Accepting deviant identities: the impact of self-labeling on intentions to desist from crime^*

* Paper presented at the 2012 meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.

Abstract

Although the effects of official labeling on delinquency have been explored extensively in past research, the way in which offenders apply labels to themselves, and the impact such labeling has on desistance, has received relatively little attention among researchers. Further, most of the research on the relationship between self-labeling and desistance is qualitative in nature. Although some quantitative researchers have explored this area, limitations to these studies still exist. To extend research in this area, a quantitative examination of self-labeling is conducted based on data from a survey of incarcerated felons. This quantitative study explores inmates’ identities and how such identities relate to their intentions to desist from crime. Findings from the current study supplement previous qualitative studies and suggest that a sizeable proportion of inmates identify as having a ‘straight’ or conventional label, despite their criminal behavior. Further, the specific labels inmates in the study identify with appear to have direct consequences on their intentions to desist after release. Implications for theory, policy, and future research are discussed.

Keywords:

• Identities
• self-label
• intentions to desist

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Timothy Brezina and Brent Teasdale for their useful comments and suggestions provided during the early stages of this research project. I also wish to thank several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Notes

* Paper presented at the 2012 meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.

1. For example, the Twenty Statements Test (TST) asks respondents to answer ‘who am I?’ twenty different times. The TST has been used to measure self-concept and has been criticized for its lack of reliability, and in addition, the validity of this test is undetermined (See Wylie 1979 for an overview of these methodological concerns).

2. Please see Smith and Paternoster (1990) for a full discussion of these issues.

3. Reliability was less than .60 using Cronbach’s alpha in the earlier waves of the study [as acknowledged by Rocque, Posick, and Paternoster (2016)].

4. A full range of offenses was unavailable in the existing data-set. Rocque, Posick, and Paternoster (2016) acknowledged this limitation as well.

5. To be clear, the current study is not without its limitations as well, and these limitations are discussed in depth in the discussion section. The point made here is that the current study differs, as well as adds to, the existing quantitative evidence.

6. As a reviewer pointed out, it is difficult to determine if inmates ‘believe’ in the labels provided in the survey. Some inmates may not view themselves as criminal, despite their criminal activity, thereby choosing the straight label by default. Then the question arises, what is the offender desisting from if he does not think he has done anything wrong? In this study, the inmates were free to choose multiple labels, no labels at all, or write in their own identity. It should be noted that many offenders (especially street offenders) take pride in their criminal ability and do not shy away from their ‘accomplishments’ (Brezina and Topalli 2012; Copes, Hochstetler, and Williams 2008; Topalli 2005). In addition, individuals may not consider themselves to be criminal or conventional (see Irwin 1970). Many possibilities exist, but regardless of how the label is applied or how accurate society deems the chosen label, the key is that an individual’s perception of self matters. Further, it is important to note that the straight variable is a single-item measure and cannot determine the extent to which one aligns with the straight identity. In other words, on a continuum, this measure does not provide us the degree of conventionality. This is a noted limitation of the data.

7. It should be emphasized that intentions to go straight are examined in the current study and not the perceived ability or one’s confidence in their ability to go straight.

8. As one anonymous reviewer pointed out, it is possible that violence is not necessarily a ‘lifestyle’ (in comparison to being a thief or burglar) (see Presser 2004).

9. As a reminder, this study only examined intentions to go straight and not the perceived ability or confidence in one’s ability to actually go straight. Thus, inmates may intend to go straight, although when asked about their perceived ability, they may acknowledge that their chances of actually making it going straight are low (see Burnett 1992 for an overview).

10. For greater confidence, the Spearman-Brown statistic was examined, as some determine it to be the most appropriate reliability coefficient for two item scales (Eisinga, Grotenhuis, and Pelzer 2013). The Spearman–Brown Coefficient for the two items is .367, which is low, even for exploratory research. This helps build confidence that the items are not tapping into the same construct.