The following discussion will assess the effect of parental closeness on self-esteem. It is postulated in hypothesis 7 that the level of parental closeness experienced by the repeat offenders will be significantly related to self-esteem scores. This section will begin with a presentation of the descriptive data related to the answers given by the repeat offenders regarding their feelings of closeness to both their mother figure and father figure. Thereafter,
120
sub-hypotheses 7.1 relating to maternal closeness and 7.2 relating to paternal closeness will be presented along with the ANOVA results used to test the validity of these sub-hypotheses.
6.7.1 Descriptive Data
The information provided in Table 27 refers to the feelings of closeness the repeat offenders experienced with their mothers and fathers or respective parental figures. The item was scored on a Likert type scale which included four options namely “very close”, “close”, “not close” and “not applicable”. Participants were allowed to select the “not applicable” option if their mother or father was completely absent due to loss, abandonment or parental separation.
Table 27
Feelings of Closeness to Mother and Father
Variable Very close Close Not Close Not Applicable
N % N % N % N %
Closeness to mother 52 71.23 12 16.44 6 8.22 3 4.11
Closeness to father 28 38.36 16 21.92 19 26.03 10 13.7
N=73
As the information in Table 27 indicates, the majority of repeat offenders (71.23%) have a
“very close” relationship with their mother figures. The same can however not be said for the feelings of closeness to father figures although a higher number (38.36%) of repeat offenders classified their relationship with their father figures as “very close” than any other available option. This may be due to the higher probability of fathers being employed than mothers (see Table 25), thus creating a situation whereby the participants would potentially spend more time with their mother figures. Migrant labour may also contribute to the possible time participants have to spend with their father figures as many individuals from rural areas tend to find employment outside of their residential area and may often stay away from home for prolonged periods of time (Montgomery, Hosegood, Busza & Timaeus, 2006:2412; Posel, Fairburn & Lund, 2004:1).
6.7.2 Hypothesis 7, 7.1 and 7.2
As this hypothesis refers to the presence of a parental figure of which to rate the level of closeness to, the “not applicable” responses were excluded from the analysis. Sub-hypothesis 7.1 postulates that repeat offenders who have high levels of closeness to their mother figure
121
will have higher self-esteem scores than repeat offenders who are not close to their mother figure.
Table 28
Comparison between Self-Esteem scores of Repeat Offenders and Closeness to Mother Figure
Closeness Mean self-esteem score SD F-statistic p-value
Very close 62.38 15.67 2.202 .119
Close 52.67 13.84
Not close 66.00 19.23
n=70
Sub-hypothesis 7.1 is not supported in light of the information presented in Table 28. The p- value that is greater than .05 indicates that the mean self-esteem scores for the repeat offenders with varying levels of closeness to their mother figure did not differ statistically significantly.
Closeness to father figure is examined by sub-hypothesis 7.2 that states that repeat offenders with high levels of closeness to their father figure will have higher self-esteem scores than repeat offenders who are not close to their father figure.
Table 29
Comparison between Self-Esteem scores of Repeat Offenders and Closeness to Father Figure Closeness Mean self-esteem score SD F-statistic p-value
Very close 62.38 14.03 1.524 .226
Close 52.67 17.68
Not close 57.89 14.69
n=63
Similarly, sub-hypothesis 7.2 has also not been supported due to the differences in mean self- esteem score between repeat offenders with varying degrees of closeness to their father figures being non-significant. With no statistical support for both sub-hypotheses 7.1 and 7.2 it can be concluded that there is no significant relationship between parental closeness and the self-esteem scores of repeat offenders.
This finding is not in accordance with the theoretical perspectives of Freud, Erikson, Sellin and Miller who, like Rogers, emphasise the importance of the parent child relationship in healthy psychological development (Brown et al., 1998:321; Larsen & Buss, 2005:297;
122
Peacock, 2006:33; Williams & McShane, 2010:53). Rogers (1951:499) has also placed significant importance on the influence of the primary caregivers as significant others from which the core evaluative criteria are obtained which impacts on self-esteem development and maintenance. The explanation for this finding could however contain a number of elements from various perspectives. Being individuals who have transgressed the law on several occasions and therefore in many instances spent extended periods of time in correctional facilities on multiple occasions, the life experiences of repeat offenders can be said to have a negative effect on social bonds. The total institutional nature of correctional facilities, the negative social responses to repeat offenders associated with deviant labelling and the isolation experienced by a number of offenders whose families do not have the physical or financial means to visit them in the correctional centres could cause a breakdown in family bonds. This explanation is grounded in perspectives similar to those purported by Hirschi in his social control theory which states that a deterioration of social bonds can result in an increased propensity for criminal behaviour due to non-compliance of individuals to the conventional norms and values of society (Williams & McShane, 2010:155). This could lead to the repeat offenders negating the family and society as a source of conditions of worth thereby decreasing the effect any relationships of this nature will have on the self-evaluative process.