of a somewhat similar nature are to be discerned among the normals. As to particular instincts and emotions, the delinquent girls are marked by an inborn liability to outbreaks of sex and bad temper; the delinquent boys by an excessive liveliness of the migratory, the acquisitive, and the self-assertive instincts. In both sexes a disproportionate percentage of the delinquents seem singularly insusceptible to the inhibitory feelingspain1, sorrow, fear2, and affection.

COMPLEXES.

Repressed complexes are perhaps not so much themselves the causes of crime, as part of the mental machinery through which the ulterior causes operate. I have classed them as principal factors whenever the delinquency was at length cleared up by a protracted analysis, or whenever the child showed a visible amendment after removal from a source of current conflict. Many of the "complexes" are indeed complex; and that in the highest degree. Their varying elements and distinguishable aspects are exceedingly numerous; and each is recorded separately under a separate heading in the table. Thus, though the cases analysed are few, the total entries are considerable. In spite of this, the figures shown for the frequency of such mechanisms still yield, in all probability, a gross under-estimate. Analytic treatment could only be undertaken when there seemed a reasonable likelihood that it might issue in a practical benefit, or at least cast a gleam of theoretical light upon the genesis of the moral trouble; and even then, from the exigencies of my work, it was impossible to push home the analysis in every case with ideal completeness. With the delinquent boys, in particular, this mode of approach proved difficult and slow; and here, most of all, the percentages may be too slender.

Complexes similar to those discovered among delinquents and neurotics could, with sufficient exploration, be discovered among normals. Indeed, in spite of all the thorough work by the various psycho-analytic schools, it still remains something of a mystery why complexes, apparently identical, should produce abnormal symptoms in one person and

1 The seeming insusceptibility to pain often amounts, in these self-offered little martyrs, to a definite and perverse pleasure in pain (masochism). Pain, like every sensory stimulus, is in a mild degree pleasurable to all. But, with some, the borderline between pleasant and unpleasant pain is abnormally high; and even an intense smarting is welcomed as delightfully pungent. The bearing of this upon corporal punishment is too obvious to be indicated.

2 Many of the younger delinquents, however, are not fearless, but timid (see Table); and so by nature secretive.

none in another. With delinquents various factors seem to further this unfavourable development; defective family relationships obviously give the usual parental complexes a very unusual form; an over-strict or an over-indulgent discipline-particularly when the two alternate within the same household-alike make the conflicts more acute; general instability, and the excessive strength of certain instincts-sex, anger, selfassertion and pleasurable disgust-intensify the lack of emotional balance; other instincts-timidity and unpleasant disgust-make for increased repression. Delinquents, too, manifest a disproportionate number, or at least a disproportionate strength, of certain more primitive complexes particularly the auto-erotic, the self-regarding, and the more primitive phases of the parental; they often seem to have undergone an arrest or a fixation at these more infantile levels. Finally, innumerable events in the outer and inner life of the delinquent child-removal from home, quarrelling at home, immorality at home, and their secret effects upon his mind, pernicious companions or painful experiences outside the home-all serve to give a special trend to his unconscious emotional development1.

1 From the standpoint of treatment it may be noted that, with children, and especially with delinquents, psycho-analytic mechanisms differ in their mode of action from those met with in the case of neurotic adults. In the first place repression seems seldom so complete. It is true that most of my delinquents who suffered from complexes belonged to the repressed or sensitive type; but similar mechanisms were from time to time discernible among those who were of a nature eminently unrepressed. Partly as a consequence, the analysis of young cases is, as a rule, accomplished with greater speed and fewer hindrances than a similar analysis in a neurotic adult. Nevertheless, with delinquents the method brings with it special difficulties of its own; their word is not always to be relied upon; their confidence is at first often difficult to gain; and their desire for treatment and their eagerness to be cured is neither vigorous nor voluntary. With all but the oldest and the brightest, too, the analyst must pursue a somewhat different line from that usually taken with adults; there may, for example, be less talking, less confession, less discussion of dreams and fantasies, more attention to the child's conduct during recreation, and more observation of his natural responses to test-situations, both casual and arranged. My inferences as to the working of complexes of various kinds are thus often derived, not from an actual unravelling of them by a full and systematic exploration, but rather from recognised complex-symptoms noted incidentally in the course of general interviews and everyday behaviour. Fortunately, with children of school age, the most delicate motives of all— active sexual complexes, in the narrowest sense of the adjective ‘sexual'—seem relatively unimportant; and, unless a child of these tenderer years, by private avowal or by overt acts, spontaneously admits the presence of such conflicts, the cautious analyst will be exceedingly chary of trying to probe for their presence. Sexual problems, sexual conflicts and sexual temptations undoubtedly arise during this so-called 'latent' period; but, sometimes because they are less repressed, sometimes because the repression is for the time being more successful, they cause less worry and lead to less misconduct before the onset of the pubertal epoch. Hence, during the school period, without urgent reasons for entering upon these sensitive issues, the psychologist will, as a rule, be wiser if he prefers discretion

SUMMARY.

1. Nearly 200 cases of juvenile delinquency, and, as a control-series, 400 normal cases, have been individually investigated in parallel enquiries; and the various adverse conditions, discoverable in their family history, in their social environment, and in their physical, intellectual, and temperamental status, have been ascertained and tabulated for each group.

2. The tables show a lengthy list of contributory causes. Delinquency in the young seems assignable, generally to a wide variety, and usually to a plurality, of converging factors; so that the juvenile criminal is far from constituting a homogeneous psychological class.

3. To attribute crime in general to either a predominantly hereditary or a predominantly environmental origin appears impossible; in one individual the former type of factor may be paramount; in another, the latter; while, with a large assortment of cases, both seem, on an average and in the long run, to be of almost equal weight.

4. Heredity appears to operate, not directly through the transmission of a criminal disposition as such, but rather indirectly, through such congenital conditions as dulness, deficiency, temperamental instability, or the excessive development of some single primitive instinct.

5. Of environmental factors those centring in the moral character of the delinquent's home, and, most of all, in his personal relations with his parents, are of the greatest influence.

6. Psychological factors, whether due to heredity or to environment, are supreme both in number and strength over all the rest. Emotional conditions are more significant than intellectual; while psycho-analytic complexes provide everywhere a ready mechanism for the direction of overpowering instincts and of repressed emotionality into open acts of crime.

if he foregoes the uncertain benefits of ruthless exploration rather than risk the surer perils which may arise when these troublesome interests are stirred up. After puberty the case is changed; but the utmost circumspection must still be exercised.

J. of Psych. (Med. Sect.) III

3

THE INFLUENCE OF AFFECTIVE FACTORS ON THE MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE.

By C. A. RICHARDSON.

THE first decades of the twentieth century have witnessed the rapid growth of two new developments in psychological science, namely the analytic method in psychotherapy and the testing and quantitative assessment of intelligence. The growths of these two movements have been curiously parallel in some respects; neither attracted any marked attention before 1900, each made immense strides during the war. While independent in origin and inception, both have now advanced to a stage at which we are compelled to consider whether each may not afford us information bearing on the theory and practice of the other.

Briefly, the kind of question that is now being asked is this: May it not be possible that the apparent intelligence of an individual is in part conditioned by affective inhibitions which conceal his real grade of intelligence? Is not a low grade intelligence due in some cases to the action of such inhibitions, and might it not therefore be possible, by analysis directed to the removal of the latter, to increase appreciably a person's mental efficiency?

So far as the measurement of intelligence is concerned, the practical issue to be decided is whether the performance of children and others in mental tests is affected by inhibitions of the kind referred to. Evidently this question could only be settled decisively by testing a number of children and then retesting them after analytic treatment. But, in the absence of such an interesting experiment, it is yet possible to arrive at a provisional, and probably reliable, conclusion, on the basis of considerations relating firstly to the nature of the tests themselves, and secondly to the results of the tests.

No doubt everyone would agree that, even when all disturbing factors are eliminated, children differ very considerably from one another in degree of intellectual capacity. It is unlikely that anyone would be prepared to maintain that, with sufficiently appropriate and complete psychotherapeutic treatment, all could be brought to the same level of intelligence. We may therefore assume that fundamental differences do exist. In other words, it is theoretically possible to rank individuals

in order of intelligence. This implies that for each individual there is a numerical index, constant for that individual, which expresses his position in the hierarchy of intellect. Mental testing will therefore be directed to the discovery of that index, and the question we have to consider is whether such testing does in fact disclose the real index, or merely an apparent value of the latter modified by the influence of affective inhibitions which interfere with the subject's performance in the test. In what follows we shall exclude from our consideration definitely pathological cases, such as those manifesting epilepsy, hysteria, or dementia.

In discussing the effects on a child's performance which the tests exercise by their very nature, it is necessary to distinguish between general mental inefficiency and inability to pass certain specific tests which may be widely separated in the scale. Affective inhibitions, as opposed to natural dulness or defectiveness, are unlikely to produce general inefficiency unless they are so extreme in character as to verge upon the pathological. Accordingly the important point for our present purpose is the nature of specific tests; and here again we must distinguish between individual tests and group tests. We may leave the question of general inefficiency till we come to consider the results of the tests.

The majority of individual scales in use at present are based on the Binet scale or on one of the numerous revisions thereof. A glance through the questions in these scales will be sufficient to make it clear that by far the larger proportion of them are noticeably lacking in any element which might, for particular individuals, constitute affective or emotional tone in any degree worth considering. It is true that a few of the Binet tests deal with matters which tend to acquire for most persons some marked affective tone, but even in such cases the matters are of a kind calculated to produce far less emotional effect on children than on adults. But apart from these comparatively few and isolated instances the affective tone of the tests is almost entirely neutral.

The reason for this is not far to seek. Intelligence tests being directed to the discovery of the child's innate mental ability as opposed to his acquired knowledge, are so constructed as to call into play relatively fundamental elements in intelligent process. This results in a type of simplicity in marked contrast to the characteristics of ordinary educational tests and of those external conditions which in part determine the progress of the child in his everyday school work. It is a simplicity consisting in a lack of complication by widespread and elaborated associations which, by their assimilation to the matter in question, may