Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Human Agency, Desistance from Crime, and Correctional Rehabilitation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Despite the attention paid to the role of human agency in the desistance process, there is a lack of consensus on how agency should be defined, what motivates or thwarts its exercise, and how it can be applied meaningfully in criminological research. The goal of the current article is to highlight how self-determination theory (SDT) can be used to those ends.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with a sample of former offenders to assess how they conceptualized their own processes of desistance and the factors that helped and hindered those processes. Data were analyzed using an inductive framework.

Results

Participants’ initial moves away from crime resulted from the realization of psychological need frustration. Subsequent efforts made to help in the desistance process reflected either volitional behavior or the acceptance of assistance from others that would fulfill those needs. Participants also recounted their experiences with correctional rehabilitation as being need thwarting.

Conclusion

SDT’s conceptualization of agentic behavior and the factors that motivate/thwart its exercise can be used to integrate existing findings on desistance from crime. Moreover, measures used in prior SDT-based psychological research have implications for the quantitative measurement of agency in our own field. Implications for correctional theory and policy are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A copy of this interview protocol can be found in Appendix.

References

  1. Healy, D. (2013). Changing fate? Agency and the desistance process. Theoretical Criminology, 17, 557–574.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. (2009). Desistance and the ‘feared self’: Toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 1103–1156.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Bushway, S., Kerrison, E., & O’Connell, D. (2015). Human agency and explanations of criminal desistance: Arguments for a rational choice theory. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1, 209–235.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cullen, F. T. (2017). Choosing our criminological future: Reservations about human agency as an organizing concept. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 3, 373–379.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Paternoster, R. (2017). Happenings, acts, and actions: Articulating the meaning and implications of human agency for criminology. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 3, 350–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brezina, T. (2019). Freedom of action, freedom of choice, and desistance from crime: Pitfalls and opportunities in the study of human agency. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology (Online First).

  9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Agnew, R. (2011). Toward a unified criminology: Integrating assumptions about crime, people, and society. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. King, S. (2013). Transformative agency and desistance from crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 13, 317–335.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19, 418–427.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Giordano, P., Cernkovich, S., & Rudolph, J. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationships between personality variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 23, 244–263.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sheeran, P., Maki, A., Montanaro, E., Avishai-Yitshak, A., Bryan, A., Klein, W. M. P., Miles, E., & Rothman, A. J. (2016). The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 35, 1178–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  23. LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2007). The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 131–159.

  24. Cuevas, C., Wolff, K. T., & Baglivio, M. T. (2017). Self-efficacy, aspirations, and residential placement outcomes: Why belief in a prosocial self matters. Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Visser, C. F. (2010). Self-determination theory meets solution-focused change: Autonomy, competence and relatedness support in action. InterAction-The Journal of Solution Focus in Organizations, 2, 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy: The motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology, 49, 186–193.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1459–1473.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.

    Google Scholar 

  29. van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Verstuyf, J., Boone, L., & Smets, J. (2014). Fostering self-endorsed motivation to change in patients with an eating disorder: The role of perceived autonomy support and psychological need satisfaction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47, 585–600.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ng, J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., & Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279–306.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang, T., Solmon, M. A., Kosma, M., Carson, R. L., & Gu, X. (2011). Need support, need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and physical activity participation among middle school students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Berstein, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: A self-determination theory perspective on socialization. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 761–775.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550–558.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Farrall, S., & Bowling, B. (1999). Structuration, human development and desistance from crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 39, 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Baumeister, R. F. (1994). The crystallization od discontent in the process of major life change. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change (pp. 281–297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1–69.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Halsey, M., Armstrong, R., & Wright, S. (2017). ‘F*ck it!’: Matza and the mood of fatalism in the desistance process. The British Journal of Criminology, 57, 1041–1060.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., Simons, J., & Soenens, B. (2006). Materialistic values and well-being among business students: Further evidence of their detrimental effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2892–2908.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Hedberg, V. A., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Extrinsic life goals and health-risk behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1756–1771.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13, 509–529.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Toch, H. (1977). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Molleman, T., & Leeuw, F. L. (2012). The influence of prison staff on inmate conditions: A multilevel approach to staff and inmate surveys. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 18, 217–233.

    Google Scholar 

  49. van der Laan, A., & Eichelsheim, V. (2013). Juvenile adaptation o imprisonment: Feelings of safety, autonomy and well-being, and behaviour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 10, 424–443.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2014). Research decisions: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method approaches (5th ed.). Toronto: Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Farrington, D. P. (2001). Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. In T. P. Thornberry & M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 137–183). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  52. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Liem, M., & Richardson, N. J. (2014). The role of transformation narratives in desistance among released lifers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 692–412.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). California: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Bandura, A. (1982). The self and mechanisms of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 3–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Garcia-Calvo, T., Cervelló, E., Jiménez, R., Iglesias, D., & Moreno Murcia, J. A. (2010). Using self-determination theory to explain sport persistence and dropout in adolescent athletes. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 677–684.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bieling, P. J., McCabe, R. E., & Antony, M. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavior therapy in groups. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Radel, R., Sarrazin, P., Legrain, P., & Wild, T. C. (2010). Social contagion of motivation between teacher and student: Analyzing underlying processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 577–587.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wild, T. C., Enzle, M. E., & Hawkins, W. I. (1992). Effects of perceived extrinsic versus intrinsic teacher motivation on student reactions to skill acquisition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, B., van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight-loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). A meta-analysis of predictors of offender treatment attrition and its relationship to recidivism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 6–21.

    Google Scholar 

  65. McMurran, M. (2009). Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 83–100.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Markland, D., Ryan, R. M., Tobin, V. J., & Rollnick, S. (2005). Motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 811–831.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zuroff, D. C., Koestner, R., Moskowitz, D. S., McBride, C., Marshall, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2007). Autonomous motivation for therapy: A new common factor in brief treatments for depression. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Williams, G. C., McGregor, H. A., Sharp, D., Levesque, C., Kouides, R. W., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Testing a self-determination theory intervention for motivating tobacco cessation: Supporting autonomy and competence in a clinical trial. Health Psychology, 25, 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ward, T., & Stewart, C. (2003). Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 125–143.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Carlsson, C. (2012). Using ‘turning points’ to understand processes of change. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and grounded theory. In J. Holstein & J. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397–412). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279–300.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Cusson, M., & Pinsonneault, P. (1986). The decision to give up crime. In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives in offending (pp. 72–82). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2016). Turning points and the future of life-course criminology: Reflections on the 1986 criminal careers report. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53, 321–335.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Integrating qualitative and quantitative data. In J. Z. Giele & G. H. Elder (Eds.), Methods of life-course research (pp. 213–230). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Maruna, S. (2010). Mixed method research in criminology: Why not go both ways? In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 123–140). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210389, Cincinnati, OH, 45221-0389, USA

    Damon M. Petrich

Authors
  1. Damon M. Petrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damon M. Petrich.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Simon Fraser University Research Ethics Board, 2015s0557; University of Cincinnati Institutional Research Board, 2019-0766) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix. Modified Life History Narrative Interview Protocol

Note: This is a semi-structured interview protocol. Side questions and conversations not covered by the questions below are likely to emerge and will be explored by the interviewer and participant if relevant to the overall aims of the research.

Section 1: Introduction

Outline research: Criminal justice organizations are interested in why people stop offending. Lots of “other” people (experts, community, etc.) think lots of things about why people stop offending—we want to find out what you think—you are the expert.

  • Clarify “taping” permission and obtain consent

Demographics

  • Age

  • Years spent in prison

  • Age at first arrest

  • Latest release date

Section 2: The Life History Narrative

This way of doing research involves you thinking your life as a story—you are the storyteller—you are the expert. You do not have to tell me everything that happened in your life. You must select what you think/feel is important with regard to your life and your offending behavior.

  1. 1.

    Please give a brief overview of your life story, from your perspective. Focus on people and events that you believe made you who you are.

Critical events:

  1. 2.

    Is there a time in your life you considered your highest point?

  2. 3.

    Is there a time in your life you considered your lowest point?

  3. 4.

    Can you tell me of a serious turning point in your life?

  4. 5.

    Can you describe an important childhood scene that stands out in your mind as significant?

  5. 6.

    Can you describe an important adolescent scene that stands out in your mind as significant?

  6. 7.

    Can you describe an important adult scene that stands out in your mind as significant?

  7. 8.

    Can you describe your biggest life challenge to date?

Influences on the life story: positive and negative

  1. 9.

    Looking back over what we have talked about, can you please identify the single person, group or organization that has had the greatest positive influence on your life story?

  2. 10.

    Looking back over what we have talked about, can you please identify the single person, group or organization that has had the greatest negative influence on your life story?

Future script

  1. 11.

    What is going to come next in your life story? Dreams, hopes, plans?

  2. 12.

    Do you have a project in life? The project might involve your family or your work life, or it might be a hobby, avocation, or pastime. Tell me what the project is, how you got involved in the project or will get involved in the project, how the project might develop, and why you think this project is important for you and/or for other people.

Section 3: Services and Interventions Supporting Desistance

  1. 13.

    What, if any, “services/interventions” have you accessed?

    1. a.

      Which do you feel have supported you to stop offending the most effectively?

  2. 14.

    What other factors have supported your reintegration best? What makes life easier for you at this point? (e.g., family, friends, work, etc.)

  3. 15.

    What sort of challenges have you faced after leaving the institution?

  4. 16.

    Describe your relationships with Correctional Service of Canada, parole officers, etc. at this point.

  5. 17.

    What factors in your life do you think keep you away from crime best?

  6. 18.

    What factors in your life do you think have drawn you back toward crime in the past?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petrich, D.M. A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Human Agency, Desistance from Crime, and Correctional Rehabilitation. J Dev Life Course Criminology 6, 353–379 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-020-00141-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-020-00141-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation