Group Climate and Empathy in a Sample of Incarcerated Boys

Introduction

Juvenile delinquency and recidivism constitute serious problems in society (Loeber & Farrington, 1998). To attend to these problems, incarcerating adolescent delinquents in Dutch society and in most Western societies not only serves the goals of punishment and deterrence but also is aimed at treatment and rehabilitation (Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009; Liebling & Maruna, 2005). Adolescents in Dutch youth correctional facilities are treated in living groups consisting of 8 to 10 youngsters, supervised by trained social workers. However, little is known about the effectiveness of treatment in secure facilities (Camp & Gaes, 2005; Garrido & Morales, 2007; Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, & Beauregard, 2008; Van der Helm, Boekee, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011). In their review of group processes in offender treatment, Marshall and Burton (2010) concluded that characteristics of the therapist, therapeutic alliance, and group climate constitute major mechanisms of effective treatment with juvenile offenders, and that more research on group processes is needed in offender treatment given the limited body of research in this area.

In their meta-analysis, Jolliffe and Farrington (2004) have shown delinquent youth to exhibit less empathy than nondelinquent youth (see also de Wied, Goedena, & Mattys, 2005; Lovett & Sheffield, 2007; Smith & Farrington, 2004). Results were stronger for cognitive empathy (understanding of another’s emotions) than for affective empathy (experience of another’s emotions), although the relationship between affective empathy and delinquency remains equivocal (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007). This finding is of major importance because empathy is thought to be a motivational base for moral development (Eisenberg & Eggum, 2009). In a recent meta-analysis, Van Vugt et al. (2011) showed more advanced moral development in terms of moral emotion and moral cognition to be associated with lower recidivism rates, with the largest mean effect size for moral judgment. The findings of this meta-analysis concur with the results from the meta-analysis by Stams et al. (2006), who showed that delay in moral judgment is strongly associated with juvenile delinquency.

Treatment and Group Climate in a Youth Correctional Facility

In a youth correctional facility, the social environment has been described in terms of group climate, which can be relatively “open” (rehabilitative, in the sense of providing a structured therapeutic environment; Lipsey, 2009; Parhar et al., 2008) or “closed” (repressive; Van der Helm, Klapwijk, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2009). A structured, safe, and rehabilitative environment at the living group is designated as an open group climate (Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011). An open group climate, with sufficient support from group workers, ample opportunities for growth, and a safe atmosphere, is thought to foster affiliation, perspective taking, and empathy (Van der Helm, 2011).

A closed or repressive group climate (Toch, 2008; Toch & Kupers, 2007; Van der Helm et al., 2011) is characterized by an extremely asymmetric balance of power, great dependency on staff, lack of mutual respect, emphasis on incremental and haphazard rules and punishment (chickenshit rules), aggression, boredom, hopelessness, fear, and lack of protection (Harvey, 2005; Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Little, 1990; Wright & Goodstein, 1989). A repressive group climate with permanent danger signals in the immediate environment will result in stress, aggression, fear, and distrust, reducing empathy (Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Troetschell, 2001; Fishbein & Sheppard, 2006; Miers, 2010; Nelson & Trainor, 2007; Wright, 1991).

This study examines the relationship between group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated delinquent boys. We hypothesize that an open group climate in a youth correctional facility, characterized by support from group workers, ample opportunities for growth, and a safe atmosphere, will be associated with more empathy (Hypothesis 1), but a closed (repressive) living climate will be associated with less empathy (Hypothesis 2).

Method

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations of the four group climate dimensions and cognitive and affective empathy as well as the associations among these variables. Juvenile delinquents reported lower affective empathy (M = 2.7, SD = 0.61) than cognitive empathy (M = 3.5, SD = 0.73): paired samples t test, t(51) = 6.37, p = .00. The empathy scores can be compared with normative data from the BES validation study in the Netherlands that was carried out in a population sample of adolescent boys and girls (Van Langen et al., 2010). Adolescent boys’ mean scores for affective empathy (M = 3.02, SD = 0.65, n = 957) and cognitive empathy (M = 3.80, SD = 0.57, n = 957) were significantly higher in the validation study than in this study: for affective empathy, t(1014) = 3.68, p < .01; for cognitive empathy, t(1014) = 3.85, p < .001. The effect sizes (Cohen’s d) for the differences in affective and cognitive empathy between the validation study and this study were .49 and .52, respectively, that is, medium. Table 1 further shows that support and atmosphere were positively associated with cognitive empathy (for both r = .27), whereas repression was negatively associated with cognitive empathy (r = −.28). Associations among the four climate scales were in the expected direction, with repression showing a negative relationship with the other three climate scales (−.28 < r < .73).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Correlations Between Prison Group Climate Scales and Cognitive and Affective Empathy (N = 59)

	M	SD	Support	Growth	Repression	Atmosphere	Cognitive empathy
Support	2.8	0.94
Growth	3.1	0.98	.73***
Repression	3.3	0.76	−.28*	−.29*
Atmosphere	3.2	0.88	.63**	.62**	−.30*
Cognitive empathy	3.5	0.73	.27*	.15	−.28*	.27*
Affective empathy	2.7	0.61	−.016	.15	−.21	.050	0.1

*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (one-tailed significance).

Structural Equation Modelling

To investigate relationships between prison group climate scales and cognitive empathy, a structural equation model was fitted to the data using the statistical software package Amos 18. We chose only to present the best-fitting model. Cognitive empathy was the dependent variable. Fit indices (comparative fit index [CFI], Tucker–Lewis index [TLI], and root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]) ¹ and the model chi-square, also designated as the generalized likelihood ratio, were used to evaluate model fit (Kline, 2005). The following cutoff values are indicative of close model fit, normed fit index (NFI) and CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.95, and RMSEA < 0.06, whereas a nonsignificant chi-square indicates an exact model fit (Arbuckle, 2007; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005).

The model showed an exact fit to the data when using a null hypothesis significance test: χ²(8) = 9.0, p = .34. Fit indices that are less sensitive to differences in sample size than the chi-square test (Sivo, Fan, Willta, & Willse, 2006) showed a close fit to the data: NFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, and RMSEA = 0.046. It can be derived from Figure 1 that repression is negatively related to cognitive empathy (p = .01). Support is positively related to cognitive empathy (p = .03, one-tailed significance). The relationship between atmosphere and cognitive empathy was only marginally significant (p = .06, one-tailed significance) and could therefore be considered a trend.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Structural equation modelling model

Discussion

This study showed prison group climate in terms of support, repression, and atmosphere (a trend) to be associated with cognitive empathy. However, no association was found between growth and cognitive empathy. Moreover, none of the four climate dimensions proved to be associated with affective empathy. The discussion focuses on the meaning of the results for secure institutional treatment and directions for future research.

The absence of a relationship between growth and cognitive empathy could reflect the social state status of the empathy construct, as support, repression, and atmosphere pertain to social interaction and growth to personal development. Lack of associations between prison group climate and affective empathy may be attributed to numb affect in criminal boys who used to live on the streets in a harsh, competitive environment where showing affect could be considered a weakness (E. Anderson, 2000; De Jong, 2007). There is empirical evidence showing that a “stiff upper lip,” showing reactance, or “playing the system” (Haralambos & Holborne, 1995; Little, 1990) enhances status among juvenile delinquent boys (Van der Helm et al., 2009).

In this study, delinquent boys were rated lower on affective empathy than on cognitive empathy, which may be accounted for not only by negative peer influences within prison but also by high levels of depression among incarcerated boys (White, Shi, Hirschfield, Mun, & Loeber, 2009). A post hoc analysis, again using single items from the same Big Five personality questionnaire, showed rumination, boredom, hopelessness, and lack of contact with the outside world to be negatively associated with affective empathy (−.33 < −39, p < .01). In sum, fear and depression in a youth correctional facility could result in numb affect, explaining the lack of associations between the four prison group climate dimensions and affective empathy.

Marshall and Burton (2010) called for more research on group process in offender treatment. This study adds to the limited body of research examining the possible effects of group climate as a process variable facilitating treatment and positive outcomes. It was found that a favourable group climate was positively associated with cognitive empathy but not with affective empathy in young incarcerated offenders. The positive association with cognitive empathy seems important, as Jolliffe and Farrington (2004) found cognitive empathy to be related to delinquency in their meta-analysis of empathy and offending. Moreover, Van Vugt et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of moral development and recidivism, showing that moral cognition was more strongly related to recidivism (r = .20) than moral affect (r = .10), which is in line with Jolliffe and Farrington’s meta-analytic results. On the basis of our study results, we argue that interventions targeting empathy development in young offenders need the context of a positive group climate and should account for the possibility that depression and anxiety in juvenile offenders may hamper the development of affective empathy.

There are some important limitations of this study that need to be acknowledged. The small sample size and the inclusion of only one youth correctional facility hamper the generalizability of the findings of the study. Although we found no indication of social desirability bias in the self-report scales, we cannot rule out a general tendency of juvenile offenders to give socially desirable self-descriptions and other descriptions (Breuk, Clauser, Stams, Slot, & Doreleijers, 2007; Van der Helm et al., 2009). Furthermore, the sample size was too small to allow multilevel analysis to account for dependency of measurements in hierarchically structured data (e.g., inmates are nested into living groups). Notably, the neglect of statistical dependency results in chance capitalisation and the risk of spurious research findings. Because of this and other limitations, the results of our study should be interpreted with great caution.

This study is probably one of the first quantitative studies with criminal adolescents to examine the relationship between group climate and empathy in a youth correctional facility. As this study only provides preliminary evidence of associations between a positive prison group climate and empathy, results should be replicated in a prospective, longitudinal study that allows for the examination of contextual effects by means of multilevel analysis. It should be noted that possible recidivism reduction is unlikely to be a simple direct function of an effect of positive group climate on higher levels of empathy, as increased levels of self-serving cognitive distortion among juvenile offenders pose a serious threat to rehabilitation (Thomaes, 2007; Van Vugt et al., 2011; Wallinius, Johansson, Larden, & Dernevik, 2011). Nevertheless, this study opens the way to further research into the effectiveness of group interventions with incarcerated boys and possibilities of recidivism reduction. A positive prison group climate in youth correctional facilities could turn out to be a major factor contributing to effectiveness of secure institutional treatment.