Negative life events and self-control as correlates of self-assessed re-offending probability among Finnish prisoners
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370809354139 |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| Author | Henrik Linderborg,Janne Kivivuori |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
Negative life events and
7(2) 123–139
© The Author(s) 2010
self-control as correlates of
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav
self-assessed re-offending
DOI: 10.1177/1477370809354139
http://euc.sagepub.com
probability among
Finnish prisoners
Janne Kivivuori
National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Finland
Henrik Linderborg
Criminal Sanctions Agency, Finland
Abstract
This article examines the correlates of self-assessed re-offending probability (SARP) in a sample of
Finnish short-term prisoners. The research focuses on the role of factors related to social control
when individual self-control is held constant, and explores how selected prison activities relate to
SARP. The associations between social control and re-offending probability manifest some erosion
when self-control and criminality are factored in, a finding that replicates prior studies. However,
several variables capturing a person’s ties to social control institutions remained robust correlates
of SARP. Having many siblings, living in a nuclear family during childhood, parental supervision during
childhood and youth, and avoiding negative events in adulthood appear to reduce the number of
offences projected to the future. In prison, work participation, participation in alcohol abuse treatment,
and remorse for past crimes are associated with reduced SARP. We draw on cross-sectional data
combining a quantitative survey (N = 351) and qualitative interviews (N = 37).
Keywords
desistance, prisoners, self-assessed re-offending propensity
A considerable amount of research has addressed the question of desistance from crimi-
nality. Recent research on desistance processes has underlined the importance of subjec-
tive processes making the termination of a criminal career adequate at the level of
meaning. It would seem that an intention or resolution to desist has relevance from the
point of view of desistance studies. After all, a complete lack of optimism about one’s
Corresponding author:
Janne Kivivuori, Research Director, National Research Institute of Legal Policy, POB 444, FI-00531 Helsinki, Finland.
Email: janne.kivivuori@om.fi
124
European Journal of Criminology 7(2)
chances of desisting easily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy by depriving the person of
human agency. It has been suggested that a modicum of positive illusions about one’s
capabilities may yield better outcomes when faced with adversity (Taylor and Armor,
1996). A recent study by LeBel et al. (2008) indicated that belief in one’s ability to desist
may be a necessary if not a sufficient condition for success. Some will to desist is needed
for desistance, even though the intention may be unrealistic when bearing in mind the
structurally given life-chances of an ex-convict.
In this article, we examine factors that appear to be associated with the self-assessed
likelihood of future re-offending among Finnish short-term prisoners. Three factors and
their association with self-assessed re-offending will be explored: negative events that
tend to disconnect people from social institutions; individual behavioural characteristics;
and participation in prison activities aimed at integrating the inmate into mainstream
society. Of particular interest is whether the possible associations between negative
social events and future offending are robust in the presence of variables capturing indi-
vidual variation in self-control and criminality. Cross-sectional survey data and qualita-
tive interviews with prisoners are utilized.
Introduction
From the point of view of criminal justice practices and crime prevention, it is important
to know why some prisoners desist from crime whereas others do not. According to
Farrall and Bowling (1999: 254), a theory of criminal desistance could enable criminal
policy to be fine-tuned for the purpose of reducing offending. Sometimes the predictors
of desistance are grouped into two groups of variables: structural factors and individual
decision-making (Farrall and Bowling, 1999: 258). Related conceptualization uses three
categories. First, social structural and situational factors often operate through control.
Second, factors related to relatively stable personality features of the individual are at
play. Third, there is a residue of unexplained variance, which is sometimes labelled
human agency, decision or free will. The interplay of these factors can be discussed
under the conceptual aegis of social causation and social selection.
Social causation and selection
Much of the overall theoretical debate on criminology has revolved around the relative
importance of social structural and individual personality factors. The terms of the debate
were initially defined by the publication of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s monograph A
General Theory of Crime (1990). According to that theory, self-control as a stable per-
sonality feature explains variance in criminality and, therefore, in the probability of
desistance as well. Research suggests that the level of self-control is a relatively stable
personality trait (Turner and Piquero, 2002). Self-control theory has found considerable
empirical support in longitudinal studies showing that low self-control hinders desis-
tance (Morizot and Le Blanc, 2007: 65; Piquero et al., 2007: 83). In recent American
research, it has been found that low self-control predicts parole failure when a wide rep-
ertoire of other risk factors is held constant (Langton, 2006). From the point of view of
self-control theory, correlations between social ties and criminality are potentially spurious,
Kivivuori and Linderborg
125
reflecting pre-existing differences in personality traits and assortative processes based on
those differences. Entering and remaining in the sphere of social control institutions may
reflect individual self-selection towards (or away from) such affiliations. People are not
passive in their relation to control: some of us actively avoid control (Kerr and Stattin,
2000) and are tacitly or overtly rejected from social control institutions such as employ-
ment and families.
The standard sociological response to the rise of the self-control theory has been to
see what happens when both self-control and social ties are simultaneously analysed.
The inclusion of self-control typically lessens the link between social variables and
crime/desistance, but does not eliminate it completely (Kazemian, 2007: 13–14). The
extensive longitudinal researches by Sampson and Laub (Laub and Sampson, 2003;
Sampson and Laub, 1993) provide a paradigmatic exemplar of this phenomenon. They
show that life-course events such as family formation, gaining employment and positive
social integration experiences in the army reduce the likelihood of re-offending, net of
individual personality traits. This is owing to the social control exerted by such institu-
tions. Personality is not destiny. What happens in adult life influences the likelihood of
crime, net of stable dispositional traits (Laub and Sampson, 2001: 23). Laub and Sampson
contrasted their findings with psychological accounts by stressing their theoretical com-
mitment to the idea of social malleability across the life course (Laub and Sampson,
2001: 44–5). In defending the irreducible social realm, sociological criminologists have
corroborated both selective and causal interpretations of the link between social ties and
crime risk. Arguably, the clash between self-control theory and its critics has produced a
synthesis of control selection interpretation that acknowledges the importance of both
individual traits and social control/life events.
The role of agency
Related questions have also been discussed as the so-called chicken and egg problem of
desistance: some argue that offenders first decide to desist and this decision increases
their likelihood of entering good marriages or staying in good jobs (LeBel et al., 2008:
135). According to the strong subjective model, offenders with a mindset to desist self-
select themselves into contact with social control institutions (LeBel et al., 2008: 138).
The terms of this debate are roughly analogous with the stable personality versus social
situation debate, but here more voluntariness is attributed to the individual, so that his or
her decision reflects free will. Some qualitative studies reveal that offenders strongly
emphasize their ‘free will’ to knife-off the past as the major cause of desistance (Laub
and Sampson, 2001: 29).
Qualitative research on prisoners has underlined the need to study both subjective
factors, such as motivation, and environmental social changes, such as getting married
and getting a job (LeBel et al., 2008: 132). Individual-level changes in identity and cog-
nition are potentially important predictors of desistance. The findings of LeBel et al.
(2008: 154) suggest that measures of the mindset of men about to leave prison are at least
marginally significant predictors of post-release success. Importantly for our study,
LeBel et al. found that belief in one’s ability to ‘go straight’, or belief in self-efficacy,
may be a necessary if not a sufficient condition for the individual to be able to desist from
126
European Journal of Criminology 7(2)
crime. Maruna et al. (2004: 274) have used the concept of ‘secondary desistance’ to
describe subjective identity changes often associated with successful desistance.
Emphasizing the subjective dimensions...
To continue reading
Request your trial