56
As one can deduce there is a wide variety of available research that provides support for the relationship between both, high and low levels of self-esteem and offending behaviour. One of the biggest reasons for this wide discrepancy in the findings can be attested to the methodological, analytical and conceptual concerns of the studies. One particular concern is the environment in which the offenders are assessed (Baumeister et al., 1996:5; Bonta &
Gendreau, 1990:348). The cross-sectional nature of much of the research has also been identified as a detracting factor for sound conclusions due to the fluctuating nature of self- esteem. The popular perception that low self-esteem is related to offending behaviour has also been found to affect researcher analysis, as many clear indicators of high self-esteem as mentioned earlier in the section on violent offences (see 3.2.1) are overlooked or simply not included due to the narrow conceptualisation of the self-esteem factor (Baumeister et al., 1996:15). Furthermore, the psychological understanding required for research of this nature has also come into question with researchers from historical, sociological and even political orientations researching such phenomenon (Baumeister et al., 1996:24). Therefore, in order to perform research in the prison environment it is essential to understand, acknowledge or attempt to control for the effect of the incarceration experience on self-esteem as well as other confounding methodological, analytical and conceptual factors mentioned.
57
Whilst numerous reports refer to the poor living conditions in prisons and the frequency of human rights abuses, there is evidence in the literature of research that refutes the negative effects of long-term incarceration on individual levels of self-esteem. In a literary review, Bonta and Gendreau (1990:359) concluded that there was little evidence to suggest a negative effect of long-term imprisonment on the individual. This conclusion was however obtained through the critical view of sampling, analytical and methodological considerations of the observed studies rather than in light of more compelling research.
A study of French inmates detained in different conditions established a link between type of detainment and self-esteem. Data was drawn from five subsets, namely convicted offenders held in isolation and those not in isolation, individuals awaiting trial held in isolation and those not in isolation as well as convicted offenders allowed to work outside of the prison (Blatier, 2000:101). Results showed that those who were allowed to work outside of the prison scored the highest on the self-esteem scale, followed by both non-isolated subsets that obtained similar scores. However, the only significantly different self-esteem scores were those of the convicted inmates held in isolation. These inmates had distinctly lower levels of self-esteem than the other inmates did in the different conditions (Blatier, 2000:103).
Additionally, time related variables have also been found to have a significant impact on level of self-esteem. Oliver et al., (2007:309) found in a comparative study of sexual murderers and rapists that offenders who had spent more time in prison tended to have higher levels of self-esteem. This was attributed to time taken to acclimatise with the conditions in prison and get used to the way of life and develop a routine.
Familiarity with the prison environment can also be seen to have an effect on self-esteem.
Oser (2006:346) purported that inmates who have had extensive exposure to the correctional setting such as repeat offenders or “state raised offenders” as they were referred to in the study, have a higher level of self-esteem. The explanation with the most support highlights the importance of considering individual coping resources (Greve & Enzman, 2003:12).
MacKenzie and Goodstein (1985) were of the opinion that individual differences could not be ignored when considering inmate reactions to imprisonment. It was found that inmates entered the prison system with varied levels of preparation and prior knowledge of the system (either direct or indirect) and those who were less prepared were often most negatively affected (MacKenzie & Goodstein, 1985:400). Results from the study showed that long-term offenders in the early stages of their sentences had a significantly lower level of self-esteem
58
and were more prone to psychological issues such as depression (MacKenzie & Goodstein, 1985:406). Thus providing support for the perspective that self-esteem increases with the length of time spent in prison.
Another significant individual coping resource found to influence the degree to which self- esteem is affected during incarceration is accommodation and immunisation. Similar to Rogers’ defensive mechanisms and the neutralisation techniques of Sykes and Matza, the concept of 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, Enzmann, & Hosser, 2001:753). Greve et al., (2001) concluded in their study of 299 inmates that the use of accommodative strategies and a high level of immunising tendency were positively correlated with self- esteem. These factors were furthermore found to be used by some offenders in a correlational manner. In other words, it was established that those inmates who did not score highly in accommodation tendencies used immunising tendencies earlier on in their sentences to stabilise their sense of self. Whereas those who did use accommodative processes earlier on in their sentences were seen to begin to use immunising tendencies as their release dates drew nearer as they would need to begin to justify their behaviour to society (Greve et al., 2001:758). Self-esteem at the beginning of the sentence is said to decrease sharply if the individual is less inclined to use accommodative strategies and unable to immunise the situation. However a decrease in immunisation need not be interpreted in a negative light as this may indicate the individuals realisation of responsibility for and wrongfulness of their offending behaviour (Greve et al., 2001:760).
Lastly, the social reaction to those who were incarcerated needs to be included when exploring the effect of incarceration on offender self-esteem and recidivism. As mentioned in the previous chapter the effects of negative labeling or the stigmatisation that accompanies inmates may be far reaching with a negative effect on self-esteem (see 2.4.2.2). Inmates serving short sentences can thereby be said to be most at risk of developing a negative self- esteem, as they may not have sufficient time inside the correctional centre to benefit from rehabilitation programmes or to accommodate to the environment but still leave with the criminal label firmly attached. It has long been acknowledged that previous incarceration
59
elicits a stigmatising response from society and that this type of response may limit the ex- offenders chances of reintegrating and becoming a contributing member of society (Roberts
& Jackson, 1991:558). Because of the overwhelming strength of the deviant label, the offender requires family to assist and support in portraying the individual in a more positive light to the community. However, it should also be acknowledged that these family factors may have had a significantly negative influence on the individual and contributed to the incarceration in the first place therefore, family related factors linked to self-esteem and recidivism will now be explored in more detail.