The descriptive data related to the levels of exposure to the correctional environment is presented in section 5.6 of the previous chapter (see Table 12 and Table 13). Hypothesis 2 states that repeat offenders with high levels of exposure to the correctional environment will have significantly higher self-esteem scores than those with less exposure to the correctional environment. Two sub-hypotheses were therefore formulated to assess the number of times the repeat offenders had previously been in prison (sub-hypothesis 2.1) and how long the repeat offenders had been incarcerated for at that stage for the sentence they were serving (sub-hypothesis 2.2).
6.2.1 Hypothesis 2, 2.1 to 2.2
It is postulated, in hypothesis 2.1 that repeat offenders with a high number of previous incarcerations will have significantly higher self-esteem scores than repeat offenders who have fewer previous incarcerations. The results for the analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the mean self-esteem scores for the number of previous incarcerations are presented in Table 19.
Table 19
Comparison between Self-Esteem scores for Number of Previous Incarcerations of Repeat Offenders
Previous incarcerations N Mean self-esteem score SD F-statistic p-value
None 3 74.67 16.65 1.204 .317
Once 18 61.33 12.50
Twice 24 64.33 16.84
Three times 14 58.00 18.01
Four or more 14 56.86 14.65
N=73
The results from the ANOVA indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in mean self-esteem scores between the various numbers of previous incarcerations. Further
111
analysis on the direction of the data using a Spearman’s correlation found a non-significant negative correlation, rs = -.187, p = .114, two-tailed. This indicates that self-esteem actually decreases as the number of previous incarcerations increase, thus failing to support hypothesis 2.1.
Furthermore, sub-hypothesis 2.2 states that repeat offenders who have spent a longer period of time in the correctional centre for their current offence will have significantly higher self- esteem scores than those who have only been incarcerated for a short period of time.
Table 20
Comparison between Self-Esteem scores for Time Spent by Repeat Offenders in Incarceration for their Current Sentences
Time in incarceration N Mean self-esteem score SD F-statistic p-value
Less than 6 months 26 59.69 16.65 3.361 .014*
6 to 12 months 17 56.71 12.50
12 to 18 months 5 53.60 16.84
19 to 24 months 3 49.33 18.01
More than 2 years 22 70.36 14.65
N=73
* = p ≤ 0.05
The results presented in Table 20 indicate a statistically significant difference between lengths of time currently spent in incarceration and thereby provides support for sub- hypothesis 2.2. A Spearman’s correlation supports this finding and with a positive correlation indicates that repeat offenders who spend more time in incarceration tend to have an increased level of self-esteem, rs = .244, p = .037, two-tailed. It is also worthwhile to notice the pattern of the mean scores presented in Table 20. The sharp decrease in mean self-esteem scores for the 12-18 months and 19-24 months groups could be due to the small size of the groups. The significantly high score in the “more than 2 years” subset does however support the finding with an adequate number of participants as well.
The results for sub-hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2 provide mixed support in relation to existing empirical perspectives. The result from sub-hypothesis 2.1 does not support the views of MacKenzie and Goodstein (1985), Oser (2006) and Oliver et al. (2007) which state that familiarity with the correctional environment would positively influence self-esteem due to an increase in knowledge of the system and expectations of the environment. Sub-hypothesis 2.2 on the other hand does however provide support for this perspective.
112
The result from sub-hypothesis 2.2 can be explained by considering the role of individual coping mechanisms such as accommodation and immunisation (Greve & Enzman, 2003;
Greve et al., 2001). These mechanisms were found to be similar to Rogers’ defensive mechanisms and the neutralisation techniques of Sykes and Matza (see 3.3). Accommodation refers to the ability of individuals to adjust their own value system to minimise the dissonance experienced due to a new contradictory experience in order to incorporate it into the self. Immunisation on the other hand allows the individual to entirely ignore the new experience by denying or excusing it as a result of factors external to the self and therefore out of the individual’s control (Greve et al, 2001:753).
The difference in the result of sub-hypothesis 2.1 could however be explained by taking into account the effect of community treatment as an additional factor. Rogers (1951) often refers to the importance of the perceptions of others in self-esteem development and states that the need for this acceptance has the ability to influence individuals to alienate their own beliefs in replacement for those deemed more attractive by those with whom the individuals interact with in their communities. This leads to the inclusion of the impact of negative labeling and stigmatisation. The continuous exiting and re-entering of the repeat offender into the correctional environment may influence the community’s perception of the individual’s capacity to change entrenching the negative stereotypes into the community members’ minds.
As purported by Lemert, the continuous negative social reactions may lead to feelings of resentment towards community members responsible for the continued stigmatisation but not a cessation in deviant behaviour. This continuous interplay between deviant behaviour and negative social reaction eventually results in the internalising of deviant stigmas and acceptance of the associated label as a core identity (Brown et al., 1998:348; Williams &
McShane, 2010:115).
In order to assess this perspective it is recommended that future research employ a longitudinal approach and assess the inmates’ self-esteem at different time intervals during incarceration as well as upon release. This will allow for a more precise understanding of the effect of various community related factors on self-esteem development. The extent of the use of various defensive mechanisms or individual coping mechanisms should also be taken into account to establish the magnitude of the effect such variables have on self-esteem maintenance.
113