Considerable differences were found between self-oriented ratings and others-oriented ratings. Examination of the results were shown as follows.

Forty questions (items, statements) were classified into two categories, namely ego-defensive questions and non-ego-defensive ones. The ego-defensive questions were those which made the subjects rather ego-defensive to answer affirmatively. An example of the question (statement) was “have a short temper”. It was assumed that each subject became ego-defensive to accept “I have a short temper.” It was found here that the difference between self-oriented ratings and others-oriented ratings were considerably larger in the ego-defensive questions than in the non-ego-defensive ones. It was also found that the subjects’ responses had a tendency to be “expected” or “generally accepted”answers in self-oriented ratings while they did not in others-oriented ratings. It was considered in this sense that self-oriented ratings were biased because of their ego-defensive attitude.

Eighty-six subjects were then classified into two groups, namely strongly-defensive group and weakly-defensive group, by the use of L-scale (lie scale) and Ed-scale (ego-defense scale) of MJPI (Ministry of Justice’s Personality Inventory). It was observed that the difference between the two ratings was larger in the strongly-defensive group than in the weakly-defensive group. It was exactly the case in the 21 questions of personality-inventory-type. It was considered that self-oriented ratings of the strongly-defensive subjects were biased more than those of the weakly-defensive subjects. On the other hand, others-oriented ratings were not so different each other between the two groups.

Therefore the followings were tentatively concluded. 1) In a questionnaire, prisoners’ answers do not always express their “real” opinions in self-oriented questionning. It is assumed that self-oriented ratings are biased because of their ego-defensive attitude. 2) Some of their “real” opinions may be clearly expressed in others-oriented ratings.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences between delinquents and non-delinquents in terms of perceived parent-child interpersonal relationship, and to find out the characteristics of delinquents.

The subjects of this study were chosen from the Reform School for Juveniles in Taiwan, Jen-Ai Junior High School, and Chen-Kong Senior High School in Taiwan. They consisted of 313 in delinquent group, and 511 in non-delinquent group. Data were collected by means of questionnaire. The major results were as follows:

1. It was found that delinquents had less opportunity to talk with their parents every day, specially on weekend and holidays than ordinary juveniles do.

2. As for the state of mutual understanding, delinquents seemed to be lacking in parental understanding more often than non-delinquents.

3. Speaking of the parents’ feeling to juveniles, delinquents were less concern by their parents than ordinary juveniles. As a result, delinquents had a feeling of indifference or even hostile to their parents.

4. It was found that delinquents didn’t talk about their daily affairs with their parents than non-delinquents do, but about their future problem there was no difference between delinquents and non-delinquents.

5. For delinquents there seemed to be a tendency that they had worse relationships with parents than non-delinquents do.

6. As far as parents’ love is concerned, delinquents didn’t get normal love from their parents—to de liked or disliked more than other children in the family, but non-delinquents were treated as the same with other children by their parents.

7. It was found that the evaluation of parents by juveniles delinquents was worse. But there were no difference between the identification of the father by both delinquents and non-delinquents.

This study is to critically review recent token economy studies in juvenile institutional corrections. Eleven studies are reviewed, and the following are found. (1) As far as these studies are concerned, token economy is apparently more or less effective to reinforce at least some target behaviors when subjects are kept in correctional institutions. (2) However, researchers have focused their main attention only upon the relations between token reinforcement and specified target behaviors, while ignoring other psychological variables. (3) Target behaviors, such as walking in a straight line, table setting, and rule following, are generally too much trivial and seemingly only to serve for administrative purposes. (4) Evaluation of the effectiveness in most cases has been done only based upon either the difference between control (comparison) group and experimental group, or the difference between base-line period and experimental period, without any follow-up examination. Therefore, four points which should be carefully studied in the future research are found. Those are: (1) Psychotherapeutic effectiveness of other elements than token reinforcement; for example, treaters’ positive regard, empathic understanding, morale; treatees’ need to change, personality characteristics; and combination of treaters and treatees, (2) Relations between target behavior and law-abiding behavior in general, (3) Generalizability of the effectiveness of token reinforcement to general non-delinquent behaviors in natural environment when subjects return to the free society, and (4) Antitherapeutic effects of coercive control in token economy.