Advertisement

The internalization of and defiance against rules within prison: The role of correctional officers’ autonomy-supportive and controlling communication style as perceived by prisoners

  • Jolene van der Kaap-DeederEmail author
  • Elien Audenaert
  • Stijn Van Petegem
  • Stijn Vandevelde
  • Sarah Van Mastrigt
  • Nathalie Aelterman
  • Maarten Vansteenkiste
Original Paper
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

While incarcerated, prisoners are subject to a vast number of rules. Drawing upon self-determination theory, the present study examined whether prisoners’ perceptions of the degree to which prison officers communicate rules in an autonomy-supportive or controlling way related to prisoners’ internalization of and defiance against rules, and whether this, in turn, related to their (mal)adaptive functioning in prison. Participants were 156 Belgian prisoners (Mage = 38.60; SD = 11.68, 88.5% male) who filled out questionnaires concerning the study variables. Associations were tested using structural equation modeling. Results showed that, whereas a higher level of perceived autonomy-supportive communication style related via greater internalization of rules to prisoners’ higher quality of life, a perceived controlling style was positively related to aggression and irritation vis-à-vis prison officers. Additional analyses suggested that an alternative model, where prisoners’ maladaptive functioning is predictive of higher levels of perceived controlling communication, is equally valid.

Keywords

Rules Autonomy support Control Internalization Prisoners 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the prison staff, both national and local directors, prison guards and social services, who assisted us in the recruitment of participants and the data collection. We are also thankful to the prisoners who participated in this study.

Funding

Preparation of this paper was supported by Grant 12X5818N of the Research Foundation – Flanders.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have 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 and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

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

References

  1. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., & Haerens, L. (2018). Correlates of students’ internalization and defiance of classroom rules: A self-determination theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12213.Google Scholar
  2. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Haerens, L. (2016). A dimensional and person-centered perspective on controlled reasons for non-participation in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 23, 142–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Airdrie, J. N., Langley, K., Thapar, A., & van Goozen, S. N. M. (2018). Facial emotion recognition and eye gaze in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with and without comorbid conduct disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 57, 561–570.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.04.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 72, 47–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: The limited benefits of self-worth strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 482–497.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baudat, S., Zimmermann, G., Antonietti, J. P., & Van Petegem, S. (2017). The role of maternal communication style in adolescents’ motivation to change alcohol use: A vignette-based study. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 24, 152–162.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2016.1192584.Google Scholar
  8. Bjelland, M., Soenens, B., Bere, E., Kovács, É., Lien, N., Maes, L., et al. (2015). Associations between parental rules, style of communication and children’s screen time. BMC Public Health, 15, 1002.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2337-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Personality Processes and Individual, 63, 452–459.Google Scholar
  10. Damboeanu, C., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2016). Importation and deprivation correlates of misconduct among Romanian inmates. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 332–351.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815617191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, 37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elektronisch toezicht als alternatief voor een gevangenisstraf. (2016, June 8). Retrieved from http://www.justitiehuizen.be/elektronisch-toezicht-als-alternatief-voor-eengevangenisstraf [In Dutch]
  14. Goemaere, S., Vansteenkiste, M., Brenning, K., Beyers, W., Vermeulen, A., & Binsted, K., (in revision). Do astronauts benefit from autonomy? Investigating autonomy-supportive communication by mission support, astronauts’ motivation and collaboration during HI-SEAS 1. Manuscript under revision. Google Scholar
  15. Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 78–99). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4–19.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and the dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 26–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haerens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., De Meester, A., Delrue, J., Tallir, I., Vande Broek, G., et al. (2018). Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: Identifying the most optimal motivating style. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23, 16–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2017.1346070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hornsveld, R. H., Muris, P., Kraaimaat, F. W., & Meesters, C. (2009). Psychometric properties of the aggression questionnaire in Dutch violent forensic psychiatric patients and secondary vocational students. Assessment, 16, 181–192.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191108325894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hubbard, J. A., Dodge, K. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (2001). The dyadic nature of social information processing in boys’ reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 268–280.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588–600.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joussemet, M., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., Côté, S., Nagin, D. S., Zoccolillo, M., et al. (2008). Controlling parenting and physical aggression during elementary school. Child Development, 79, 411–425.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01133.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233–248.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00879.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kokkevi, A., Hartgers, C., Blanken, P., Fahner, E. M., Tempesta, E., & Uchtenhagen, A. (1993). European version of the Addiction Severity Index (5th ed.). Athens: Athens University Medical School.Google Scholar
  28. Laurin, J. C., & Joussemet, M. (2017). Parental autonomy-supportive practices and toddlers’ rule internalization: A prospective observational study. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 562–575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9627-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liebling, A. (2011). Distinctions and distinctiveness in the work of prison officers: Legitimacy and authority revisited. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 484–499.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811413807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liebling, A., Price, D., & Shefer, G. (2011). The prison officer (2nd ed.). Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Lim, B. S., How, Y. M., Tan, S. H., Wang, C. K. J., & Kamarova, S. (2016). Adolescents’ self-determination profiles in physical education: Introjection and its implications. International Sports Studies, 38, 4–20.  https://doi.org/10.30819/iss.38-2.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., O’Brien, C. P., & Woody, G. E. (1980). An improved evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients: The Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 168, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McMurran, M. (2009). Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 83–100.  https://doi.org/10.1348/135532508X278326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim, T. Y., & Liu, Z. Q. (2012). A profile approach to self-determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 354–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). How you provide corrective feedback makes a difference: The motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting way. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 619–637.  https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.5.619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muthén L. K., & Muthén B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  38. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reisig, M. D., & Mesko, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 41–59.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802089768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roth, G., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bibi, U. (2011). Prevention of school bullying: The important role of autonomy-supportive teaching and internalization of pro-social values. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 654–666.  https://doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279.002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.  https://doi.org/10.1037/110003-066X.55.1.68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ryan, R. M., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2011). Motivation and autonomy in counseling, psychotherapy, and behavior change: A look at theory and practice. Counseling Psychologist, 39, 193–260.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009359313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Savard, A., Joussemet, M., Pelletier, J. E., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). The benefits of autonomy support for adolescents with severe emotional and behavioral problems. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 688–700.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9351-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmidt, S., Mühlan, H., & Power, M. (2006). The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: Psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. European Journal of Public Health, 16, 420–428.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckl155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X304398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30, 74–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2009). Should parental prohibition of adolescents’ peer relationships be prohibited? Personal Relationships, 16, 507–530.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01237.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sorensen, J., & Cunningham, M. D. (2010). Conviction offense and prison violence: A comparative study of murderers and other offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 103–125.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707307175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2015). Individual and environmental sources of work stress among prison officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 800–818.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814564463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Audenaert, E., Vandevelde, S., Soenens, B., Van Mastrigt, S., Mabbe, E., et al. (2017). Choosing when choices are limited: The role of perceived afforded choice and autonomy in prisoners’ well-being. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 567–578.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Wouters, S., Verschueren, K., Briers, V., Deeren, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2016). The pursuit of self-esteem and its motivational implications. Psychologica Belgica, 56, 143–168.  https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van der Laan, A., & Eichelsheim, V. (2013). Juvenile adaptation to imprisonment: Feelings of safety, autonomy and well-being, and behaviour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 10, 424–443.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370812473530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Malderen, S., Pauwels, L., Walthoff-Borm, C., Glibert, P., & Todts, S. (2011). Druggebruik in Belgische gevangenissen: Monitoring van gezondheidsrisico’s 2010. Eindrapport. Brussel: Federale overheidsdienst Justitie.Google Scholar
  56. van Mastrigt, S. (2015). Self-determination in prison: A new framework for thinking about penal practice and Scandinavian exceptionalism? In A. Storgaard (Ed.), Research Seminar Report 57. Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology: Hvad er lov-hvad bør bliver lov? Kriminalisering og regulering i de nordiske velfærdsamfund (pp. 117–131). Aarhus: Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology.Google Scholar
  57. Van Petegem, S., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Beyers, W. (2015). Rebels with a cause? Adolescent defiance from the perspective of reactance theory and self-determination theory. Child Development, 86, 903–918.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Zimmermann, G., Antonietti, J.-P., Baudat, S., et al. (2017). When do adolescents accept or defy maternal prohibitions? The role of social domain and communication style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1022–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vandevelde, S., Soyez, V., Vander Beken, T., De Smet, S., Boers, A., & Broekaert, E. (2011). Mentally ill offenders in prison: The Belgian case. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34, 71–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.11.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., De Muynck, G.-J., Haerens, L., Patall, E., & Reeve, J. (2018). Fostering personal meaning and self-relevance: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization. Journal of Experimental Education, 86, 30–49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1381067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, v. 16A—The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 105–165). London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vansteenkiste, M., & Sheldon, K. M. (2006). There’s nothing more practical than a good theory: Integrating motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 63–82.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X34192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Goossens, L., Dochy, F., Aelterman, N., et al. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22, 431–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2015). Vitamines voor groei: Ontwikkeling voeden vanuit de zelf-determinatie theorie. Gent, België: Acco.Google Scholar
  66. Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Duriez, B. (2014). Longitudinal associations between adolescent perceived degree and style of parental prohibition and internalization and defiance. Developmental Psychology, 50, 229–236.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology Crime & Law, 10, 243–257.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001662744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353–360.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology, Department of Developmental, Social, and Personality PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Psychosocial Service UnitPrison of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  3. 3.Family and Development Research Centre, Institute of PsychologyUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Special Needs EducationGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Psychology and Behavioural SciencesAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations