First, second, and third force psychology serve as the only scientific means for determining parole readiness and prison reform.

First, second, and third force psychologies were described in detail by Ernest Hilgard. First force was based on "Conditioning Theory" and is no longer used with human beings. Second force is based on Freud's psychoanalytic theory and is presently used in this connection throughout the world. Third force psychology is "Person Centered" and is based on Roger's and Maslow's theories. It was developed in the 1960s and is used throughout the world today.

**********

As a student of Ernest Hilgard of Stanford University for a number of years, and then in 1976 I did a feature on his theory in Education, and later I did a second feature on a friend Publisher of Hilgard, and learned to know him as a friend .He insists that today there are clearly three distinct and independently organized theories of psychology, and that each one of those is directly related to the indepenedence demonstrated by individuals involved.

First Force Psychology

First Force Psychology was developed in large part by B.F. Skinner (1969), and it is typically imposed by persons external to individuals involved. It employs a hypothetico-deductive method using behaviorism and a stimulus-response theory that is essential on a continuing bases for effectiveness. It is no longer used for human beings except for persons in a "Closed" Neuro-Psychiatric Ward, or for prisoners in Solitary Confinement, because people never become fully cognitive in their general orientation through operant conditioning.

Second Force Psychology

Second Force Psychology is the theory underlying the use of psychoanalysis throughout the health care facilities of the world today (Taylor, 1992). It derives directly from the early work of Sigmund Freud in the 1880s, and where "free association" is used to reveal areas and nature of "hurts" lying deep in one's unconscious that serve to demobilize one's full capacity. In theory when one becomes fully aware of the location and nature of such unconscious hurts, they can reconcile them in a reasoning and logical manner. Second Force Psychlogy is typically used with Neuro-Psychiatric patients, or with addicted individuals with psychiatric problems evident. The Cognitive Dissonance Test (Cassel & Chow) is designed to reveal the area and nature of such unconscious hurts. A Psychologist or Counselor can then help the indivdual deal with each hurt individually.

Scientific Approach Using Cognitive Dissonance

It was Leon Festinger of Stanford University (1957) who introduced "Cognitive Dissonance" as a substitute for "Free Association" as used by Freud, and defined it as "feelings of unpleasantness" which an individual possesses lying deep in the unconscious, and where the individual seldom if ever realizes the reasons for such feelings. The Cognitive Dissonance Test was developed based on the Festinger theory to serve as a means for helping individuals discover the areas and nature of "cognitive dissonance;" so that on a conscious level they might help to plan for ways to eliminate such hurts. The Psychologist and even the Guidance Counselor are capable of employing the same theory being used by the Psychiatrist in Psychoanalysis, but in a much more simplified manner. Four of the eight part scores are included within the Internal and Personal areas of life; while the other four are from the External and Impersonal areas of one's life space. A Confluence Score (CON) is included to insure that the items on the DISS test are really read and understood.

I. Internal & Personal:

1. Home & Family-HOM

2. Emotional Development-EMO

3. Moral Development-MOR

4. Health & Well-being-HEA

5. School & Learning-SCH

Part I Total-IPTOT

II. External & Impersonal:

6. Social Affiliation-SOC

7. Survival & Power-SUR

8. Racial & Social Class-RAC

Part II Total-EITOT

DISS Total Score-DISTOT

Confluence Score-CON

Eight Part Scores

Home & Family--the period involving the early rearing of the child and the support system that is involved in that period of life.

Emotional Development--the feeling and emotional development in relation to interaction with others.

Moral Development--acceptance and following of the rules and laws of the land and becoming a role model for others.

Health & Well-being--physical and mental health of individual as displayed in the personal development process.

School & Learning--educational and learning process and ability to use such development.

Social Affiliations--the interrelations between the individual and the rest of society.

Survival & Power--the continued growth of an individual and ability to manipulate the environment and others.

Race and Social Class--the general acceptance of all others and the ability to interact in a meaningful way with them.

The DISS Test Profile

The Cognitive Dissonance Test Profile as depicted in Figure 1 below serves as the basis for interpreting the scores from the test. Generally, the profile is designed to be meaningful to subjects in high school and as adults without other assistance. The two main features for interpretation are: (1) raw score, and (2) DISS profile.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Raw Score

Immediately under the norm profile on Figure 1 below are the raw scores for all part and total scores on DISS. All eight part scores (HOM, INN, EMO. MOR, etc.) range from 0 to 100; so that a score of 50, for example, is just half or 50 percent of what it might be. They are raw scores and not percentiles, and may be added and multiplied. The purpose for the raw scores is to enable an individual to determine own strengths and weaknesses in relation to need presence as measured by cognitive dissonance in the eight different parts of the test. Average "cognitive dissonance" is estimated to be represented by a score of 50, and scores above 50 represents above average, and below 50 as being below average (this in relation to the 25 items in each of the 8 part scores). The average here is in reference to self; not to some corresponding norm of individuals. The total scores (IPTOT, EITOT, and DISTOT) are always the sum of the respective part scores.

The Normed Profile

The norm profile immediately above the raw scores in Figure 1 below, is based on group data for two different kinds of individuals: youth, and adults. It uses a McCalley T-Score, (normalized standard score) ranging from 20 to 80 (running up and down the left side of the profile) with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Average scores range from 40 to 60 and include 68 percent of the norm group. Scores above 60 are considered to be above average in relation to a group of peers, and include the top 16 percent of the norm group. Scores below 40 are considered to be below average, and include the bottom 16 percent of norm group. Always, the higher the score, the greater the presence of cognitive dissonance.

Confluence Score (CON)

The "Confluence score (CON) consists of 21 pairs of items, all of them are part of the 200 true/false items in the DISS test, but are scored separately by the computer.. About half of those 21 pairs of items are opposites; so that if a person answers one of those pairs one way, but fails to answer the second item of the paired-opposites in a different way (true or false) there is a lack of confluence in the test results. This, of course, means creditability not only of the test data, but also of the person taking the DISS test. These items represent an assigned task to person taking the DISS test; so the Confluence Scores is a measure of trustworthiness (degree to which items were actually read or even understood). This score is typically not shared with person taking the test, and is used only as a validity index of test data, and trust worthiness of person taking test.. The interpretation of the Confluence Score is as follows:

1. If subject receives a score of 13 or higher, the test data is considered to be invalid, and subject is asked to take the test a second time.

2. Scores from 10 to 13 show that the test data is acceptable and reliable.

3. Scores from 1 to 9 are considered to represent individuals that have done an outstanding job in reading and understanding dynamics involved, and shows better than average intelligence-depicting relatedness of 11 pairs of items in varying degrees of unrelatedness.

Comparing Delinquents & Non-Delinquents

In Tables 1 and 2 below the mean score on DISS for Delinquents and Typical Individuals are compared by use of a t-statistics. Every single score, except the Confluence Score, showed a statistical difference with the Delinquents showing greater Cognitive Dissonance. It should be remember that data for individuals with a Confluence Score greater than 13 were not included in the data.

Confluence Score

The correlations in Table 3 below show the inter-correlations between the Confluence Score and other data. It is clear that the CON score is first a measure of the validity of the DISS scores, and second the creditability of the Test Taker-whether h/ she read and understood the test items. All data for individuals with CON scores of 13 or higher were eliminated from this data. It is important to note that the CON score correlates significantly with all other data shown; so it could be used as a reliable index of any of the other data, including AGE, and Gender.

DISS Profile

The DISS Profile is shown in Figure 1 below. This is the profile of a Typical Individual in relation to the appropriate norm for such individual. This profile is for a Typical Male Youth, and using the Male/Youth Norm. The CON score is 4 out of the 21 pairs. Any such score below 7 depicts an exceedingly responsible individual. Note that all 8 part scores are well below the 50 which would be average Dissonance in relation to the test content; while the profile depicted in relation to Typical Male Youth except for LIF (Life Pursuits);which is about average in relation to other Male Youth.

Third Force Psychology & Typical Individuals

Third Force Psychology, only old since the 1960s, derived largely from Carl Rogers and his client centered therapy, and was a first uniquely American challenge to the psychoanalytic technique (Taylor, 1992). Gordon Allport, Gardner Murphy, Henry A. Murray, and Abraham Maslow all made valuable contributions to the new Third Force Psychology. The DSM-IV studies, one of the greatest health care research studies of all times, showed how Personal Development (Global Assessment Functioning Scale) is central to one's effective social, family, and occupational functioning. The Personal Development Test (PDT) (Cassel & Chow, 2002b) was developed to depict the Global Assessment Functioning in a meaningful and effective manner. It is designed to assess the readiness of prison inmates for parole, and what might be needed to make such individuals more risk-free for parole success. The PDT serves to bring science to our prisons processes for the first time in history. Predicting parole success is no longer a guess.

Personal Development

It is clear that "personal Development" is a much better description of what was developed in DSM-III and DSM-IV as "Global Functioning." This, to be sure, includes the basis for academic success in high school and college; for it is during those adolescent years when individuals seek to make a transition from child to adult, and where accountability in our high schools must include plans and activities for their personal development. Effective academic achievement can only emerge when personal development of student is present, and there are no exceptions to that very basic rule. In a similar manner it is an excellent index for success as a Prison Parole.

Incarcerated Juvenile Delinquents and Prison Inmates

Today we have one million high school dropout students in our prisons, and another million that have not gone to college, with large sampling of African American and Hispanic students present. These two later populations have a lower literacy rate than do the rest of the prison population. Our prison population has doubled in the last 10 years, and continues to increase. The use and involvement of alcohol and drugs as the basis for imprisonment is excessive; for example, in San Diego in the year 2000 4 our of every 5 arrests involved alcohol and drugs. Our high schools must take immediate action to curb delinquency and crime, and it must include programs for the Personal Development of students. Prisons must do the same if they plan to increase the parole readiness of such individuals.

High School and College Drop-out Norm Base

Every one of the incarcerated Juvenile Delinquents represent a high school dropout, or "at-"risk" youngster for drop-out prevention purposes. The adult Prison Population serves as an excellent high school and college dropout norm base; since one million of the prison population represent high school drop-outs, i.e., individuals who have failed to graduate from high school. Few of the other million prison inmates have graduated from college; so they represent a dropout in relation to college as well. Therefore, our prison population serves as an excellent basis for predicting high school and college drop-outs; so we can begin

identifying the "at-risk" students, and which serves as a parole success index as well.

The Personal Development Test (PDT)

The Personal Development Test (PDT) (Cassel and Chow, 2002) was designed to provide a functional basis for assessing the Global Functioning of individuals, and it is based on John Dewey's definition of a Democracy--The Interdependence of independent individuals (Dewey, 1938). The test is comprised of 200 true/false items, with 25 in each of the 8 part scores. The first four of those scores measure Personal Maturity for the Independence portion of the Dewey definition, and the second four measure Social Integration for the Interdependence element.

Personal Maturity--PERMAT:

1. Self-efficacy--EFF

2. Coping Skills--COP

3. Positive Assertiveness--ASS

4. Locus of Control--LOC

Total PERMAT:

Social Integration--SOCINT:

5. Team Member--TEA

6. Sympathy--SYM

7. Self-esteem--EST

8. Caring--CAR

Total SOCINT:

Total PDTTOT

Confluence Score--CON

Description of the PDT 8 Part Scores

1. Self-efficacy--the full exercise of control through high personal expectations with the necessary expansion of one's actions to complete task successfully.

2. Coping Skills--individual's possession and ability to develop and use manipulative skills needed to complete many different kinds of tasks successfully.

3. Positive Assertiveness--begins with character education that includes the evils of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs, and with goal setting using positive actions directed at offensive and defensive strategies for goal attainment.

4. Locus of Control--full acceptance and belief that personal success is not a matter of 'luck,' but scientific decision making focused squarely on life goals.

5. Team Member--an individual's continuous acceptance and actions are always in full agreement with values and practices of own group membership, and the team spirit..

6. Sympathy--an individual's continued ability and practice to empathize and feel the pleasures and pains of all people and animals, and the ability to share those feelings..

7. Self-esteem--an individual's perception of peers' depicted worth or feelings of importance of self, and ability and willingness to be a full team member.

8. Caring--whatever happens to one person or animal anywhere in the world is of great importance to all people everywhere.

PDT Profile

The PDT Profile is shown in Figure 2 below. The numbers immediately below the profile are raw scores for the PDT test. The Part Scores range from 1 to 100; so that a score of 50, for example, is just half of what it might be, and the higher the score the better the Personal Development. By examining those scores an individual is able to get a realistic estimate of how well h/she is doing in relation to the PDT test. The Profile above those numbers is based on a McCally Standard Score (T-Score) that ranges from 20 to 80, and is a comparison with one of the six different select norm groups: (1) Adults-Male, Female, or General; and (2) Youth-Male, Female, or General. The "General" norm Includes both male and female individuals; as laws in the united States require the use of such norms in certain situations. The top 16 % have scores above 60, and the bottom 16 percent have scores below 40. An average score includes 68% of norm group and ranges from 40 to 60. By examining the profile, an individual gets a realistic estimate of self in comparison to one of the six norms.

Confluence Score

The notion for the Confluence Score derives from the LIE Score in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (1970), and makes use of 21 pairs of the PDT 200 test items--half of which are direct opposites, and the other half lack agreement with each others in varying degrees. Since the 2 items in each of the 21 pairs are either opposites or lack agreement with each other; the Contingency Score is a measure of the degree to which the Test Taker agrees with self in the taking of the test. If h/she marks one of those items in each of the 21 pairs one way, to agree with fact, h/she must mark the second item of the pair in the opposite direction. Thus, the "Confluence Score" is a measure of agreement with self of the Test Taker. Thus, it is a measure of creditability not only for the test results, but also of the test taker. (Cassel & Blackwell, 2001).

The validity of the Confluence scores is very high as depicted in the data in Table 4 below. Every single score on the PDT correlates negatively at the 0.000 level of confidence with the Confluence Score, and could be used as a substitute for the PDT Test

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

Scores effectively. It also correlates negatively at the 0.000 level of confidence with the Grade Point Average (GPA) of students with an r = -0.262, showing that the better students receive lower Confluence Scores. It represents a real "break through" in the use of computers to test the validity of psychological tests.

Parole Readiness

Today we have maybe Two million prison inmates in the United States, with one million being high school drop-out students. About 80% of these inmates are addicted to substance abuse or drugs, and less than 25% respond effectively to treatment programs. Typically, veteran addicts are considered to be Neuro-Psychiatric Patients, and where Second Force Psychology is most effective basis for treatment. When and if they are able to escape the addiction, they clearly become Third Force Psychology patients or individuals, and it is only then when they become eligible for successful parole.

Confluence Score

The first requisite for parole readiness is a Confluence Score of less than 13. When records of individuals with scores greater than 13 are included in a group analysis of data for either DISS or PDT the reliability of test scores is no longer statistically significant.

If parole readiness means that the individual's Personal Development is more like Typical Individuals than it is like that of Prison Inmates, there is asatisfactory indication of parole readiness. The data in Table 5 below shows that when the PDTTOT Score is 390 or less, an individual is not ready for being paroled.

Table 1

Comparing the DISS Means by Use of a t-Statistic

(N = 116 Delinqent Boys, and 215 Typical High School Students)

DISS           Delinquent     Typical H S
Scores         Boys           Students       Difference    t-Statistics

Home & Family-HOM:
M                 55.04          35.39         20.25          11.525
SD                 9.69          17.53
Inner Development--INN:
M                 51.31          42.14          9.17           6.218
SD                 9.94          14.10
Personal Adjustment--PER:
M                 52.90          43.94          8.96           6.265
SD                 9.50          13.71
Health and Well-Being-HEA:
M                 53.14          42.29         10.85           7.183
SD                 7.15          15.39
Internal & Personal--IPTOT:
M                212.90         167.98         44.92          10.762
SD                22.09          47.48
School & Learning-SCH:
M                 53.00          39.61         13.39           8.265
SD                 9.36          16.03
Social Affiliation-SOC:
M                 52.55          37.73         14.82          10.718
SD                 8.47          13.53
Survival & Power-SUR:
M                 57.43          42.38         15.05          10.723
SD                 7.77          13.99
Racial & Class--RAC:
M                 53.41          47.42          5.99           3.674
SD                 8.04          16.53
External & Impersonal-EITOT:
M                216.40         167.98        108.42          10.407
SD                21.69          47.48
DISS Total Score-DISTOT:
M                426.60         328.17         98.43          10.738
SD                49.07          91.86
Confluence Score--CON:
M                 10.55           9.93          0.062          1.427
SD                 5.23           5.23

DISS
Scores         Probability

Home & Family-HOM:
M                 0.000
SD
Inner Development--INN:
M                 0.000
SD
Personal Adjustment--PER:
M                 0.000
SD
Health and Well-Being-HEA:
M                 0.000
SD
Internal & Personal--IPTOT:
M                 0.000
SD
School & Learning-SCH:
M                 0.000
SD
Social Affiliation-SOC:
M                 0.000
SD
Survival & Power-SUR:
M                 0.000
SD
Racial & Class--RAC:
M                 0.000
SD
External & Impersonal-EITOT:
M                 0.000
SD
DISS Total Score-DISTOT:
M                 0.000
SD
Confluence Score--CON:
M               n.s.
SD

Table 2

Comparing the DISS Mean Scores by Use of a t-Statistic

(N = 57 Delinquent Girls, and 215 Typical High School Students)

DISS            Delinquent     Typical H S
Scores          Girls          Students       Difference    t-Statistic

Home & Family-HOM:
M                  53.26          35.39         17.87          7.431
SD                  9.11          17.53
Inner Development-INN:
M                  48.49          42.14          6.35          3.285
SD                  7.21          14.10
Personal Adjustment-PER:
M                  48.63          43.94          4.69          2.448
SD                  8.81          13.71
Health & Well-Being-HEA:
M                  50.04          42.29          7.75          3.699
SD                  6.93          15.39
Internal & Personal-IPTOT:
M                 200.42         163.72         36.70          5.863
SD                 16.47          46.44
School & Learning-SCH:
M                  51.44          39.61         11.83          5.268
SD                 10.65          16.03
Social Affiliation-SOC:
M                  52.40          37.73         14.67          7.765
SD                  8.75          13.53
Survival & Power-SUR:
M                  56.04          42.38         13.66          7.100
SD                  7.45          13.99
Race & Class:RAC:
M                  52.0           47.42          4.58          2.010
SD                  9.04          16.53
External & Impersonal-EITOT:
M                 211.90         167.98         33.92          6.874
SD                 15.86          47.48
DISS Total Score-DISTOT:
M                 412.32         328.17         84.15          6.833
SD                 26.41          91.86
Confluence Score-CON:
M                  10.63           9.93          0.70          1.749
SD                  2.66           2.70

DISS
Scores          Probability

Home & Family-HOM:
M                  0.000
SD
Inner Development-INN:
M                  0.001
SD
Personal Adjustment-PER:
M                  0.015
SD
Health & Well-Being-HEA:
M                  0.000
SD
Internal & Personal-IPTOT:
M                  0.000
SD
School & Learning-SCH:
M                  0.000
SD
Social Affiliation-SOC:
M                  0.000
SD
Survival & Power-SUR:
M                  0.000
SD
Race & Class:RAC:
M                  0.045
SD
External & Impersonal-EITOT:
M                  0.000
SD
DISS Total Score-DISTOT:
M                  0.000
SD
Confluence Score-CON:
M               n.s.
SD

Table 3

Pearson Correlations of DISS Scores
(N=2212)

Variable    (1)     (2)     (3)     (4)     (5)     (6)     (7)

AGE         1000
GENDER      -196    1000
HOM         -179     149    1000
INN         -177     102     529    1000
PER         -213     081     456     691    1000
HEA         -143     043     497     594     718    1000
IPTOT       -215     111     768     817     856     849    1000
SCH         -140     220     531     496     468     511     612
SOC         -201     162     513     608     633     606     715
SUR         -180     174     467     564     621     640     694
RAC         -270     166     547     569     555     516     666
EITOT       -239     220     607     664     680     675     798
DISTOT      -234     166     733     781     803     803     949
CON         -214     171     415     477     456     420     536

Variable    (8)     (9)     (10)    (11)    (12)    (13)

AGE
GENDER
HOM
INN
PER
HEA
IPTOT
SCH         1000
SOC          556    1000
SUR          541     654    1000
RAC          566     635     630    1000
EITOT        787     847     840     845    1000
DISTOT       738     810     801     796     925    1000
CON          426     490     439     525     550     582

* r = 0.062 sig 05 level, and 0.081 sig. 01 level

Table 4

Pearson r's of the PDT Scores and Other Data

(N=2131)

Data &
Scores        (1)     (2)     (3)     (4)     (5)     (6)     (7)

 1.AGE        1000
 2. GENDER    -062    1000
 3. GRADE      529    -040    1000
 4. EFF        154    -165     091    1000
 5. COP        129    -269     113     422    1000
 6. ASS        191    -182     164     341     494    1000
 7. LOC        131    -277     108     401     570     393    1000
 8. PERMAT     188    -294     152     601     837     708     795
 9. TEA        109    -264     097     342     327     125     454
10. SYM        149    -348     116     335     507     362     476
ll. EST        153    -101     142     412     458     414     458
12. CAR        037    -093     017     370     404     298     394
13. SOCINT     091    -113     081     249     271     205     302
14. PDTTOT     185     305     152     599     765     609     757
15. CON       -146     215    -139    -395    -426    -350    -450
16. GPA       -089    -191    -042     247     261     142     217

Data &
Scores        (8)     (9)     (10)    (11)    (12)    (13)    (14)

 1.AGE
 2. GENDER
 3. GRADE
 4. EFF
 5. COP
 6. ASS
 7. LOC
 8. PERMAT    1000
 9. TEA        437    1000
10. SYM        571     363    1000
ll. EST        594     302     288    1000
12. CAR        498     335     444     446    1000
13. SOCINT     368     305     378     374     390    1000
14. PDTTOT     930     594     693     705     683     468    1000
15. CON       -550    -330    -336    -443    -303    -249    -559
16. GPA        276     120     209     161     193     236     274

Data &
Scores        (15)

 1.AGE
 2. GENDER
 3. GRADE
 4. EFF
 5. COP
 6. ASS
 7. LOC
 8. PERMAT
 9. TEA
10. SYM
ll. EST
12. CAR
13. SOCINT
14. PDTTOT
15. CON       1000
16. GPA       -262

* The 05 Sig of r = 0.062, and 01 sig. = 0.081

Table 5

T-Score Equivalencies of Prediction PDF Scores of High-Risk Students

 T-     EFF   COP   ASS   LOC   PER-   TEA   SYM   EST   CAR   SOC
Score                           MAT                            INT

 45
 40                 50                 47    54          49    186
 35     42    52          54    192
 30                                                50
 25
 20

 T-     PDT   CON
Score   TOT

 45
 40     390   10
 35
 30
 25
 20

References

Cassel, R.N. (200la). Third Force Psychology used to foster Hall-Mareks for success serves as the basis for delinquency and crime prevention. Education, 121(4), 642-648.

Cassel, R.N. (2001b). Second Force Psychology to assess cognitive dissonance areas and restore full service to Delinquents and Prison Inmates. Education, 121(4),649-651.

Cassel, R.N., & Chow, P. (2002a). The Cognitive Dissonance Test (DISS). Chula Vista, California: The Cassel Research Institute.

Cassel, R.N., & Chow, P.(2002b). The Personal Development Test (PDT). Chula Vista, California: The Cassel Research Institute.

Cassel, R.N., & Blackwell, J. (2001).The LIE Score on the PDT serves as an index for creditability of Test Taker and Test Results. Education, 122(2), 296-298.

Dewey, John (1938). Experience in Education. New York: MacMillan

DSM-IV (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. New York: Harper and Row.

Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1970). Multiphasic Inventory (MMPI). New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Hilgard, E. R. (1977). Psychology' s influence on educational practices: A puzzling history. Education, 97(3), 203-219.

Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingency management in the classroom. Education, 90(2), 93.10-0.

Taylor, Eugene (1992). Transpersonal Psychology: It's Several Virtues. The Humanistic Psychologist, 20(2), 285-300.

Russell N. Cassel, Ed.D, ABPP, FASP, The Cassel Research Institute, (Where Today is Tomorrow in Health Care), Chula Vista.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Russell N. Cassel, The Cassel Research Institute, 1362 Santa Cruz Court, Chula Vista, CA 91910.