Does the Experience of Imprisonment Affect Optimism About Reentry?
| Author | José Cid,Albert Pedrosa,Aina Ibàñez,Joel Martí |
| Published date | 01 January 2021 |
| Date | 01 January 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520978476 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
The Prison Journal
2021, Vol. 101(1) 80 –101
Does the Experience of
© 2020 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Imprisonment Affect
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520978476
DOI: 10.1177/0032885520978476
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj
Optimism About
Reentry?
José Cid1, Albert Pedrosa1,
Aina Ibàñez1, and Joel Martí1
Abstract
Desistance research has linked prison inmate expectations with positive
outcomes after release, but very little research addresses what makes them
optimistic about their future. Using data from a representative sample, this
article analyzes whether the manner in which a prison sentence is served
impacts expectations about reentry. Results show that experiencing harsh
prison conditions makes incarcerees more pessimistic about reentry, while
receiving family support during imprisonment has the opposite effect. Given
that the mission of the prison system is to prepare prisoners for a successful
reentry, this study has several implications for correctional agencies.
Keywords
reentry expectations, prison conditions, family support, desistance
Introduction
The desistance literature has documented that being optimistic about reentry
perspectives after having served a prison sentence is an important factor in
1Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Corresponding Author:
José Cid, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici B—Campus UAB, Cerdanyola del Vallès,
Barcelona 08193, Spain.
Email: Josep.Cid@uab.es
Cid et al.
81
achieving positive reintegration into society. For example, Bandura’s (1977)
concepts of self-efficacy—the idea that the perception about the capacity to
achieve an aim affects the possibilities of succeeding—and Seligman’s
(1990) model of learned optimism—a psychological construct based on the
attribution of adversity to specific, circumstantial and non-personal factors—
have been utilized by desistance scholars. Notably, Maruna (2001), has
applied them to understand the process of desistance, stating that one of the
fundamental ways in which the narratives of desisters differ from those of
active offenders is “an optimistic perception (some might say useful ‘illu-
sion’) of personal control over their own destiny” (p. 88). Authors that have
shown the importance of these subjective states in the reentry process do not
deny the importance of social factors, such us homelessness, substance addic-
tion, mental illness, poverty and unemployment, but argue that “. . . we offer
for serious consideration the possibility that neutral and positive attitudes to
the prospect of imprisonment (and therefore a preparedness to go back to
prison) act as a mediating variable, whereby people are less likely to strive
for change (just as optimism and a sense of being in control prompt people to
try different things following failures—to look for alternatives and to perse-
vere)” (Howerton et al., 2009, p. 456). Although previous research has gener-
ally focused on one dimension of the reentry process, recidivism, it confirms
that inmates who are more optimistic about their prospects of successful
reentry are those who are better able to be successful upon release (see the
pioneering research of Burnett (1992) and by other authors: Doekhie et al.,
2017; Howerton et al., 2009; Souza et al., 2015).
If inmates’ expectations about a successful reentry are to be an important
aim for prison and parole systems, a relevant research question is “what ele-
ments of the imprisonment experience may foster optimist expectations?”
While studies of this issue are rather limited, Visher and O’Connell (2012), as
part of the Returning Home project, surveyed a sample of US inmates to
explore which factors explained optimism about successful reentry. They
concluded that “. . .it is the external ties to family through perceived support
and ties to their children that we believe helps orient prisoners to a future-
looking optimistic perspective about how difficult it will be to return to the
community” (p. 192).
The aim of this article is to increase knowledge of the factors that affect
incarcerees’ optimism about their perspectives on reentry. We assert that the
optimism of inmates is not only affected by external factors, such as social
support and social bonds, which have long been established as a catalyst in
the desistance process within the framework of social control and social sup-
port theories (Bales & Mears, 2008; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Visher &
82
The Prison Journal 101(1)
O’Connell, 2012). That is, optimism is also impacted by experiences directly
linked to the prison sentence—such as the harshness of the sentence and
rehabilitation program participation—that may affect optimism as a conse-
quence of strain and learning.
Theoretical Framework
Criminological research has analyzed the prison sentence in order to under-
stand future outcomes in social life. The factors that have been highlighted
can be grouped into three main categories: harshness of the prison sentence,
participation in rehabilitation programs, and social support. In the following
sections we present how each of these categories may affect expectations on
reentry.
Harshness While Serving a Prison Sentence
The severity of imprisonment may be understood as the level of pain that one
experiences during the serving of a prison sentence (Sykes, 1958/2007). Two
types of pain can be distinguished: pain linked to the prison regime and pain
linked to victimization.
A prison regime may be relatively painful when individuals who serve
long prison sentences do not achieve classifications (such as being classified
as “open regime”) or privileges (like benefiting from home leave) compared
to other inmates. Therefore, there may be a gap between their perceived
expectations and their achievements (Blevins et al., 2010).
The imprisonment conditions that have been linked to recidivism are: the
classification system (Gaes & Camp, 2009); submission to sanctions for mis-
behavior (Cochran et al., 2014) and types of release (early release with super-
vision, or release at the expiration of the sentence without supervision)
(Luque et al., 2005; Schlager & Robbins, 2008). These painful issues may
prompt pessimism in incarcerated individuals. Aspects that may lead to being
more negative include the generation of hostility as a consequence of experi-
encing more severe punishment, the suffering of sanctions, and the failure to
benefit from early release. The feeling of hostility may reduce the perception
of one’s ability to avoid conflicts in the future (Cochran et al., 2014).
Another mechanism that may produce pessimism is the effect that comes
from inmate labeling in more severe prison settings, when classification
makes it more difficult for the individual to assume a conventional identity.
This is critical; desistance scholars have identified this process as key to
achieving desistance and reintegration (Cochran et al., 2014; Maruna, 2001).
Cid et al.
83
Moreover, those incarcerees who do not progress towards early release may
not develop a sense of self-efficacy that is considered crucial for the develop-
ment of optimism about reentry (Cid & Martí, 2012). Finally, although the
effects of the length of imprisonment on reoffending and other reentry issues
do not seem to be conclusive as to their criminogenic effect (Nagin et al.,
2009), other qualitative research suggests that “institutionalized personality
traits” among persons who have served long prison sentences may reduce
their perception of being able to have a successful release (Liem & Kunst,
2013, p. 336).
With respect to victimization, a distinction has been made between direct
victimization—being a victim of criminal offences by other inmates or a
victim of criminal offences or unfair treatment by prison staff—and indirect
(or vicarious) victimization—a perception of living in a setting in which
criminal victimization by inmates or staff and unfair treatment exists
(Listwan et al., 2011). Both types of victimization may be considered as
noxious stimuli, and possess some of the characteristics that, according to
strain theory scholars, may lead to crime. Their effects are intense and per-
ceived as unjust, as well as offered as reasons to commit crime (e.g.,
revenge) (Agnew, 2002, 2006). Recent studies confirm that victimization
during imprisonment is associated with recidivism (Daquin et al., 2016;
Listwan et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2015).
Strain theorists have suggested that victimization may lead to crime
through different subjective influences that may reduce individual optimism
regarding successful reentry. Victimization, on the one hand, may increase
anger or hostility (Zweig et al., 2015), provoking a mental state that leads to
involvement in fights and other conflicts (Agnew, 2002), or to satisfy a desire
for revenge (Listwan et al., 2011). Another possible consequence of victim-
ization is depression (Zweig et al., 2015). Victimization may intensify the
sense of a lack of power to prevent the production of noxious stimuli (Daquin
et al., 2016). Finally, it may reduce one’s confidence in the ability to achieve
a future successful reentry.
Participation in Rehabilitation Programs
Correctional institutions usually offer inmates opportunities to participate in
programs oriented to confront deficits that may be related to their offending.
Examples include...
To continue reading
Request your trial