128
therefore be minimised. This was however found not to be the case in terms of the results derived from the sample of this study. A result of this nature might therefore be due to a stronger adherence to conventional norms and values than expected, despite personal behaviour and that of significant others. To use aspects of Cloward and Ohlins’ differential opportunity theory as well as the perspectives of researchers supporting the relationship between an unstable or false high self-esteem and offending behaviour (Baumeister et al., 1996:8; Bruce, 2006:34; Salmivalli, 2001:390), repeat offenders who also hold deviant associations may therefore not entirely replace the beliefs of conventional society with opposing beliefs of a subculture but rather mask the failure to succeed within the socially accepted framework with a display of total deviance. This may result in society placing negative labels on these individuals based on their outward behaviour which may not be reflective of their internal belief system.
It may therefore be useful to include supporting qualitative data such as in-depth interviewing to explore further perceptions of family and peers to gain an understanding of how the participants feel about these individuals and the degree to which they associate with their behaviour. This may allow for the researcher to determine the level of commitment of the participants to the norms and values of significant others and how these relate or contrast with conventional society allowing for a better understanding of the presence of deviant norms and values and their ability to neutralise the negative effects of deviant behaviour on self-evaluations.
129
distributions for the variables pertaining to abuse prior to incarceration will be provided, followed by the results of the t-tests and ANOVA’s respectively.
6.10.1 Descriptive Data
Participants were asked to state whether or not they felt they had experienced any form of abuse prior to incarceration. The importance of perception is again very relevant here as it is the perception of an experience as negative (abusive) that will determine the effect on self- evaluation (Rogers, 1951:492). The descriptive bivariate data pertaining to experiences of abuse prior to incarceration shows that a majority of participants (n=41) had experienced some form of abuse before incarceration (56.16%).
Participants who confirmed that they had experienced some form of abuse prior to incarceration were requested to specify what type of abuse they had experienced. Responses were collected and grouped according to type. Physical abuse by family and community members were categorised under the “physical” grouping, whereas responses relating to poor treatment by family members in terms of neglect, unfair restrictions, lack of support, verbal attacks and being prohibited to go to school were categorised as “family related” abuse. Some participants who experienced abuse prior to incarceration felt that the loss or separation of their parents or family members was an abusive or victimising experience and were categorised under the “loss” grouping. Further responses included those related to sexual abuse, witnessing violence, property theft, negative treatment by neighbours and not knowing his surname. The frequencies and distributions of the categories are presented in Table 39.
Table 36
Type of Abuse before Incarceration
Variable N %
Physical abuse 17 23.29
Family related 14 19.18
Loss of family 8 10.96
Sexual abuse 1 1.37
Witnessed violence 3 4.11
Theft of property 4 5.48
Treatment by neighbours 1 1.37
Unknown surname 1 1.37
n=49
130
As it can be deduced by considering the information provided in Table 36, the most common form of abuse experienced by participants was physical in nature (23.29%) followed by the family related factors (19.18%) and the loss of family due to death or separation (10.96%).
The remaining experiences perceived as being abusive were each experienced by a small number of participants with none of the remaining categories exceeding 6% representation.
The increased number of cases from 41 to 49 indicates that some of the participants had experienced more than one different type of abuse.
6.10.2 Hypothesis 10, 10.1 and 10.2
Hypothesis 10 states that repeat offenders who experience abuse prior to incarceration will have a significantly lower level of self-esteem compared to repeat offenders who have not experienced abuse. Experience of abuse has been operationalised to include all perceived experiences whether they be direct or vicarious. Sub-hypothesis 10.1 postulates that repeat offenders who had experienced abuse from family members would have significantly lower self-esteem than those who did not experience abuse from family members. In order to test this hypothesis it becomes necessary to group all participants who experienced abuse from family members into one group and compare the mean self-esteem scores to participants who experienced other forms of abuse and victimisation as well as those who had experienced no victimisation.
Table 37
Comparison between Self-Esteem scores of Repeat Offenders who were Abused by Family Members, Experienced Other Abuse and were Not Abused
Variable N Mean self-esteem score SD F-statistic p-value
Family abuse 22 61.64 17.00 .203 .816
Other victimisation 22 59.64 13.46
No victimisation 29 62.48 16.85
N=73
The results from Table 37 indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between repeat offenders who had experienced abuse from family members and those who had experienced other forms of victimisation as well as repeat offenders who felt that they had not experienced any victimisation either before incarceration or during their sentence.
Therefore, sub-hypothesis 10.1 cannot be supported.
131
Sub-hypothesis 10.2 postulates that repeat offenders who had experienced abuse before incarceration would have lower self-esteem than those who did not experience abuse before this time. The result of the t-test on the bivariate responses provided by the participants is presented in Table 38.
Table 38
t-test to Compare Mean Self-Esteem Scores of Repeat Offenders who Experienced Abuse Before Incarceration and those who Did Not
Abuse before incarceration N Mean self-esteem score SD t-score p-value
Yes 41 60.98 15.59 -.240 .406
No 32 61.88 16.26
N=73
The results from Table 38 show that there was no statistically significant difference between the mean self-esteem scores for repeat offenders who had experienced abuse before incarceration and those who had not. Hypothesis 10.2 is therefore not supported.
The results of the statistical analysis for the sub-hypotheses of hypothesis 10 indicate a general lack of support for the linkage between self-esteem and direct experiences of abuse.
Though the results for sub-hypotheses 10.1 and 10.2 do not support the sub-hypotheses statements, there may still be a level of agreement with the theoretical and empirical perspectives presented in chapter 2 and 3 of this study. The non-significant results in comparison to those who had not experienced abuse could be explained by considering the current context of the participants. The literature suggests that experiences of abuse will have a negative effect on self-evaluations due to an increase in emotional instability, social dysfunction and reliance on psychological defence mechanisms (Rogers, 1951:500; Wade, 2009:175). Such factors may also increase the individual’s propensity to display deviant behaviour or behaviour considered unappealing in general society. Therefore, due to the context in which the participants find themselves, being repeat offenders, the findings could provide support for the view that such negative experiences increase the probability of deviant or criminal behaviour but does not necessarily have a long term negative effect on self-esteem due to the similarity in self-esteem scores for both participants who did and did not directly experience abuse.
132
6.11 Self-Esteem and Experiences of Victimisation Inside the Correctional