Coping,aggression,perceived social support and demographic variables as predictors of prison adjustment among male incarcerated offenders

Abstract

The unique contextual attributes of the correctional environment and the frustrations, deprivations and challenges associated with it impact adjustment to incarceration. Offenders who cannot adjust to the correctional environment may experience behavioural and psychological challenges, including institutional misconduct, violence, aggression, withdrawal, anger, hostility, anxiety and depression. It is imperative to identify which variables are possible predictors of correctional adjustment among male incarcerated offenders in a private, maximum-security correctional centre in South Africa. In this quantitative study, 418 male maximum-security offenders were sampled. Questionnaire data were collected, and the results indicated that the combination of some variables (Friends, Avoidance and Problem-solving) predicted Internal Adjustment and (Anger, Friends and Verbal Aggression) predicted External Adjustment of the offenders. The results from this study could aid in the development of future programmes that assist offenders with adjusting to the correctional environment.

Keywords

Adjustment age aggression coping male offenders offender type classification perceived social support predictor variables private maximum-security correctional centre sentence length South Africa

Introduction

Each year, millions of offenders are incarcerated worldwide for their crimes (Agboola, 2016; Wagner and Rabuy, 2016; Wagner and Sawyer, 2018). Once incarcerated, offenders in South African correctional centres are no longer considered free citizens (Rogers, 2019), and they are housed within strict, rigid and structured non-therapeutic environments (Jordaan, 2014). Many offenders experience incarceration as traumatic (DeVeaux, 2013; Muntingh, 2009a; Picken, 2012; Rogers, 2019; Wright, 1983). They are confronted with the realisation of the loss of freedom, punitive conditions of confinement, adapting to an often new and unfamiliar environment, separation from loved ones, and they experience countless fears relating to personal safety and victimisation (Blevins et al., 2010; Carr, 2013; Casey et al., 2016; Crank, 2010; Delaney, 2019; DeVeaux, 2013; De Viggiani, 2007; Jordaan and Hesselink, 2022). These unique stressors can, in some instances, lead to a deterioration in the mental health of incarcerated offenders (Asberg and Renk, 2012; DeVeaux, 2013; Newhard, 2014; Picken, 2012).

Therefore, incarcerated offenders are expected to adjust to the correctional environment (Crank, 2010; Picken, 2012) as they may experience severe stress due to prevailing personal and/or correctional conditions (Asberg and Renk, 2012; DeVeaux, 2013; Peacock, 2008a; Picken, 2012; Tomar, 2013). While numerous studies highlight how offenders adjust to incarceration, relatively few studies examine the variables that can be used to predict correctional adjustment among male incarcerated offenders (Gonçalves, 2014), particularly in South African correctional centres (Hesselink and Booyens, 2014; Hesselink and Grobler, 2015). As a result, variables predicting correctional adjustment are significant to research from both an administrative and management perspective, including the treatment of offenders while they are incarcerated and for subsequent adjustment to being back in the community (Gonçalves, 2014).

The South African correctional context

In South Africa, the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) manages 243 correctional centres (of which 235 are operationally active). Approximately 42,061 staff members throughout South Africa manage these centres (Department of Correctional Services (DCS), 2020). The DCS is responsible for classifying offenders, and this classification determines at which correctional centres the offenders are detained. There are three categories of correctional centres in South Africa, namely (a) minimum-security, (b) medium-security and (c) maximum-security (Neser, 1993). Offenders incarcerated in maximum-security correctional centres are considered dangerous to society and a major threat to themselves and others. Maximum-security correctional centres are highly secured, and offenders’ movements, rights, associations and privileges are strictly controlled and monitored under direct supervision (Matshaba, 2007; Neser, 1993). Furthermore, these incarcerated offenders are controlled stringently with little or no autonomy, and they are counted frequently to ensure their presence (Matshaba, 2007). South Africa currently has two private correctional centres in operation, with both being maximum-security correctional centres. Only offenders that receive a maximum-security classification are held in one of these two centres (Matshaba, 2007). However, offenders may apply to be transferred to or away from private, maximum-security correctional centres; the DCS review and approve or deny these applications (Matshaba, 2007).

Peacock and Theron (2007) argued that correctional centres construct a pathological environment requiring offenders to adapt to an unaccustomed set of values, traditions and social relationships. Offenders incarcerated in private, maximum-security correctional centres face unique, strict and punitive circumstances compared to offenders in public correctional centres (Jordaan, 2014; Loots, 2010; Matshaba, 2007; Sekhonyane, 2003). Maximum-security correctional centres further exacerbate particular tensions as thousands of offenders with long-term, and most often violent convictions, are forced to cohabitate in an austere, routine, harsh and almost clinical-type environment (Du Preez and Luyt, 2006; Jordaan, 2014; Matshaba, 2007). Incarcerated offenders are often exposed to severe forms of bullying, sexual victimisation or forced sex, gang activities, offender-on-offender violence, offender-on correctional staff attacks, exploitation, suicide and even murder (De Viggiani, 2007; Gear, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2010; Gear and Ngubeni, 2002; Lahm, 2008, 2009; Morash et al., 2010; Perez et al., 2009; Wolff et al., 2007). Studies found that between 25% and 68% of South African offenders reported some form of victimisation by either other offenders or staff during their incarceration (Booyens and Bezuidenhout, 2014; Cronje, 2017; Gear, 2007b, 2010; Peacock, 2008b). There are approximately 5714 to 7474 reported assaults per year (15.7 and 20.5 per day, respectively) (DCS, 2018, 2020; Muntingh, 2009b). However, Gear (2007b) reported that up to 20% of offenders do not want to report cases of victimisation out of fear of further victimisation. Therefore, the unique contextual attributes of the correctional environment and the frustrations, deprivations and challenges associated with it impact adjustment to incarceration (Crank, 2010; DeVeaux, 2013).

Adjustment

When offenders are unable to adjust to the correctional environment, they may experience behavioural and psychological challenges, which can include institutional misconduct, gang involvement, violence, aggression, withdrawal, anger, hostility, suicidal ideation, anxiety and depression (Casey et al., 2016; Cochran and Mears, 2013; Crank, 2010; DeVeaux, 2013; Dye, 2010; Logan, 2015; Picken, 2012; Rocheleau, 2013; Tomar, 2013; Woo et al., 2016). Adjustment to incarceration is a process through which offenders are expected to successfully adjust to the unique challenges, stresses, frustrations and deprivations of correctional life (Picken, 2012; Weiten et al., 2018). According to Wright (1991), maladjustment to incarceration occurs when an offender’s ability to adjust is inadequate in meeting the internal and/or environmental demands of incarceration. Some offenders adjust relatively well to correctional life, but many do not cope with the challenges of incarceration (Casey et al., 2016; Crank, 2010; DeVeaux, 2013; Dye, 2010; Tomar, 2013; Wright, 1985, 1991). Wright (1983) emphasised that well-adjusted offenders do not typically experience psychological trauma or illness and are not taken advantage of by other offenders. Well-adjusted offenders typically have few, if any, disciplinary infractions (Dye, 2010; Picken, 2012) and are likely to accept their sentence length (Casey et al., 2016). They are also more likely to be optimistic regarding their transition back into community life post-release (Canda et al., 2015). In contrast, maladjusted offenders tend to respond to incarceration with aggression, violence and institutional misconduct by joining gangs, swearing to an ‘inmate code’, and by banding together in an attempt to revolt against correctional administration (De Viggiani, 2007; Dhami et al., 2007; Gear, 2010; Logan, 2015; Rocheleau, 2013). Some researchers view the dysfunctionality of incarcerated offenders’ adjustment to the correctional environment as a typical or ‘normal’ reaction given the pathological correctional context (Gear, 2010; Peacock and Theron, 2007). Thus, adjustment to the correctional environment is important for treatment and rehabilitative purposes (Adams, 1992), reducing emotional outbursts and withdrawals (Picken, 2012), reducing conflict, violent behaviour and infractions while incarcerated (Gonçalves, 2014), for the shift back into society (Canda et al., 2015) and for further predicting recidivism post-release (Crank, 2010). Wright (1985, 1991) also distinguished between internal adjustment, external adjustment and physical adjustment within the correctional environment. Internal adjustment focuses on adjustment difficulties evident by uncomfortableness (discomfort) around offenders and correctional officials, anger and sleeping difficulties. External adjustment relates to adjustment difficulties evident by frequent arguments and fights with other offenders and correctional officials. Physical adjustment relates to adjustment difficulties evident by frequent fears of being attacked, taken advantage of and frequent feelings of illness or injury (Rogers, 2019; Wright, 1985). Thus, it is imperative to examine and understand incarcerated individuals’ adjustment to the correctional environment (Adams, 1992; Gonçalves, 2014; Hsieh et al., 2018; Nagin et al., 2009). Several variables serve as possible predictors of correctional adjustment, namely offender coping strategies, aggression levels, perceived social support, age, offender type classification (first-time offender or repeat offender) and sentence length (Crank, 2010; Dye, 2010; Picken, 2012; Wright, 1985).

Coping strategies are particularly vital when adjusting to an unfamiliar, highly restrictive environment (Carr, 2013). The coping strategies identified among male offenders include avoidance, denial, momentary relief of problems, acceptance or resignation, seeking other rewards and aggression (Carr, 2013; Chahal et al., 2016; Gullone et al., 2000; Jordaan and Hesselink, 2022; Novo et al., 2017). Maladaptive coping mechanisms (e.g. avoidance, aggression, violence, temporary escape from problems) (Chubaty, 2001; Jordaan and Hesselink, 2022; Pretorius et al., 2022) among incarcerated offenders tend to negatively impact the adjustment to incarceration by putting offenders at an increased risk of several consequences (e.g. depression, anxiety, suicide, panic, withdrawal, grief, trauma, loss of control, hopelessness, suicide ideation, hostility, rage, misconduct, violence) (Asberg and Renk, 2012; Bouffard, 2015; Newhard, 2014; Picken, 2012; Wright et al., 2017). These negative consequences (e.g. anxiety, stress, low self-esteem, low self-efficacy) also negatively impact offenders’ problem-solving attempts (Renbarger et al., 2019). However, incarcerated offenders who use more constructive coping skills (i.e. problem-solving, seeking social support) can deal with the challenges within the correctional environment (Jordaan, 2014; Jordaan and Hesselink, 2022). Offenders that actively participate in problem-solving interventions tend to become more able to effectively identify and manage the problems and emotions they are experiencing (Biggam and Power, 2002; Hayward et al., 2008; LaPlant et al., 2021; Perry et al., 2019a, 2019b). However, some studies found that offenders view problem-solving as an ineffective coping strategy within the correctional environment (Chahal et al., 2016; Picken, 2012). They attribute this to having limited autonomy and independence while incarcerated and having no control over problems within the correctional environment (Loots, 2010; Matshaba, 2007; Neser, 1993).

Male offenders are often inclined to use aggression towards others (i.e. attacks on others or threats of attack on others, violence) or themselves (i.e. self-harm, suicidal behaviour) to adjust to and cope within the correctional environment (Arbach-Lucioni et al., 2012; Dixon-Gordon et al., 2012; Jordaan and Hesselink, 2022; Moore et al., 2018; Pope, 2018; Reid and Listwan, 2018). Not only is aggression a coping mechanism in correctional centres, but research suggests that aggression is also closely linked to correctional maladjustment (Dye, 2010). More aggressive offenders are more likely to be cited for disciplinary violations and tend to spend more time in solitary confinement (Picken, 2012). Furthermore, male offenders tend to harm themselves when they feel as if they cannot cope with or escape the harsh reality of the correctional environment (Dixon-Gordon et al., 2012; Pope, 2018). Especially offenders in maximum-security correctional centres are at risk of harming or acting aggressively towards themselves when they cannot adjust (Lohner and Konrad, 2006, 2007).

Various studies have found that active or expressive support offered to incarcerated offenders by the correctional centre or significant others lessen criminal involvement, improves adjustment and enhances social ties (Cochran and Mears, 2013; Siennick et al., 2013; Woo et al., 2016). Insufficient social support among offenders has been linked to increased depression, hopelessness and lower self-esteem (Asberg and Renk, 2012). Social support while incarcerated seems to be vital as it assists offenders to satisfy their basic needs and position themselves with a measure of security within the correctional environment (Liu and Chui, 2013). Social support serves as a buffer against the daily stressors of the correctional environment (Carr, 2013) and plays a role in better adjustment among incarcerated male offenders (Rogers, 2019).

In terms of age, some studies have found that older offenders who already served part of their sentences typically have more incarceration experience and tend to have developed the necessary social and mental abilities to adapt to correctional life (Casey et al., 2016; Crank, 2010; Logan, 2015; Scaggs, 2017; Toman et al., 2015). Scaggs (2017) also found that offenders that were older at admission to the correctional environment were less inclined to be involved in institutional misconduct and more prone to adjust to the correctional environment. However, older offenders who are first-time sentence servers also tend to experience adjustment difficulties. They are more inclined to require physical treatment and interventions to cope and adjust due to late life incarceration (Aday, 2003; Aday and Krabill, 2013; Gonçalves et al., 2014). Research also suggests that as offenders age, they are at an increased risk of victimisation (i.e. bullying, violence, aggression), which could then also impact their adjustment to the correctional environment (Aday, 2003; Cervello, 2015; Codd, 2020; Kerbs and Jolley, 2007). Contrariwise, younger offenders tend to lack the emotional or psychological capacity to adequately manage the deficits of the correctional environment, which may ultimately result in adjustment difficulties, increased institutional misconduct, aggression and violence (Jordaan and Hesselink, 2022; Toch and Adams, 2002; Valentine, 2012; Valentine et al., 2015). Younger offenders are more inclined than older offenders to use aggression to deal with experiences of victimisation in the correctional environment (Jordaan and Hesselink, 2022; Valentine et al., 2015).

Most offenders are fearful of and anxious about being incarcerated before experiencing it (May et al., 2008). Offenders who have prior incarceration experience have learned certain techniques to cope with and adjust to the correctional environment (Crank, 2010; DeVeaux, 2013; Picken, 2012) and are less fearful of incarceration (May et al., 2005). The more experience an individual has with incarceration, the better adjusted they tend to be (Akerstrom, 1985; Crank, 2010; Scaggs, 2017; Wolfgang, 1961) as they have previously been exposed to the norms and lifestyle within the correctional environment (Crank, 2010; Picken, 2012).

According to Agbakwuru and Ibe-Godfrey (2017), sentence length significantly influences how incarcerated offenders cope with and ultimately adjust to incarceration. Offenders who have spent more than 5 years incarcerated cope significantly better with incarceration than those who have spent less than 5 years incarcerated (Agbakwuru and Ibe-Godfrey, 2017). Furthermore, studies that explored how offenders adjust to the correctional environment have revealed that over a period of time, offenders report a decline in their feelings of hopelessness, have lower institutional misconduct rates, immerse themselves more entirely in the daily life of the correctional environment, learn to mask their vulnerabilities better and become more committed to work and other correctional activities (Smith et al., 2002; Wright, 1991). Adams (1992) asserted that time can exacerbate common offender issues and impact offenders’ psychological health and overall adjustment as those with lengthy sentences have certain unique fears and challenges associated with an extended sentence length. Some researchers (Adams, 1992; Mears et al., 2016) argue that lengthier sentences might allow for greater acclimation and adjustment to the correctional culture and sometimes a greater likelihood of reoffending post-release. Contrary, other studies have found that lengthier sentences or harsher punishments serve as deterrence from further criminal behaviour (Du Preez and Muthaphuli, 2019; Seiter, 2013; Tonry, 2008).

Therefore, the primary aim of this research study was to determine which variables are possible predictors of correctional adjustment among male incarcerated offenders in a private, maximum-security correctional centre in South Africa.

Method

Research design

This study used a quantitative approach and was non-experimental in nature. The main goal was to determine the relationships between variables, and therefore a correlational design (Stangor, 2015) was used.

Participants and sampling

A non-probability sampling technique, more specifically, convenience sampling (Stangor, 2015), was used, and data were collected voluntarily from male incarcerated offenders housed in a private, maximum-security correctional centre. Participants of all ages, ethnic groups, types of offences, sentence lengths, education levels, psychiatric history, gang affiliation, programme completion or otherwise were included as part of the sample. The sample consisted of 418 participants with male incarcerated offenders ranging in age from 21 to 58 (Mean = 33.73 years; SD = 6.42). Of the male offender participants, 227 (54.3%) indicated that they were first-time offenders, while 191 (45.7%) of the group were incarcerated more than once. Regarding sentence length, the range of the length of the sentences was between 10 and 25 years or more than 25 years (effective life sentence). Due to the nature of the environment and the fact that the correctional centre only houses maximum-security offenders, 97.1% of the sample group are serving 15 or more years in prison. The self-identified ethnicity composition of the male offenders in the study was as follows: 82.8% Black, 13.9% Coloured, 2.6% White, and 1% Asian or ‘Other’.

Measures

For data collection, the participants completed five distinct questionnaires. A self-compiled demographic questionnaire was used to obtain biographical information such as ethnicity, age, offender type classification and sentence length.

The Prison Adjustment Questionnaire (PAQ; Wright, 1983, 1985) was utilised to measure their self-perceptions of adjustment to incarceration. The PAQ comprises 30 items and has three subscales: (1) Internal Adjustment, (2) External Adjustment and (3) Physical Adjustment (Wright, 1983). High scores on the PAQ suggest that offenders struggle with adjusting to incarceration (Wright, 1983, 1985). Cronbach’s alphas varying between .71 and .76 were identified for these three subscales (Rogers, 2019).

The Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI; Amirkhan, 1990) was utilised to gauge the coping strategies of the offenders. The CSI has 33 items and three subscales: (1) Problem-solving, (2) Seeking Social Support and (3) Avoidance. Higher scores on each subscale suggest a higher tendency to utilise the associated coping strategy (Amirkhan, 1994). In South African studies on incarcerated male offenders, Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales were identified as ranging between .62 and .90 (Jordaan, 2014; Jordaan and Hesselink, 2022; Jordaan et al., 2018; Pretorius, 2019; Pretorius et al., 2022; Rogers, 2019).

The Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ; Buss and Perry, 1992) was used to measure the aggression levels of the offenders. The BPAQ measures 29 items of aggression, divided into four subscales: (1) Physical Aggression, (2) Verbal Aggression, (3) Anger and (4) Hostility. In South African studies on incarcerated male offenders, Loots (2010), Jordaan (2014), Jordaan et al. (2018), Rogers (2019), Jordaan and Hesselink (2022) and Pretorius et al. (2022) identified Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales as ranging between .62 and .87. Higher scores indicate that the individual shows higher levels of that particular type of aggression. The BPAQ’s overall Cronbach’s alpha has been identified as .89 (Buss and Perry, 1992).

The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet et al., 1988) was used to measure the perceived social support of the offenders. The MSPSS measures an individual’s perceived social support on three aspects: (1) Friends, (2) Family and (3) Significant Other. In offender studies, the MSPSS was found to have good internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging between .90 and .93 (Brown and Day, 2008; Rogers, 2019). A higher score on the MSPSS indicates a higher degree of perceived social support (Zimet et al., 1988).

Procedure

Official permission for this study was obtained from the university’s ethics committee with which the authors are affiliated, as well as the DCS, South Africa. All the participants were thoroughly informed of their rights as research participants. Those willing to participate in the study all signed an informed consent form. The participants were assured of their anonymity and confidentiality at all times. The participants were informed of the voluntary nature of the study and that they were under no obligation to participate in the study if they did not want to. The researchers promised no incentives to the participants. They were fully informed and aware that no special benefits or privileges would be received and that their parole outcomes would not be influenced in any way through their choice to participate in the study.

Results

Descriptive analyses

The means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis and the internal consistencies of the various subscales of the measuring instruments are illustrated in Table 1 for the total group of participants. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated as an indication of the internal consistency of the subscales.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for the PAQ, MSPSS, BPAQ and CSI subscales.

Measures	N	M	SD	α	Skewness	Kurtosis
PAQ
Internal adjustment	418	17.52	5.17	.727	.234	−.669
External adjustment	418	17.17	4.46	.757	−.619	−.427
Physical adjustment	418	24.08	6.23	.713	−.262	−.500
MSPSS
Friends	418	11.57	5.53	.826	.000	−.103
Family	418	20.55	7.02	.864	−.900	−.221
Significant other	418	19.03	7.02	.841	−.512	−.743
BPAQ
Physical aggression	418	22.34	6.72	.700	.153	−.333
Verbal aggression	418	14.97	4.66	.633	−.142	−.646
Anger	418	18.72	5.59	.619	.017	−.316
Hostility	418	21.77	7.44	.802	.106	−.585
CSI
Social support	418	19.09	5.07	.847	.565	−.132
Problem-solving	418	15.78	4.02	.800	1.296	2.090
Avoidance	418	19.45	3.63	.634	.409	.368

PAQ: Prison Adjustment Questionnaire; MSPSS: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; BPAQ: Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire; CSI: Coping Strategy Indicator.

It is evident from Table 1 that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the PAQ, MSPSS, BPAQ and CSI subscales range from .619 to .864. Therefore, these scales displayed acceptable levels of internal consistency (Vogt, 2005) and were all included in the subsequent analyses. No distributional issues were detected, the skewness and kurtosis values were within acceptable ranges, and no univariate or multivariate outliers were found.

Before conducting the regression analyses, the Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the independent (predictor) and dependent (criterion) variables and are illustrated in Table 2. To interpret the practical significance of results, effect sizes (Steyn, 2005) were calculated. For correlations, an effect size of .1 is small, .3 is medium and .5 is large. Only results with medium to large effect sizes will be reported on.

Table 2.

Correlations between the PAQ subscales and Age, offender type, sentence length, CSI subscales, MSPSS subscales and BPAQ subscales (N = 418).

	Internal Adjustment	External Adjustment	Physical Adjustment
Age	.003	.120	−.052
Offender type	−.034	−.091	.032
Sentence length	−.082	−.035	−.066
Problem–solving	−.134*	−.179*	−.127*
Social support	−.148*	−.128*	−.123*
Avoidance	.214*	.166*	.152*
Friends	.251*	.194*	.239*
Family	.140*	.190*	.122*
Significant other	.160*	.186*	.112*
Physical aggression	−.123	−.197*	−.082
Verbal aggression	.074	.045	.010
Anger	−.168*	−.239*	−.130*
Hostility	−.164*	−.086	−.127*

p ⩽ .01.

Table 2 indicates that the strongest correlation coefficients are (1) between the subscale Friends and Internal Adjustment (.251) and (2) between the subscale Friends and Physical Adjustment (.239). These coefficients are statistically significant on the 1% level and gravitate towards a medium effect size.

Regression results

First, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the contribution of the different sets of variables (demographic variables – age, offender type classification, sentence length – coping skills, aggression levels and perceived social support) to the percentage of variance in Adjustment as well as the contribution of each of the individual independent variables. Adjustment was measured using three different subscales, namely Internal Adjustment, External Adjustment and Physical Adjustment. Three hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with one of the Adjustment subscales as criterion variable. When performing a hierarchical regression analysis, an effect size of .02 is small, .15 is medium and .35 is large (Steyn, 2005).

The results of the hierarchical regression analyses indicated that the combination of all 13 predictor variables were successful in predicting a statistically significant percentage of the variance in Internal (16.2%; F_13;404 = 5.999; p ⩽ .01), External (17.5%; F_13;404 = 6.577; p ⩽ .01) and Physical (11.6%; F_13;404 = 4.073; p ⩽ .01) adjustment. However, although some of the individual predictor variables independently statistically predicted a significant percentage of the variance in these three adjustment scales, none of them showed a medium to large effect size.

Since the hierarchical regression analyses did not deliver any practically significant results for any of the individual independent variables, stepwise regression analyses were conducted to determine whether a combination of different predictor variables could indeed explain a significant percentage of the variance in adjustment. Three different stepwise regression analyses were conducted with one of the adjustment scales as the criterion variable. For stepwise regression analysis, an effect size of .01 is small, .1 is medium, and .25 is large (Steyn, 2005). The results of the stepwise regression analysis with Internal Adjustment as the criterion variable are reported in Table 3.

Table 3.

Stepwise regression analysis with internal adjustment as criterion variable.

Step	Variable entered N = 418	Partial R²	Model R²	Change statistics
Step	Variable entered N = 418	Partial R²	Model R²	F-value	Direction of relationships with Internal Adjustment	Pr > F
1	Friends	.063	.063	27.943	Positive	.000*
2	Avoidance	.034	.097	22.346	Positive	.000*
3	Problem-solving	.027	.124	19.532	Negative	.000*

p ⩽ .01.

In Step 1, the independent variable, Friends, was first entered into the regression equation and accounted for 6.3% of the variance of Internal Adjustment (F = 27.943, p ⩽ .01, p² = .07). In Step 2, the independent variable, Avoidance, was added to the regression equation and contributed an additional 3.4% to the variance of Internal Adjustment (F = 22.346, p ⩽ .01). Combined, these two independent variables, Friends and Avoidance, accounted for 9.7% (p ⩽ .01, p² = .10) of the variance in the offenders’ Internal Adjustment. In the last step (Step 3), the independent variable, Problem-solving, was added to the regression equation and contributed an additional 2.7% (F = 19.532, p ⩽ .01) to the variance of Internal Adjustment of the participants. These three independent variables, Friends, Avoidance and Problem-solving explained 12.4% (p ⩽ 0.01, p² = .12) of the variance in the Internal Adjustment of offenders, while the remaining 10 variables (16.2%−12.4% = 3.8%) in combination only explained an additional 3.8% to the variance in Internal Adjustment.

The results of the stepwise regression analysis with External Adjustment as the criterion variable are reported in Table 4.

Table 4.

Stepwise regression analysis with external adjustment as criterion variable.

Step	Variable entered N = 418	Partial R²	Model R²	Change statistics
Step	Variable entered N = 418	Partial R²	Model R²	F-value	Direction of relationships with Internal Adjustment	Pr > F
1	Anger	.057	.057	25.094	Negative	.000*
2	Friends	.030	.087	19.854	Positive	.000*
3	Verbal Aggression	.025	.112	17.425	Positive	.000*

p ⩽ .01.

In Step 1, the independent variable, Anger, was first entered into the regression equation and explained 5.7% of the variance of External Adjustment (F = 25.094, p ⩽ .01, p² = .06). In Step 2 of the regression equation, the independent variable, Friends, was added and contributed an additional 3.0% to the variance of External Adjustment (F = 19.854, p ⩽ .01). Together these two independent variables, Anger and Friends, accounted for 8.7% (p ⩽ .01, p² = .10) of the variance in their External Adjustment. Finally, the independent variable, Verbal Aggression, was added to the regression equation and contributed an additional 2.5% (F = 17.425, p ⩽ .01) to the variance of External Adjustment of the participants. These three independent variables, Anger, Friends and Verbal Aggression, explained 11.2% (p ⩽ .01, p² = .11) of the variance in the External Adjustment of the offenders, while the remaining 10 variables (17.5%−11.2% = 6.3%) in combination only explained an additional 6.3% to the variance in External Adjustment.

The results of the stepwise regression analysis with Physical Adjustment as the criterion variable are reported in Table 5.

Table 5.

Stepwise regression analysis with physical adjustment as criterion variable.

Step	Variable entered N = 418	Partial R²	Model R²	Change statistics
Step	Variable entered N = 418	Partial R²	Model R²	F-value	Direction of relationships with Internal Adjustment	Pr > F
1	Friends	.057	.057	25.283	Positive	.000*
2	Avoidance	.016	.073	16.261	Positive	.000*
3	Problem-solving	.020	.093	14.071	Negative	.000*

p ⩽ .01.

In Step 1, the independent variable, Friends, was first entered into the regression equation and explained 5.7% of the variance of Physical Adjustment (F = 25.283, p ⩽ .01, p² = .06). Second, the independent variable, Avoidance, was added to the regression equation and contributed an additional 1.6% to the variance of Physical Adjustment on the 1% level of significance (F = 16.261, p ⩽ .01). Combined, these two independent variables, Friends and Avoidance, explained 7.3% (p ⩽ .01, p² = .07) of the variance in the offenders’ Physical Adjustment. In Step 3, the independent variable, Problem-solving, was added to the regression equation and contributed an additional 2.0% (F = 14.071, p ⩽ .01) to the variance of Physical Adjustment. These three independent variables, Friends, Avoidance and Problem-solving, explained 9.3% (p ⩽ .01, p² = .09) of the variance in the Physical Adjustment of the offenders, while the remaining 10 variables (11.6%−9.3% = 2.3%) in combination only explained an additional 2.3% to the variance in Physical Adjustment.

Discussion

A more distinct understanding of offender adjustment in private, maximum-security correctional centres is required. This research highlights that while variables (coping, aggression, perceived social support, age, offender type classification, sentence length) can statistically significantly predict correctional adjustment, the results are of little practical significance. However, the stepwise regression analyses did reveal that the combination of some variables (Friends, Avoidance and Problem-solving) for Internal Adjustment and (Anger, Friends and Verbal Aggression) for External Adjustment were of medium practical importance.

An interesting finding from this study is the positive statistically significant correlations between Friends (as a form of perceived social support) and Internal Adjustment and Physical Adjustment. These results contradict previous findings that offenders who perceive more support from friends and significant others experience better correctional adjustment (Adams, 1992; Asberg and Renk, 2012; Liu and Chui, 2013; Woo et al., 2016). Thus, social support is not always supportive (Hobbs, 2000), and it depends on how offenders perceive the support they receive, albeit negative (Larson and Lee, 1996; McColl et al., 1995). Thus, although the offender might receive support, it may not be perceived as particularly supportive. Research on a South African sample of incarcerated offenders indicated that offers of ‘friendship’ by other offenders while incarcerated could be used as a way to control and manipulate an offender (Gear and Ngubeni, 2002). In addition, the more offenders are exposed to other offenders with delinquent behaviours, the more of a negative impact it can have on them (Gear and Ngubeni, 2002; Hesselink and Grobler, 2015; Peacock and Theron, 2007). In essence, while offenders may perceive some degree of support from ‘friends’ while incarcerated, research has shown that ‘moves resembling gestures of friendship’ are among the most commonly reported forms of trickery among incarcerated offenders (Gear and Ngubeni, 2002: 18). Victims of such trickery are frequently unaware that an exchange is taking place and debt being created that will have to be repaid (Gear and Ngubeni, 2002). Offenders receiving more support from ‘friends’ who are also incarcerated may be forced or coerced into gang activity as a form of protection and survival and be required to engage in behaviours, such as providing or selling illegal items, which may impact their adjustment (Dissel, 1996; Gear, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Gear and Ngubeni, 2002). Research has also suggested that offenders who rely solely on outside social support, such as friends and family, experienced poorer adjustment to the correctional environment (Lindquist, 2000). Nevertheless, research has indicated that social support provided to offenders by the correctional centre or significant others lessen criminal involvement while incarcerated and enhances social ties (Cochran and Mears, 2013; Siennick et al., 2013; Woo et al., 2016). Social support while incarcerated is also vital as it assists offenders to satisfy their basic needs and position themselves with a measure of security within the correctional environment (Liu and Chui, 2013).

The results also showed that problem-solving and avoidance as coping strategies could serve as predictors of Internal Adjustment. Research has found that offenders who can use problem-solving as their preferred form of coping tend to experience incarceration more effectively and positively (Biggam and Power, 1999; Hesselink-Louw, 2004; Jordaan, 2014; Lipsey and Cullen, 2007). However, other research has indicated that despite problem-focused coping (i.e. problem-solving) being a healthy and effective form of coping in the real world (Carver, 2011), it is ineffective and particularly frustrating within the correctional context (Chahal et al., 2016; Picken, 2012; Van Herreveld et al., 2007). This is because the offenders’ controllability of problems within the correctional environment is often quite low and since offenders have limited autonomy and freedom while incarcerated (Matshaba, 2007; Sykes, 1958), particularly in a maximum-security correctional centre (Jordaan, 2014; Loots, 2010; Matshaba, 2007; Neser, 1993). Although the correlations between problem-solving and the adjustment scales in this study were not practically significant, the findings did indicate that higher levels of problem-solving were associated with improved levels of adjustment. This finding is in line with international and South African studies (Biggam and Power, 1999; Hesselink-Louw, 2004; Jordaan, 2014; Lipsey and Cullen, 2007; Picken, 2012; Rocheleau, 2011) that indicated that problem-solving may be an adaptive form of coping in the correctional environment, which in turn could lead to better adjustment.

Chahal et al. (2016) found that avoidance coping in the form of denial and externalisation was one of the most common forms of coping among mentally healthy male offenders. This study showed that male offenders are more likely to ignore stressful situations or minimise their seriousness and blame other people for their behaviour while incarcerated (Chahal et al., 2016). Avoidance coping is seen as a type of coping employed when an individual initiates cognitive and behavioural efforts to deny, minimise or ultimately avoid dealing directly with stressful situations (Cronkite and Moos, 1995; Newhard, 2014; Penley et al., 2002). Avoidance coping may be normal and, in some circumstances, useful in the correctional environment, especially regarding the challenging correctional context (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). However, previous studies have indicated that avoidance coping responses can be closely linked to distress, depression and negative outcomes (Abbott, 2003; Moos and Holahan, 2003). Similarly, this study’s correlations between avoidance and the adjustment scales were not practically significant. However, the findings in this study did indicate that higher levels of avoidance were associated with decreased levels of adjustment. This finding aligns with studies that reported that avoidance coping tends to lead to mental health concerns and negative outcomes such as maladjustment (Abbott, 2003; Moos and Holahan, 2003). Offenders who are less inclined to use avoidance as a coping strategy are more inclined to be vigilant when making decisions that lead to better coping and adjustment (Pretorius et al., 2022).

Anger and verbal aggression served as predictors of External Adjustment. In terms of adjustment and aggression levels, previous studies have affirmed that offenders with higher levels of aggression tend to be more lonely and suicidal than their less aggressive counterparts (Carrizales, 2013) and that these maladaptive psychological factors impacted their correctional adjustment (Picken, 2012). Other researchers, however, argued that more aggressive and violent offenders tend to adjust better to the correctional environment as they tend to control and intimidate other offenders and are targeted less frequently than non-violent offenders (Crank, 2010; HM Prison and Probation Service, 2018). A 2018 analytical summary indicated that offenders who acknowledged bullying others while incarcerated reported perceiving benefits from doing so and from engaging in aggression in general (HM Prison and Probation Service, 2018). More aggressive, angry and violent offenders may experience better correctional adjustment as they may be intimidating to other offenders and be targeted less often (Crank, 2010; HM Prison and Probation Service, 2018). It is also likely that they may be more feared by other offenders; thus other offenders avoid them (Picken, 2012).

Although the impact of incarceration varies from one offender to another and the effects are frequently reversible, adjustment to incarceration is often a challenging process, which involves several post-release consequences (Gonçalves, 2014; Haney, 2003). How the individual offender responds to incarceration is an important predecessor for shaping his behaviour while incarcerated and for succeeding recidivism (Hochstetler and DeLisi, 2005; Hsieh et al., 2018; Nagin et al., 2009). Research found that adverse experiences while incarcerated, such as institutional misconduct (Nagin et al., 2009; Trulson et al., 2010, 2011) and ineffective correctional rehabilitation programmes (Grady et al., 2015), are significant predictors of reoffending upon release (Hsieh et al., 2018). Researching and understanding offender adjustment to maximum-security incarceration will thus aid in developing future programmes that will assist offenders with adjustment to the correctional environment. This will support the expectant rehabilitation and ultimately the re-entry of offenders back into society.

Limitations

A literature search did not deliver results as to any previous, similar studies investigating the predictors of correctional adjustment among male incarcerated offenders in private, maximum-security correctional centres in the South African context. This is a pertinent limitation of the study, especially considering that there was no specific previous literature to draw upon or compare this particular population’s results.

Another limitation of this study is that the data collection site is unique, structured and contextualised. The vast majority of offenders who are detained there and who participated in this study are serving very long sentences, most more than 25 years, for similar, violent-type offences. Due to this, the results of this study are not particularly generalisable to incarcerated offenders in public correctional centres around South Africa and beyond.

Another particular limitation of the study pertains to the use of convenience sampling. With the use of convenience sampling, the sample is not representative of the population, and therefore these results are not generalisable (Stangor, 2015) to other populations of offenders.

Furthermore, all of the data used to formulate the results of this study was gathered using self-report questionnaires. The transparency of self-report assessment methods is viewed as a limitation as participants could determine the purpose of the instruments in some cases. This can be particularly problematic in the correctional context where offenders may be motivated to misrepresent their true selves to outsiders as they have been understood to be deceptive individuals who will portray themselves in a more favourable light (Hare, 1991, 2011; Seager, 2005). Therefore, the possibility exists that the participants in this study could have engaged in reactivity when responding to the questionnaires in an attempt to appear more socially desirable or promote themselves through their responses in the hopes that it will improve their parole prospects or other correctional conditions.

Recommendations for future research

South African researchers must conduct sustained research among incarcerated offender populations and, more specifically, male incarcerated offenders in the two private maximum-security correctional centres in South Africa. The Research Agenda of the Department of Correctional Services (2019–2023) unequivocally states that ‘research in corrections has led to significant discoveries, development of new ways of rehabilitating offenders and improvements in correctional care’ (DCS, 2019: 1). Without continued research, it is difficult to support offenders in their adjustment to these challenging environments, which impacts their rehabilitation within the correctional centre and upon the broader society if and when released.

Research shows an ‘adjustment period’ for the offender, typically lasting up until 1 year after initial incarceration in a new environment. Future researchers can endeavour to research only those incarcerated offenders that have been incarcerated for less than 1 year in public and/or private correctional centres. This will most probably yield more significant results.

The same or similar-type research can expectantly be conducted at public, medium or maximum-security correctional centres in South Africa. This would ensure a more varied sample of offenders of different ages, awaiting trial detainees, offender type classifications and sentence lengths, among others. Therefore, more research may address the question of which variables are the best predictors of correctional adjustment among male incarcerated offenders in correctional centres. Future research may also prove useful in answering this question within the context of public correctional centres in South Africa. The findings of this study could also be used to inform interventions that will enable offenders to learn the necessary coping skills required to adjust to the correctional environment and realise that there are better ways of dealing with the daily challenges in the correctional environment. Importantly, correctional staff members should realise that offender coping strategies can be changed while incarcerated. In this regard, offenders who are disadvantaged in terms of their ability to cope and adjust should be encouraged to participate in available intervention programmes aimed at gaining new skills that will help them adjust and cope both inside and outside of the correctional environment.

Contribution of this study

This study contributed to the larger collection of South African research, which aims to understand correctional populations. In 2019, the DCS explicitly noted in their Research Agenda of the Department of Correctional Services (2019–2023) the absolute importance of correctional research in providing vital information regarding incarcerated offender populations, their trends as well as planning and identifying risk factors for the main purpose of improving correctional centres. Thus, this study contributed to the incredibly limited body of correctional research on offenders incarcerated in private, maximum-security correctional centres in South Africa and beyond. This study also highlighted specific variables as predictors of correctional adjustment among male incarcerated offenders in a private, maximum-security correctional centre. These variables can be further investigated in future research. Finally, this research can assist with the future development and implementation of rehabilitation programmes to assist with the treatment and eventually the potential reintegration of offenders back into the community post-release.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jacques Jordaan

Author biographies

Codi Rogers is a Clinical Project Manager with a Global Clinical Research Organisation (CRO). She completed her master’s degree (UFS) in 2019 on the predictors of prison adjustment among male incarcerated offenders in a private, maximum-security correctional centre.

Jacques Jordaan (PhD) is a registered and practicing counselling psychologist and Senior lecturer in the Department of Psychology (UFS). He has various publications in national and international journals. He also worked for 10 years in a private, maximum-security correctional centre in South Africa. His research focuses on aspects such as coping, adjustment, aggression, psychopathy, victimisation, perpetrator trauma, risk behaviours and so on, among offender populations.

Karel Esterhuyse is a registered and practicing research psychologist, full professor, and NRF-rated researcher in the Department of Psychology (UFS). He has published widely in national and international journals on issues pertaining to psychometric test development. He specialises in advanced statistical analysis methods focusing on developing new measuring instruments/questionnaires and assessing the reliability and/or validity and factor structures of existing questionnaires/instruments.

References

Abbott

(2003) Coping with cystic fibrosis. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96(43): 42–50.

Adams

(1992) Adjusting to prison life. Crime and Justice 16: 275–359.

Aday

(2003) Aging Prisoners: Crisis in American Corrections. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Aday

Krabill

(2013) Older and geriatric offenders: Critical issues for the 21st century. In: Gideon

(ed.) Special Needs Offenders in Correctional Institutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 203–232.

Agbakwuru

Ibe-Godfrey

(2017) Correlates of coping with the challenges of incarceration among Nigerian prison inmates. British Journal of Education 5(3): 69–77.

Agboola

(2016) Memories of the ‘inside’: Conditions in South Africa’s women’s prisons. South African Crime Quarterly 56: 19–26.

Akerstrom

(1985) Crooks and Squares, 2nd edn. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Amirkhan

(1990) A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The coping strategy indicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(5): 1066–1074.

Amirkhan

(1994) Criterion validity of a coping measure. Journal of Personality Assessment 62(2): 242–261.

10.

Arbach-Lucioni

Martinez-García

Andrés-Pueyo

(2012) Risk factors for violent behavior in prison inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior 39(9): 1219–1239.

11.

Asberg

Renk

(2012) Perceived social support and external locus of control as predictors of psychological adjustment among incarcerated females with or without a history of childhood maltreatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 58: 59–84.

12.

Biggam

Power

(1999) A comparison of the problem-solving abilities and psychological distress of suicidal, bullied and protected prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior 26(2): 196–216.

13.

Biggam

Power

(2002) A controlled problem-solving, group-based intervention with vulnerable incarcerated young offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 46: 678–698.

14.

Blevins

Listwan

Cullen

, et al. (2010) A general strain theory of prison violence and misconduct: An integrated model of inmate behaviour. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 26(2): 148–166.

15.

Booyens

Bezuidenhout

(2014) An exploratory study of sex and rape behind bars in a South African prison. International Criminal Justice Review 24(4): 377–391.

16.

Bouffard

(2015) Examining the direct and indirect effects of fear and anger on criminal decision making among known offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 59(13): 1385–1408.

17.

Brown

Day

(2008) The role of loneliness in prison suicide prevention and management. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47(4): 433–449.

18.

Buss

Perry

(1992) The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(3): 452–459.

19.

Canda

Java

Loredo-Abuyo

(2015) A correctional study between adjustment to prison and transition to community life of female inmates at the correctional institution for women in Mandaluyong City. LPU Laguna Journal of Arts and Sciences 2(2): 1–28.

20.

Carr

(2013) The process of adjustment and coping for women in secure forensic environments. Master’s Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

21.

Carrizales

(2013) Loneliness, violence, aggression and suicidality in incarcerated youth. PhD Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

22.

Carver

(2011) Coping. In: Contrada

Baum

(eds) The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health. New York: Springer, pp. 221–229.

23.

Casey

Day

Reynolds

(2016) The influence of incarceration length and protection status on perceptions of prison social climate. Criminal Justice and Behavior 43(2): 285–296.

24.

Cervello

(2015) The experience of older incarcerated men. Masters’ Thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

25.

Chahal

Rana

Singh

(2016) Impact of coping on mental health of convicted prisoners. The International Journal of Indian Psychology 3(2): 66–75.

26.

Chubaty

(2001) Victimization, fear, and coping in prison. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

27.

Cochran

Mears

(2013) Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice 41: 252–261.

28.

Codd

(2020) Prisons, older people, and age-friendly cities and communities: Towards an inclusive approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(24): 9200.

29.

Crank

(2010) Adapting to incarceration: Inmate perceptions of prison life and adjustment. Master’s Thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

30.

Cronje

(2017) A comparative analysis of recidivism with specific reference to crimino-victimogenic variables, offence analysis and programme participation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.

31.

Cronkite

Moos

(1995) Life context, coping processes, and depression. In: Beckham

Leber

(eds) Handbook of Depression, vol.2. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 569–587.

32.

Delaney

(2019) Top nine wishes to end mass incarceration in 2019: What the future should look like for prisoners. Available at: http://lawatthemargins.com/top-nine-wishes-to-end-mass-incarceration-in-2019-what-the-future-should-look-like-for-prisoners/ (accessed 10 June 2021).

33.

Department of Correctional Services (2018) Annual report 2017-2018. Available at: http://www.dcs.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/DCS-AR-2017-18-WEB.pdf (accessed 8 September 2021).

34.

Department of Correctional Services (2019) Research agenda of the Department of Correctional Services (2019-2023). Available at: http://www.dcs.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DCS-Research-Agenda-11-March-2019-.pdf (accessed 1 May 2021).

35.

Department of Correctional Services (2020) Annual report 2019-2020. Available at: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202012/corectional-services-annual-report-201920.pdf (accessed 8 September 2021).

36.

DeVeaux

(2013) The trauma of the incarceration experience. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48: 257–277.

37.

De Viggiani

(2007) Unhealthy prisons: Exploring structural determinants of prison health. Sociology of Health and Illness 29(1): 115–135.

38.

Dhami

Ayton

Loewenstein

(2007) Adaptation to imprisonment. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34(8): 1085–1100.

39.

Dissel

(1996) South Africa’s prison conditions: The inmates talk. Imbizo 2: 4–10.

40.

Dixon-Gordon

Harrison

Roesch

(2012) Non-suicidal self-injury within offender populations: A systematic review. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 11(1): 33–50.

41.

Du Preez

Luyt

(2006) The application of case management in a private prison: A South African case study. Acta Criminologica 19(3): 195–213.

42.

Du Preez

Muthaphuli

(2019) The deterrent value of punishment on crime prevention using judicial approaches. Just Africa 1: 34–46.

43.

Dye

(2010) Deprivation, importation, and prison suicide: Combined effects of institutional conditions and inmate composition. Journal of Criminal Justice 38: 796–806.

44.

Gear

(2007a) Behind the bars of masculinity: Male rape and homophobia in and about South African men’s prisons. Sexualities 10(2): 209–227.

45.

Gear

(2007b) Fear, violence and sexual violence in a Gauteng juvenile correctional centre for males (CSVR Criminal Justice Programme, Briefing Report no. 2). Available at: https://www.csvr.org.za/docs/gender/fearviolence.pdf (accessed 10 December 2020).

46.

Gear

(2008) Sexual violence in South African men’s prisons: Dynamics of ‘manhood’ and coercive sexualities. Paper presented at the 10th conference of the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders, Cape Town, South Africa.

47.

Gear

(2010) Imprisoning men in violence: Masculinity and sexual abuse – A view from South African prisons. South African Crime Quarterly 33: 6–9.

48.

Gear

Ngubeni

(2002) Daai Ding: Sex, Sexual Violence and Coercion in Men’s Prisons. Johannesburg, South Africa: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

49.

Gonçalves

(2014) Inmate adjustment to prison and correctional practices: Explaining institutional infractions, health care utilization, and coping strategies. PhD Dissertation, University of Minho, Braga.

50.

Gonçalves

Martins

, et al. (2014) Predicting infractions and health care utilization in prison: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior 40(8): 921–942.

51.

Grady

Edwards

Pettus-Davis

(2015) A longitudinal outcome evaluation of a prison-based sex offender treatment program. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment 29(3): 239–266.

52.

Gullone

Jones

Cummins

(2000) Coping styles and prison experience as predictors of psychological well-being in male prisoners. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 7: 170–181.

53.

Haney

(2003) Mental health issues in long-term solitary and ‘supermax’ confinement. Crime and Delinquency 49(1): 124–156.

54.

Hare

(1991) Manual for the Revised PCL/PCL-R Checklist. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

55.

Hare

(2011) Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R), 2nd edn (Technical Manual). Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

56.

Hayward

McMurran

Sellen

(2008) Social problem solving in vulnerable adult prisoners: Profile and intervention. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 19(2): 243–248.

57.

Hesselink

Booyens

(2014) Correctional criminology: An innovative South African practice. Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology Research 1: 1–15.

58.

Hesselink

Grobler

(2015) Criminologists in corrections: An assessment and understanding of gang involvement and related behaviour. Change in African Corrections: From Incarceration to Reintegration 2: 22–37.

59.

Hesselink-Louw

(2004) Criminological assessment of prison inmates: A constructive mechanism towards offender rehabilitation. PhD Thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

60.

HM Prison and Probation Service (2018) Understanding prison violence: A rapid evidence assessment. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/737956/understanding-prison-violence.pdf (accessed 21 September 2021).

61.

Hobbs

(2000) Prisoners’ use of social support. Master’s Thesis, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.

62.

Hochstetler

DeLisi

(2005) Importation, deprivation, and varieties of serving time: An integrated-lifestyle-exposure model of prison offending. Journal of Criminal Justice 33: 257–266.

63.

Hsieh

Hamilton

Zgoba

(2018) Prison experience and reoffending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 30: 556–575.

64.

Jordaan

(2014) The development and evaluation of a life skills programme for young adult prisoners. PhD Dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

65.

Jordaan

Hesselink

(2022) Predictors of aggression among sample-specific young adult offenders: Continuation of violent behavior within South African correctional centers. International Criminal Justice Review 32(1): 68–87.

66.

Jordaan

Beukes

Esterhuyse

(2018) The development and evaluation of a life skills programme for young adult offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(10): 3077–3096.

67.

Kerbs

Jolley

(2007) Inmate-on-inmate victimization among older male prisoners. Crime and Delinquency 53(2): 187–218.

68.

Lahm

(2008) Inmate-on-inmate assault: A multilevel examination of prison violence. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 35(1): 120–137.

69.

Lahm

(2009) Inmate assaults on prison staff: A multilevel examination of an overlooked form of prison violence. The Prison Journal 89(2): 131–150.

70.

LaPlant

Bellair

Kowalski

, et al. (2021) Assessing the delivery of the thinking for a change program in modified formats: An experimental approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65(8): 832–857.

71.

Larson

Lee

(1996) The capacity to be alone as a stress buffer. Journal of Social Psychology 136: 5–16.

72.

Lazarus

Folkman

(1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

73.

Lindquist

(2000) Social integration and mental well-being among jail inmates. Sociological Forum 15: 431–455.

74.

Lipsey

Cullen

(2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3: 297–320.

75.

Liu

Chui

(2013) Social support and Chinese female offenders’ prison adjustment. The Prison Journal 94(1): 30–51.

76.

Logan

(2015) Coping with imprisonment: Testing the special sensitivity hypothesis for White Collar offenders. PhD Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

77.

Lohner

Konrad

(2006) Deliberate self-harm and suicide attempt in custody: Distinguishing features in male inmates’ self-injurious behavior. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 29(5): 370–385.

78.

Lohner

Konrad

(2007) Risk factors for self-injurious behaviour in custody: Problems of definition and prediction. International Journal of Prisoner Health 3(2): 135–161.

79.

Loots

(2010) Antisocial personalities among maximum security prisoners. PhD Dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

80.

McColl

Lei

Skinner

(1995) Structural relationships between social support and coping. Social Science and Medicine 41(3): 395–407.

81.

Matshaba

(2007) Imprisonment in South Africa under maximum security conditions in the new millennium. Master’s Thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

82.

May

Wood

Eades

(2008) Lessons learned from punishment exchange rates: Implications for theory, research, and correctional policy. Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment 1(2): 187–201.

83.

May

Wood

Mooney

, et al. (2005) Predicting offender generated exchange rates: Implications for a theory of sentence severity. Crime and Delinquency 51(3): 373–399.

84.

Mears

Cochran

Bales

, et al. (2016) Recidivism and time served in prison. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 106(1): 81–122.

85.

Moore

Gobin

McCauley

, et al. (2018) The relation of borderline personality disorder to aggression, victimization, and institutional misconduct among prisoners. Comprehensive Psychiatry 84: 15–21.

86.

Moos

Holahan

(2003) Dispositional and contextual perspectives on coping: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Clinical Psychology 59(12): 1387–1403.

87.

Morash

Jeong

Zang

(2010) An exploratory study of the characteristics of men known to commit prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence. The Prison Journal 90(2): 161–178.

88.

Muntingh

(2009a) Exprisoners’ views on imprisonment and re-entry. Available at: https://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Ex-prisoners%20Views%20on%20Imprisonment%20and%20Re-Entry.pdf (accessed 8 September 2021).

89.

Muntingh

(2009b) Reducing prison violence: Implications from the literature for South Africa. Available at: https://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Reducing%20Prison%20Violence.pdf (accessed 8 September 2021).

90.

Nagin

Cullen

Jonson

(2009) Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice 38: 115–200.

91.

Neser

(1993) Penitentiary Penology, 2nd edn. Johannesburg, South Africa: Lexicon.

92.

Newhard

(2014) Coping responses and mental health symptoms in incarcerated juvenile males. PhD Dissertation, Antioch University, Santa Barbara, CA.

93.

Novo

Pereira

Vázquez

, et al. (2017) Adaptation to prison and psychological adjustment in a sample of prison inmates. Acción Psicológica 14(2): 113–128.

94.

Peacock

(2008a) Adolescent identity, the criminal event and criminal justice in South Africa. Acta Criminologica: CRIMSA Conference Special Edition 1: 61–74.

95.

Peacock

(2008b) Identity development of the incarcerated adolescent: A comparative analysis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

96.

Peacock

Theron

(2007) Identity development of the incarcerated adolescent with particular reference to prison gang membership. Acta Criminologica: South African Journal of Criminology 20(3): 61–71.

97.

Penley

Tomaka

Wiebe

(2002) The association of coping to physical and psychological health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 6: 551–603.

98.

Perez

Gover

Tennyson

, et al. (2009) Individual and institutional characteristics related to inmate victimization. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 54(3): 378–394.

99.

Perry

Waterman

House

, et al. (2019a) Implementation of a problem-solving training initiative to reduce self-harm in prisons: A qualitative perspective of prison staff, field researchers and prisoners at risk of self-harm. Health Justice 7: 1–13.

100.

Perry

Waterman

House

, et al. (2019b) Problem-solving training: Assessing the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating a problem-solving training model for front-line prison staff and prisoners who self-harm. BMJ Open 9(10): e026095.

101.

Picken

(2012) The coping strategies, adjustment and well-being of male inmates in the prison environment. Master’s Thesis, Birmingham City University, Birmingham.

102.

Pope

(2018) Self-harm by adult men in prison: A rapid evidence assessment (REA). Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739521/self-harm-adult-men-prison-2018.pdf (accessed 7 September 2021).

103.

Pretorius

(2019) Predictors of coping amongst male incarcerated offenders in a private maximum-security correctional centre. Master’s Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

104.

Pretorius

Jordaan

Esterhuyse

(2022) Decision-making, aggression, age, and type of crime as predictors of coping among young adult male maximum-security incarcerated offenders. Criminology & Criminal Justice. Epub ahead of print 6 January. DOI: 10.1177/17488958211067916.

105.

Reid

Listwan

(2018) Managing the threat of violence: Coping strategies amongst juvenile inmates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3(8): 1306–1326.

106.

Renbarger

Rivera

Sulak

(2019) What predicts literacy, numeracy, and problem solving for incarcerated individuals? A PIAAC examination. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 58(3): 199–219.

107.

Rocheleau

AMK

(2011) Prisoners’ coping skills and involvement in serious prison misconduct and violence. Doctoral Dissertation, The College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.

108.

Rocheleau

AMK

(2013) An empirical exploration of the ‘pains of imprisonment’ and the level of prison misconduct and violence. Criminal Justice Review 38(3): 354–374.

109.

Rogers

(2019) Predictors of prison adjustment amongst male incarcerated offenders. Master’s Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

110.

Scaggs

SJA

(2017) The aging inmate crisis: Institutional adjustment and post-prison outcome differences between older and younger prisoners. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

111.

Seager

(2005) Violent men: The importance of impulsivity and cognitive schema. Criminal Justice and Behavior 32(1): 26–49.

112.

Seiter

(2013) Corrections: An Introduction, 5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education.

113.

Sekhonyane

(2003) The pros and cons: Public-private partnerships (PPP) in South African prisons. South African Crime Quarterly 3(1): 33–36.

114.

Siennick

Mears

Bales

(2013) Here and gone: Anticipation and separation effects of prison visits on inmate infractions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 50: 417–444.

115.

Smith

Goggin

Gendreau

(2002) The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences (Cat. No: JS42-103/2002). Ottawa, ON, Canada: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

116.

Stangor

(2015) Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, 4th edn. New York: Cengage.

117.

Steyn

(2005) Handleiding vir die bepaling van effekgrootte-indekse en praktiese betekenisvolheid/Manual for determining effect size indices and practical significance. Available at: http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/skd/index.html (accessed 20 May 2021).

118.

Sykes

(1958) The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. The Yale Law Journal 68(4): 826.

119.

Toch

Adams

(2002) Acting Out: Maladaptive Behaviors in Confinement. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

120.

Toman

Cochran

, et al. (2015) The implications of sentence length for inmate adjustment to prison life. Journal of Criminal Justice 43(6): 510–521.

121.

Tomar

(2013) The psychological effects of incarceration on inmates: Can we promote positive emotion in inmates. Delhi Psychiatry Journal 16(1): 66–72.

122.

Tonry

(2008) Learning from the limits of deterrence research. In: Tonry

(ed.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 279–311.

123.

Trulson

DeLisi

Marquart

(2011) Institutional misconduct, delinquent background, and rearrest frequency among serious and violent delinquent offenders. Crime and Delinquency 57: 709–731.

124.

Trulson

DeLisi

Caudill

, et al. (2010) Delinquent careers behind bars. Criminal Justice Review 35: 200–219.

125.

Valentine

(2012) Unraveling the age, prison misconduct, and recidivism relationship. PhD Dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

126.

Valentine

Mears

Bales

(2015) Unpacking the relationship between age and prison misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice 43(5): 418–427.

127.

Van Herreveld

Van Der Pligt

Claassen

, et al. (2007) Inmate emotion coping and psychological and physical well-being: The use of crying over spilled milk. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34(5): 697–708.

128.

Vogt

(2005) Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology. London: SAGE.

129.

Wagner

Rabuy

(2016) Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2016. Available at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html (accessed 9 September 2019).

130.

Wagner

Sawyer

(2018) Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2018. Available at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018.html (accessed 9 September 2019).

131.

Weiten

Dunn

Hammer

(2018) Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century, 12th edn. New York: Cengage.

132.

Wolff

Blitz

Shi

, et al. (2007) Physical violence inside prisons: Rates of victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34: 588–599.

133.

Wolfgang

(1961) Quantitative analysis of adjustment to the prison community. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 51(6): 608–618.

134.

Woo

Stohr

(2016) Social support and the gendered experience of incarceration in South Korean prisons. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 14(3): 172–194.

135.

Wright

(1983) Improving Correctional Classification through the Study of the Placement of Inmates in Correctional Settings. Binghamton, NY: Centre for Social Analysis; National Institute of Justice.

136.

Wright

(1985) Developing the prison environment inventory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22(3): 257–277.

137.

Wright

(1991) A study of individual, environmental, and interactive effects in explaining adjustment to prison. Justice Quarterly 8: 217–241.

138.

Wright

Crewe

Hulley

(2017) Suppression, denial, sublimation: Defending against the initial pains of very long life sentences. Theoretical Criminology 21(2): 225–246.

139.

Zimet

Dahlem

Zimet

, et al. (1988) The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment 52: 30–41.