“School for crime” - a proposal to investigate the moral development of inmates whilst incarcerated.

Keywords:

Prisonization, Moral disengagement, Moral Reasoning, Inmate Subculture, Incarceration, Moral Development

Aims

The proposed study aims to test Kohlberg and Bandura’s hypotheses simultaneously to determine their relevancy within the inmate population. In response to the lack of research on moral reasoning development within prisons, the study aims to observe the longitudinal effects of prisonization on moral maturity. Moreover, the study will build upon present data by observing the impact of prisonization on moral disengagement.

?

Background

Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, and behaviours that have evolved to suppress and regulate selfishness and to make social life possible. The guidance of these systems on society is seemingly effective as we mostly live in a harmonious state (Graham, et al, 2011). However, one community continues to violate societal values and exploit their environment for personal gain (Walters, 2003). The morality of criminals is often debated within research; the aspired outcome to explain, predict, and reduce criminal behaviour. Despite data supporting different theories, there is a lack of core existential knowledge on why criminals act immorally. Furthermore, in the era of mass incarceration, the term “school for crime” is increasingly alarming, probing the questioning of the effects of prison on an inmate’s moral development (Samenow, 2011).

The term “prisonization” can often be found in studies of incarceration. Defined by Donald Clemmer (1940), prisonization refers to an inmate’s adaptation and adherence to inmate habits, codes, and laws (Mead, 2014; South & Wood, 2006). An integrative approach including deprivation and importation theory has been accepted within literature to explain the phenomena. The approach suggests that prisonization is a product of confinement and isolation from society paired with the ideologies and behaviours brought from the outside world (Clark, 2018; Grapendaal, 1990; Mead, 2014). A substantial quantity of research provides evidence of prisonization, but unfortunately, most highlight the phenomena’s influence on bullying (South & Wood, 2006), rebellion and recidivism (Gillespie, 2002; Mead, 2014).

Within moral theory, it is suggested that the removal of life conditions and society can influence an individual’s identity and morality. It has been identified that increased exposure to a community of people who act immorally, can affect one’s ability to determine right from wrong (Wasif & Graf, 2020). The understanding of morality in prisons is still debated by two controverting hypotheses; the purpose of the proposed study is to test these hypotheses and look at how prisonization affects morality over time.

?

Literature review

Kohlberg’s cognitive moral development theory (CMD)

A preferred theory of morality within research is Kohlberg’s cognitive moral development theory. CMD assumes that children pass through psychosocial stages of development (please see Appendix 3), learning to recognise and differentiate right from wrong as they grow. With each stage, moral maturity increases; compelling one to act by their moral knowledge (Kohlberg, 1986). Thus implying that once developed, the likelihood of engagement in criminal behaviours is reduced. Though the validity of moral reasoning leading to moral action is still deliberated - due to the incapability of reliably measuring the thought processes behind the action - the present data does support a positive relationship between moral thought and action (Reynolds, et al, 2015).

Based upon the assumption that criminals act by personal interest, Kohlberg suggested that criminals are between pre-conventional stages: one and two (Kohlberg, 1986). Walters’ (2003) presented findings in support of this. They found that prisoners often exploit their social environment for personal benefit, thus showing selfish behaviours as CMD hypothesises. South and Wood (2006) found that some inmates were willing to bully their peers to gain social status. Further implying that criminals are more likely to act immorally for their benefit and remain grounded in lower stages of development as Kohlberg suggests. Despite these findings, Aleixo and Norris (2000) found evidence contradicting Kohlberg’s suggestion. Whilst analysing the SRM results of 101 offenders serving a sentence, they found that most participants were at the conventional level, stage three of development. These findings are significant as they pose doubt in the validity of CMD and a range of interpretations can be extracted.

The first interpretation of the research is that Kohlberg’s suggestion of an inmate’s moral development may be incorrect or underdeveloped. Currently, there is little research into the longitudinal effects of prisonization on cognitive moral development. Within Aleixo and Norris’ (2000) study, the offenders were serving a sentence fewer than 4 years in length. Those who were reported as bullies in South and Wood’s (2006) study had an average time of around 8 years in prison (M = 8.29, SD = 9.39). From this disparity, it may be speculated that as a result increased time spent exposed to prisonization, inmates’ moral reasoning may be adversely affected. Walters (2003) found that criminal thinking and identity was more apparent within experienced inmates than new inmates, suggesting a likely correlation between prisonization and adverse moral maturity and reasoning. They speculate that experienced inmates who are re-admitted or serve lengthier sentences may gain acceptance of their criminal status and define themselves by this. The acceptance of criminality, the removal of family and peers – which Kohlberg deems as important to the conventional stage of development (Kohlberg, 1986) – and the adaptation to prisonization to cope with this, could together prevent change and growth toward higher stages. Meanwhile, it could promote a descent in moral reasoning and revert inmates to the pre-conventional levels of development, thus making them less likely to behave through a morally informed manner. Unfortunately, there is little research that directly correlates time exposed to prisonization and unlearning of moral reasoning; thus, the current study will aim to investigate this relationship.

An alternate interpretation from the disparity between Kohlberg and Aleixo’s findings could be that moral reasoning alone is not sufficient in the explanation in immoral behaviour. Within literature, two contradictory points stand against CMD. It is often discussed that emotion, which is not considered by Kohlberg, may influence morality (Prinz, 2007; Baldwin, 2018; Kovacs, et al, 2019; Martin, 2020). It cannot be ignored that people (inmates included) may make immoral decisions due to the emotional intensity of an event. For example, it is known that stress and anxiety can lead to illogical thinking and poor decision making (Visser, et al, 2010). Furthermore, logical thinking may not always be possible due to time restriction, and so impulse causing immorality could occur. By ignoring the emotionalist stance to morals, the ecological validity of CMD is reduced and validity questioned.

Bandura’s social cognitive theory of the moral self

A further interpretation is that CMD fails to acknowledge alternate processes that influence moral behaviour. Contrasting to Kohlberg (1986), Bandura believed that morality and the regulation of conduct involved more processes than moral reasoning alone (Bandura, et al, 1996); concluding that immoral behaviour is not the product of faulty judgement.?He deduced that a theory of morality should specify the mechanisms by which people use. Bandura proposed that moral agency is personified by one’s ability to refrain from behaving inhumanly and the proactive power to behave humanely by the selective activating of self-regulatory systems (Bandura, et al, 1996; Bandura, 2002) and that people regulate their actions through consequential outcomes. One would do things that provide satisfaction and self-worth, but would refrain from conducting oneself in such a way that violates moral standards as this would bring self-censure. To allow oneself to violate their moral standards, an individual must disengage from self-sanctions, by employing at least one of eight disengagement mechanisms as shown in Appendix 2 (Bandura, 2002).

Moral disengagement theory has recently gained momentum in research, however, there is an apparent divide concerning its validity. Reynolds (2014) looked to test moral disengagement alongside CMD theory. Whilst their data presented validation for CMD, it found no evidential support that participants were able to set aside moral knowledge through disengagement mechanisms to allow for engagement in immoral behaviour (Reynolds, et al, 2014). Validly, the researchers reflect on their use of a mild moral situation being a reason for the disproval of Bandura’s hypothesis, as Bandura presents the theory with extremity, rather than an everyday situation (Reynolds, et al, 2014; Bandura, 2002).

Despite a lack of evidence in everyday situations, prison research has shown promise and support for disengagement theory. By researching those who have lower moral competence, research has produced significant yet alarming data that moral disengagement is true (Weill & Haney, 2017; South & Wood, 2006). By exploring the relationship between bullying, prisonization, social status and moral disengagement in prisons, South and Wood (2006) found evidence to suggest that bullying positively correlates with moral disengagement. The data also showed a positive correlation between bullying, desire for social status and time spent in prison. This offers validation for Bandura, as to achieve satisfaction through social status, inmates are disengaging from morality; allowing themselves to bully. The study further supports speculation that inmates who are exposed to prisonization for prolonged periods are at increased risk of moral compromise. Clark (2018) found further evidential support, as those who were exposed to prison sub-culture showed significantly higher moral disengagement levels in comparison to those on the streets. Moreover, they found that moral disengagement increases throughout the time spent incarcerated.

It cannot be denied that the evidence linking prisonization and a decrease in morality is outstanding. However, the probability of disengagement being the sole cause of immorality can be disputed. For example, the evidence for moral disengagement within South and Wood’s (2006) study could be argued as invalid, as the researchers do not consider the probability that immorality is caused by poor moral reasoning. Notably, Reynolds (2014) suggested that measures of moral disengagement are incapable of determining the moral process. By lacking evidential support, the disengagement mechanism proposed may be uncertain, leaving reasonable doubt for Bandura’s theory.

Although literature presents compelling research for CMD and moral disengagement, the ambiguity of whose hypothesis is valid remains evident. The proposed study will aim to provide clarity by testing the hypotheses against each other. It will also look at how external influences and time affect the validity of the hypothesis, showing which has more ecological validity.

?

Research questions

In consideration of the current literature and its apparent gaps, the research will look at the following:

·??????How is moral reasoning/maturity affected by time spent exposed to prisonization?

·??????How is moral disengagement affected by time spent exposed to prisonization?

·??????Is there a more prominent theory apparent within the morality of inmates?

?

Method

Design?

This research will use a cross-sectional correlation approach to investigate the long-term effects of prisonization on moral development. This differs from previous studies as the data will have an increased accuracy measuring the influence of time in prison on moral development. (South & Wood, 2006; Aleixo & Norris, 2000; Reynolds et al, 2014). Furthermore, it will focus on the observation of specific periods within a sentence. It is recognised that cross-sectional research brings extraneous and confounding influences. The research will look to manage these by equally representing each demographic group within data; placing caps where necessary to reduce over-representation of certain groups.

Inmates aged 22 and above serving their first, fifth or ninth year of their prison sentence will be approached with a request to participate. The year of service will be the independent variable. Inmates serving their first year will be observed as they will have less exposure to prisonization, and their moral reasoning scores may be compared to the findings of Aleixo and Norris (2000). South and Woods (2006) found that inmates who averaged at 8.29 years in prison were more likely to bully; these findings indicate poor moral reasoning or moral disengagement, and so the study will investigate this further. The fifth year will be observed to determine when adverse effects commence.

Participants

Prison Wardens from 10 prisons will be contacted to authorise their prisons to be used in the research, subject to the consent of inmates participating.

Brysbaert (2019) suggests that an effect size of d = .4 is a good estimate of the smallest effect size of interest; to meet this minimum, over 25 participants (P’s) are needed per condition. He reflects that research often lacks power due to researchers using the minimum required participants, leaving a lower significance (p=.05) and low replicability (50%), thus affecting validity. To increase statistical power, 300 male inmates will be approached with the request to take part. The research will aim to recruit 50-100 P’s per condition, allowing room for a 50% refusal rate. South and Wood (2006) and Mitchell (2018) found a low refusal and dropout rates; leaving confidence that the research will achieve 70% acceptance.

Materials

Participants will complete a demographic questionnaire and two standard self-administered psychological tests which collect quantitative data. These will be done through pen to paper. Each participant will be presented with the psychological tests in a randomised order to reduce fatigue effects.

Demographic questionnaire

The research will request demographic information from P’s. This will include age, offence, ethnic origin, sentence length, the reason for incarceration, year of current sentence and number of times convicted.

24 -Item Moral Disengagement Scale (Detert et al, 2008)

The scale is based on Bandura’s theory and 1996 scale “Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement”; however, it has been adapted for adult recipients, making it appropriate for the proposed study. It combines the 24 items into a measure propensity to morally disengage and has been discussed to demonstrate high reliability (a =.91) (Reynolds, Dang, Yang, & Leavitt, 2014).

Sociomoral reflection measure (SRM) (Gibbs and Widaman, 1982)

The SRM is a production-task that measures reflective moral thought. The questions probe reasoning values and decisions from P’s by using eight sociomoral norms: affiliation, life, law, legal justice, and conscience. Adapted to be cost-effective and less time-consuming measure, the SRM been praised for its reliability and validity in scoring an individual’s stage of development and sociomoral reflection maturity score (Gibbs, et al, 1984; Aleixo & Norris, 2000).

Procedure

P’s will first be presented with an information sheet describing the nature of the study and a consent form. All P’s will be informed that there are no correct answers and that they are encouraged to answer honestly. Upon signing, they will complete the tests. The P’s will not have a time limit for completion but will be informed that deliberation over a question is not necessary. Following the completion of the tests, P’s will place them in a personal envelope and will be given a debrief sheet to keep.

Data analysis

As with previous research (South & Wood, 2006; Aleixo & Norris, 2000), Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation (PPMC) will be used as the primary data analysis method within the study. This method has previously produced reliable and significant results. Scatterplots will be used to ensure that there are linear relationships; Spearman’s Rank Correlation will be considered if the relationship is non-linear. Outliers will be screened for and removed so that they cannot influence results. The data will be subjected to descriptive statistical analysis and reliability analysis as South and Woods (2006) carried out, to ensure confidence in the reliability and validity of the data gathered. SSPS will be used for data analysis.

Ethics

The proposed study will comply with the BPS codes of ethics and conduct of human research (BPS, 2016;18). Transparency will be offered through information and debrief sheets informing P’s of the nature of the study. Procedures for consent, confidentiality and anonymity will be strictly followed. Consent must be received from warden and participants. P’s will be re-assured that answers remain confidential i.e., they will not be shown to prison staff. P’s will be instructed to not put names on tests so that they remain unidentifiable. The information and debrief sheet will instruct the P’s of their right to withdraw up to ten days after the study. The debrief sheet will also include information and support lines should the P’s feel distressed. Risk assessments will be run in partnership with the warden to reduce harm before commencing research. Those advised as having a limited capacity and/or severe mental health issues will not be invited to participate.

Research Outcomes:

In reflection of Kohlberg (1986) and Aleixo and Norris’ (2000) disparity of findings on an inmates’ stage of development, it can first be hypothesised that a change of moral reasoning stage may occur due to time spent in prison. Based on previous studies (South & Wood, 2006; Clark, 2018; Weill & Haney, 2017), it can be further hypothesised that moral disengagement levels change as time spent in prison increases. Should the research present these findings, this would suggest that moral reasoning and moral disengagement simultaneously affect an inmates’ morality, and this could be further impacted by prison.

The primary outcome for the proposed study is the contribution to the knowledge of morality in areas where evidence lacked. The research will answer the ambiguity of Kohlberg’s theory: what developmental stage an offender is at and whether a reverse in development is plausible or whether there is an alternate mechanism influencing immoral behaviour. The study will also contribute to the understanding of moral disengagement theory (Bandura, et al, 1996) by researching external influences on moral disengagement.

It is hoped that the research project has an impact on the judicial and prison system. Martin (2020) suggests that moral development is a relevant factor when conducting risk assessments with inmates. The findings of this project may contribute to moral knowledge and allow prisons to assess their inmates with more accuracy, promoting the safety of corrections officers and other inmates. Furthermore, the findings may raise awareness of the importance of the environment on an individual’s morality, advocating for a safe, fair, and supportive environment to promote growth and prevent immorality and re-admission (Auty & Liebling, 2020). It is suggested that overcrowding in prisons is due to increased use of custodial punishment and lengthier prison sentences, rather than crime (Ginn, 2012; Haney, 2012). The desired outcome is that the research educates judges and prison workers about the impact of prison on morality and probes questioning whether correction centres are approaching criminal reform correctly.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

References

Aleixo, P., & Norris, C. (2000). Personality and moral reasoning in young offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 609-623.

Auty, K., & Liebling, A. (2020). Exporing the Relationship between Prison Social Climate and Reoffending. Justice Quarterly, 37(2), 358-381.

Baldwin, J. (2018). Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development and Criticisms. In Proceedings book (pp. 73-81). Retrieved from https://www.jear-eu.com/Articles/3/Images/29-06-2015/194910_JEAR_C_PB_2018.pdf#page=74

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101-119. doi:10.1080/0305724022014322

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, C., Gian, V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364-374. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364

Bazzetta, D. (2015, June). Retrieved from Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cognitive-Moral-Development-Levels-and-Stages-of-CMD-Based-on-description-from_fig9_280777010

Brady, C. (2016). Process and mechanisms of moral disengagement (based on Bandura, 1999a). Retrieved from ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Process-and-mechanisms-of-moral-disengagement-based-on-Bandura-1999a_fig1_299518952

Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 16. doi:10.5334/joc.72

Clark, K. (2018). Rethinking Prisonization: a longitudinal investigation of adherence to the convict code across stages of incarceration. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado.

Detert, J., Trevino, L., & Sweitzer, V. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374-391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374

Gibbs, J., Arnold, K., Morgan, R., Schwartz, E., Gavaghan, M., & Tappan, M. (1984). Construction and Validation of a Multiple-Choice Measure of Moral Reasoning. Child Development, 55(2), 525-536. doi:10.2307/1129963

Gibbs, J., Widaman, K., & Colby, A. (1982). Social Intelligence: Measuring the Development of Sociomoral Reflection.

Gillespie, W. (2002). Prisonization individual and institutional factors affecting inmate conduct. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

Ginn, S. (2012, September 17). Prison Environment and Health. BMJ, 345. doi:10.1136/bmj.e5921

Graham, J., Iyer, R., Nosek, B., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. (2011). Mapping the Moral Domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366-385.

Grapendaal, M. (1990). The Inmate Subculture in Dutch Prisons. The British Journal of Criminology, 30(3), 341-357. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048025

Haney, C. (2012, July). Prison Effects in the Era of Mass Incarceration. The Prison Journal. doi:10.1177/0032885512448604

Kent State University . (2021). SPSS TUTORIALS: PEARSON CORRELATION. Retrieved from Kent State University LibGuides: https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/PearsonCorr#:~:text=The%20bivariate%20Pearson%20correlation%20indicates,being%20a%20perfectly%20straight%20line)

Kohlberg, L. (1986). The just community approach to corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 37(2), 54-58.

Kovacs, Z., Kun, B., Griffiths, M., & Demetrovics, Z. (2019). A longitudinal study of adaption to prison after initial incarceration. Psychiatry Research, 273, 240-246.

Martin, B. (2020). Psychologists' Views on Moral Development among Male Violent Offenders: Implications for Recidivism. Alliant International University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2417441244?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar

Mead, B. (2014). Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/shu/detail.action?docID=1756073

Mitchell, M., McCullough, K., Wu, J., Pyrooz, D., & Decker, S. (2018). Survey research with gang and non-gang members in prison: operational lessons from the LoneStar Project. Trends in Organised Crime. doi:10.1007/s12117-018-9331-1

Prinz, J. (2007). The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Reynolds, S., Dang, C., Yam, K., & Leavitt, K. (2014). The role of moral knowledge in everyday immorality: What does it matter if I know what is right? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 124-137.

Samenow, S. (2011, April 9). Do Prisons Really Make Offenders Worse? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201104/do-prisons-really-make-offenders-worse

South, C., & Wood, J. (2006). Bullying in Prisons: The Importance of Perceived Social Status, Prisonization, and Moral Disengagement. Aggressive Behaviour, 32(5), 490-501.

Statistics Solutions. (2021). Reliability Analysis. Retrieved from Statistics Solutions: https://www.statisticssolutions.com/reliability-analysis/

The British Psychological Society . (2016, November 20). BPS Code of Human Research Ethics (2nd edition, 2014). Retrieved from BPS: https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-code-human-research-ethics-2nd-edition-2014

The British Psychological Society. (2018, April 18). Code of Ethics and Conduct . Retrieved from BPS: https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-code-ethics-and-conduct

Visser, L., Knaap, L., Loo, A., Weerd, C., Ohl, F., & Bos, R. (2010). Trait anxiety affects decision-making differently in healthy men and women: Towards gender-specific endophenotypes of anxiety. Neuropsychologia, 1598-1606.

Walters, G. (2003). Changes in Criminal Thinking and Identity in Novice and Experienced Inmates: Prisonization Revisited. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 30(4), 399-421. doi:10.1177/0093854803253137

Wasif, A., & Graf, S. (2020). The Impact of Incarceration on Moral Agency. Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society, 13(3).

Weill, J., & Haney, C. (2017). Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement and Prisoner Abuse. ASAP: Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 17(1), 286-318.