125
126 6.9.2 Hypothesis 9, 9.1 and 9.2
As hypothesis 9 is stated in terms of the difference in self-esteem scores for repeat offenders who have a high need for acceptance from significant others who have or have not been in trouble with the law it was necessary to exclude the participants who rated the “need for acceptance” items (items 14 and 15) in the Multivariate and General Information Questionnaire as “not important”. Participants who rated these items as “very important” and
“important” were included as they both indicate a positive need for acceptance from significant others. This resulted in a subset of 72 for the assessment of differences related to family and a subset of 63 for the assessment of differences related to peers.
Sub-hypothesis 9.1 states that repeat offenders with a high need for familial acceptance from parents or siblings who were in trouble with the law will show significantly higher self- esteem scores in comparison to those who do not have parents or siblings who were in trouble with the law. As siblings and parents both qualify as family, the responses that stated an important or very important need for acceptance from family were included.
Table 33
t-test to Compare Mean Self-Esteem Scores of Repeat Offenders with a High Need for Familial Acceptance in terms of Siblings in Trouble with the Law
Siblings in trouble with the law N Mean self-esteem score SD t-score p-value
Yes 29 58.90 17.07 -1.070 .144
No 43 62.98 15.02
N=72
The results from Table 33 show that although self-esteem for participants who did not have siblings in trouble with the law was higher than those who did, the difference is not statistically significant.
Table 34
t-test to Compare Mean Self-Esteem Scores of Repeat Offenders with a High Need for Familial Acceptance in terms of Parents in Trouble with the Law
Parents in trouble with the law N Mean self-esteem score SD t-score p-value
Yes 20 61.20 15.25 -.044 .483
No 52 61.38 16.27
N=72
127
Although the difference is smaller, Table 34 similarly shows a non-significant difference between participants with parents who were in trouble with the law and those who were not.
It can therefore be concluded that sub-hypothesis 9.1 is not supported as repeat offenders with a high need for acceptance from family with siblings and parents who were in trouble with the law did not have statistically significantly higher self-esteem scores than those who did not have siblings and parents who were in trouble with the law. In fact the mean self- esteem scores show a pattern toward the opposite direction, with those with siblings in trouble with the law having a mean self-esteem of 58.90 against 62.98 for those with siblings not in trouble with the law. A similar pattern was found for parents in trouble with the law although the difference was smaller.
Sub-hypothesis 9.2 states that repeat offenders with a high need for peer acceptance from friends who were in trouble with the law will show significantly higher self-esteem scores in comparison to those who do not have friends who were in trouble with the law. The results for the t-test are presented in Table 35 below.
Table 35
t-test to Compare Mean Self-Esteem Scores of Repeat Offenders with a High Need for Peer Acceptance in terms of Friends in Trouble with the Law
Friends in trouble with the law N Mean self-esteem score SD t-score p-value
Yes 43 58.42 15.71 -1.922 .030*
No 20 66.60 15.75
n=63
* = p ≤ 0.05
The results presented in Table 35 show that sub-hypothesis 9.2 is not supported. Although a statistically significant result was found, repeat offenders with a high need for acceptance from peers with friends who were in trouble with the law had significantly lower self-esteem scores than those who did not have friends who were in trouble with the law. This relationship therefore moves in the opposite direction to what was hypothesised.
The findings from sub-hypotheses 9.1 and 9.2 run counter to what has been recorded in the literature. It was postulated that due to Rogers’ (1951:499) emphasis on significant others as a source of evaluative criteria that if repeat offenders had significant others who had also been in trouble with the law that they would not be deviating too drastically from what is considered normative or acceptable behaviour and the negative effects on self-esteem would
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.