International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Control and Self-Esteem

Locus of Control, Causal Attributions,

and Self-Esteem: A Comparison
Between Prisoners
Catherine Blatier

Abstract: In France, prisoners can be employed in building sites controlled by the peniten-
tiary system but outside the prison. Prisoners involved in these special sentence-serving condi-
tions were asked to fill out questionnaires testing their self-esteem, attitudes toward conformist
and nonconformist behavior, attributions about their crime, and the locus of control. In this
article, Weiner’s attributional theory of motivation and emotion is discussed. In addition to the
three basic dimensions he proposed—locus of control, stability, and controllability—the con-
tribution of self-esteem is examined. The answers given by these prisoners were compared with
answers provided by prisoners in jail. The results may have implications for the treatment of
criminal and delinquent behavior, because knowledge of prisoners’ attributions and beliefs
about whether people are capable of changing their own behavior can help social workers,
judges, therapists, and prison wardens achieve more successful psychological rehabilitation
in prisoners.

Some data are now available for approaching criminal and delinquent acts from a
cognitive standpoint. It has been shown, for example, that cognitive factors can act
as mediators of anxiety and aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1983; Beck, 1976).
Research suggests that there may be a variety of factors behind any offence.
According to Debuyst (1985), all crimes involve an attribution process. In an
attempt to understand the cognitions underlying crime and delinquency, it is
hypothesized here that there is an attribution style specific to criminals, one that
could even predispose an individual to different and specific types of delinquent
behavior. However, not only can we approach criminal acts from a cognitive point
of view, we can also take a cognitive, or more precisely a sociocognitive, approach
to the processes likely to change the way confirmed criminals perceive social
behavior, including their own prior delinquent acts. The present study was con-
ducted in this framework: It looks at the bases of the process of internalization of
values in prisoners.
Attribution theories are aimed at understanding how individuals explain their
own behavior and the behavior of others. The explanations in question are a poste-
riori, that is, they explain events (behaviors and also reinforcements) that have
already occurred. Accordingly, individuals can attribute an action to the actors
themselves (internal attribution), or they can consider the source of the action to
lie in situational factors (external attribution) (Kelley, 1967). Causal attribution is
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 2000 97-110
 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
97

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

98 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

one of the ways in which individuals apprehend reality, order and classify stimuli
and their effects, and control their environment (Heider, 1958). It allows the indi-
vidual to master the causal structure of the environment (Kelley, 1967). Following
work by Jones and Davis (1965), researchers began to take an interest in the attri-
butions a person (the observer) might make about the behavior of another person
(the actor): Observers more often than actors see a connection between a behavior
and its effects and consider the actor’s intentions or personal dispositions (i.e.,
personality traits) to be what accounts for the behavior (actor/observer effect: Nis-
bett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Regan & Totten, 1975). Weiner (1979,
1985, 1986) was more interested in attributions about reinforcements and empha-
sized the importance of subjective causality in determining an individual’s future
behavior. He proposed three dimensions for analyzing causal attributions: inter-
nality/externality, stability, and cause controllability.
The concept of locus of control (LOC) represents an individual’s anticipations
about the link between possible future behaviors and potential ensuing reinforce-
ments. According to Rotter’s (1966) definition, an internal LOC characterizes
individuals who think they can have a direct effect on events, whereas an external
LOC refers to the idea that events are not dependent on one’s actions but are a
question of luck or chance or reflect the power of others. Many studies on this
topic have dealt with the extent to which individuals think they can control their
own destiny (e.g., Lefcourt, 1976; Rotter, 1966; Rotter, Liverant, & Crowne,
1961). The causal relationship established by subjects between their own behav-
ior and a reinforcement is thus a potential internal attribution (Deschamps &
Clémence, 1987). However, some individuals may not establish a causal relation
between a behavior and a reinforcement; they therefore have an external LOC.
To explore the particular sociocognitive state of mind of individuals whose
freedom is restricted (prisoners), the author chose to study their LOC and the attri-
butions they are likely to make. Particular attention was paid to the attitude prison-
ers have toward the criminal act they have committed. Studies on the prisoner
population are scarce. They have dealt with how prisoners explain their transgres-
sion (McKay, Chapman, & Long, 1996) or other events (attribution style: Abdel-
laoui, 1997) and how they foresee the way they might act in upcoming events
(LOC: Abdellaoui & Blatier, 1998; Pugh, 1992). In a study on the attributions of
child sex offenders, compared to adult sex abusers and other criminals, McKay et
al. (1996) showed that child sex offenders see the causes of their behavior as inter-
nal, stable, and uncontrollable, whereas thieves and rapists (of adults) are more
inclined to regard their acts as external, stable, and uncontrollable. Few authors
have looked at attribution and the LOC, two dimensions that can be considered
jointly because they are both reflections of internality processes (Beauvois &
Dubois, 1988). Indeed, internal attributions reflect or precede the internalization
of values, whether social or moral. This is why many theorists of moral develop-
ment have insisted on the importance of internal explanations accompanying acts,
the internalization of moral values (Grusec, 1983) and social values (Beauvois,
1994). As such, explanations of conformist and nonconformist behavior (trans-

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

Control and Self-Esteem 99

gressions) may differ. Explanations can, therefore, be differentiated according to

whether they involve an internalization process. The fact that behaviors are
explained internally, however, does not mean that internalization actually took
place: An explanation that results from internalization must include the value of
the act, which is generally the case when the act is explained in terms of personal-
ity traits. Internalization may therefore be manifested by the values in the internal
explanations.
The joint study of causal explanations and the LOC appears worthwhile for
two reasons. It can tell us something about the degree to which individuals have
internalized values or moral and social norms. One can predict that internal expla-
nations promote internalization, that is, an internal explanation of an event is more
likely to lead to later internalization of the value. By studying the LOC in prison-
ers, we may be able to see the connection they make between what happens to
them and the behavior they are likely to display. As such, LOC is an indicator of
the predictability of future behaviors. Looking at both the LOC and attributions
will provide some additional indications about the sociocognitive functioning of
prisoners with respect to their own acts and future events. One can predict that
people who consider reinforcements to depend on their own behavior will be
more apt to manifest normative behavior than those who think that such reinforce-
ments are beyond their control. If they make more internal attributions but think
that reinforcements depend less on their own behavior (i.e., they are less internal
on the LOC dimension), then we can concentrate our efforts on seeking a means of
improving their perception of the causal relation between behaviors and rein-
forcements. Knowledge of the kinds of causal explanations given by offenders
could therefore help us design better programs, not only for therapy, education,
and psychological rehabilitation, but also for crime prevention.
A number of studies on delinquents have found that their LOC is external
(Baguena & Diaz 1991; Nair, 1994; Shaw & Scott, 1991) and that there is a corre-
lation between an external LOC and low self-esteem (Downs & Rose, 1991; Lau
& Leung, 1992). In studying behavior internalization, it is thus important to exam-
ine self-esteem in addition to the LOC and attribution.
Several variables may affect the causal attribution process in prisoners. The
first is the penal situation, that is, the social punishment for the conviction that
puts the prisoner in a particular situation. In France, many prisoners (38.7%) are in
detention awaiting trial (Ministère de la Justice, 1997). Within the penal popula-
tion, prisoners hold a different status that might affect the feelings they have about
their control over the situation. Prisoners in three penal situations were studied
here: those accused and awaiting trial, those convicted and in jail, and those con-
victed and assigned to off-site labor. Outside labor assignment is a procedure
whereby convicted prisoners can serve their sentence by working off the premises
of the prison at building sites run by the penitentiary system (Article 723, Code of
Penal Procedures). This procedure can also be applied to prisoners who wish to
participate in occupational training outside the prison walls. All of the prisoners in
our assigned sample were working, however, not in training. This arrangement is

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

100 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

possible for convicted prisoners who (a) have less than 5 remaining years of
prison time to serve and who had not previously been sentenced to imprisonment
for a period exceeding 6 months, (b) have served half of their long sentence (more
than 5 years), or (c) are approaching the end of their imprisonment. In 1966, out-
side assignments were granted to 6% of the prisoners in France. Off-site labor is
regarded as an alternative to detention for convicted individuals, and a good expe-
rience, not only due to overpopulation in jails, but also to the fact that the prison
environment has a detrimental effect on prisoners who are not yet confirmed
criminals. Until they are actually convicted, prisoners may feel they have control
over their destiny, but once their sentence has been pronounced—that is, once
their future is controlled by the judgment—they are likely to feel they have no
control. Being able to do outside labor is a way of regaining some control, and
causal explanations (attributions and LOC ) are linked to the actual sense of
control.
Another important variable is isolation: Prisoners in detention, whether already
convicted or awaiting trial, may be isolated from other prisoners due to the type of
crime they committed or are accused of committing. Isolated prisoners serve their
penal sentence in seclusion, which further lowers their potential for control. In the
present study, both isolated and nonisolated prisoners were considered.
Studies should be conducted to assess the merits of these different forms of
imprisonment so that any effects they might produce can be analyzed. A compari-
son of the responses of prisoners in these different penal situations should provide
insight into how prisoners process information about behavior.

HYPOTHESES

The main question raised here concerns the impact of the penal situation and
isolation on self-esteem, LOC, and causal attributions. The goal was to improve
our understanding of internalization modes. It has been shown that behavior ther-
apy programs for criminals must be designed to help them perceive the causes of
their behavior as internal, controllable, and subject to modification (unstable)
(McKay et al., 1996). It was hypothesized that the penal situation (accused await-
ing trial, convicted in jail, convicted on assignment) would affect a prisoner’s
LOC: Prisoners working off-site or awaiting trial should have a higher internality
score than convicted prisoners in jail. By using a group of prisoners assigned to
outside labor, we were able to test the hypothesis that regaining some control in
managing their own existence may bring prisoners back to more internal posi-
tions, which are also more normative (Beauvois & Dubois, 1988). Prisoners
working outside the prison walls were expected to be more internal than other
prisoners.
Length of imprisonment may also affect self-esteem, so it was hypothesized
that prisoners would have less self-esteem if they had been in jail for more than 2
months and that prisoners awaiting trial would have greater self-esteem than those

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

Control and Self-Esteem 101

who had already been sentenced. It was also hypothesized that when confronted
with different behaviors (deviant or conformist), prisoners’ internality would be
stronger on nonconformist behaviors than on conformist ones.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS
The sample included 68 prisoners, all of whom were men. This was quite rep-
resentative of reality: French prisons contain 96% men (Ministère de la Justice,
1997). The prisoners were classified on the basis of their penal situation, namely,
the sentence application mode: isolated, convicted in jail (n = 10); nonisolated,
convicted in jail (n = 18); isolated, awaiting trial (n = 6); nonisolated, awaiting trial
(n = 20), and convicted, working outside the prison (n = 14). The mean age was 31
(SD = 8.42) (the majority of prisoners in France are between the ages of 30 and
40); age did not differ significantly across the groups. Most of the prisoners were
of French nationality (75%), which is consistent with the overall proportion of
French prisoners in France (71%). All of the prisoners tested were from the same
prison. The age range was not great (see Table 1).

PROCEDURE AND MATERIALS

Prisoners were contacted for participation in the study at the prison or, for those
working outside the prison, during a consultation with a psychologist. They were
assessed individually by means of a semistructured interview. All were informed
of the confidentiality of their responses. Prisoners agreed to the conditions, that is,
that their identity would not be revealed and that their responses would not be
identifiable. In some cases, the questionnaires had to be administered orally
because of the high illiteracy rate among prisoners. In these cases, the question-
naires were laid on the table, and the interviewer filled them out in front of the
participant.
First, participants rated themselves on Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Val-
lières & Vallerand’s 1990 French translation) and then on an LOC scale. To test
attributions, we used a questionnaire on the attribution of deviant and conformist
behaviors.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE D’ATTRIBUTION AUX

CONDUITES DÉVIANTES ET CONFORMISTES (QACDC)
The QACDC (Abdellaoui, 1997) presents participants with 14 behaviors
involving everyday people. Half of the questions concern deviant behaviors, and
half concern conformist behaviors. Subjects are asked to choose one of four
responses to explain why people adopt the behavior in question. The proposed

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

102 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

TABLE 1
SAMPLE: GROUPS AND AGE

Penal Situation n Age (M) SD

Convicted in jail 28 31.6 7.58

Accused awaiting trial 26 31.08 10.35
Convicted on assignment 14 31.7 4.29
Total 68 31 8.42

causes are based on two dimensions: permanence (stability vs. instability), and
orientation (internality vs. externality). In the questionnaire validation study,
deviant and conformist behaviors were identified by a consensus of students (>
90%) who had labeled the behaviors as frequently observed (> 85%). The
QACDC does not deal with failure or success but rather with adhesion or non-
adhesion to a desirable social rule, which can be useful in the case of conformist
behavior. The nondesirable items correspond to socially unacceptable, law-
breaking behavior subject to legal proceedings. Conformist behavior refers to
cases of abiding by a conventional norm deemed to be socially desirable and
behaviors that are frequently observed. An explanation for behavior can be based
on traits or abilities (in the case of internal-stable explanations), a difficult task or
situation (external-stable), an effort or an intention (internal-unstable), or luck or
chance (external-unstable). This can be illustrated with two items, one conformist
and one deviant. For example, conformist behavior is helping the homeless by
donating money: People do this because they are particularly generous, because
they felt like doing so that day, because they think society does nothing for the
homeless, because the homeless elicit pity, and so on. An example of a deviant
item is not declaring one’s taxes, which people do because they think the govern-
ment’s fiscal policies are too unjust, because they are not used to following gov-
ernment rules, because they are ill-informed about the real risks of the behavior,
because they did not take the time to handle the paperwork, and so on. The ques-
tionnaire was tested on 263 people, including 80 students, 31 unemployed young
people, 43 policemen, 37 prison wardens, and 72 prisoners. The results indicated
within-group consistency (Cronbach’s alpha above .70).

ROSENBERG’S SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965, 1979; Rosenberg,
Schooler, & Schoenbach, 1989) is the most widely used self-esteem scale (SES)
(Blaskovich & Tomaka, 1991). This measure requires people to directly report
feelings about themselves. It has a good coefficient, which attests to the unidimen-
sionality of the instrument (.90) (Hensley & Roberts, 1976]; Simpson & Boyal,
1975). Internal consistency was demonstrated by Dobson, Goudy, Keith, and

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

Control and Self-Esteem 103

Powers (1979) with a Cronbach’s alpha value of .77. Fleming and Courtney
(1984) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .88; test-retest reliability reported by Silber
and Tipett (1965) was good (.85).

ROTTER’S LOC SCALE

Rotter’s (1966) scale assesses the LOC. We used Salehi’s (1981) translation,
which is an adaptation of Rotter’s scale for people with little education, for nearly
all prisoners are uneducated (16% are declared illiterates, 59% have an elemen-
tary school education, and 25% have a high school education or more; Admin-
istration Penitentiaire, 1995). Each item had two answer choices, one internal and
one external. To test its validity, the scale was first proposed to prisoners who were
not part of the study; the validity was good (Cronbach’s alpha = .85).

RESULTS

No correlation was found between the three instruments, which measure dif-
ferent factors:

LOC/SES: r = 0
QACDC/SES: r = .12
QACDC/LOC: r = –.24

The self-esteem scores are given in Table 2.

Prisoners working outside had a significantly higher self-esteem score than all
other prisoners combined (M = 5.96). In Table 2, we can see that isolated con-
victed prisoners had very little self-esteem. An F test comparing the self-esteem
of the three types of prisoners (awaiting trial, convicted in jail, and convicted on
outside assignment) yielded no significant difference, F(2, 63) = 2.22, p < .12.
However, there was a significant effect of penal situation when isolation in prison
was taken into account: Isolated prisoners obtained lower self-esteem scores (M =
3.19) than nonisolated ones (M = 9.15), t(58) = 3.81, p < .0003. Convicted prison-
ers in jail had less self-esteem (M = 5.93) than those awaiting trial (M = 8.35), F(1,
50) = 3.17, p < .08, although this difference was essentially due to the very low
score of the isolated convicted. Convicted prisoners in jail rated themselves more
negatively than those awaiting trial, and when the former were isolated, their
self-esteem was even lower. Indeed, the interaction between penal situation
(being convicted, accused, or on assignment) and isolation was marginally sig-
nificant, F(1, 50) = 2.9, p < .09. This interaction (situation-by-isolation) for pris-
oners on assignment was significant, F(1, 63) = 5.23, p < .002. There was no dif-
ference between prisoners recently put in jail (less than 2 months earlier) and
those imprisoned for at least 6 months (M = 6.5 vs. M = 7.75), F(1, 47) = 2.7, p < .12.
Contrast analysis showed that the isolated convicted had less self-esteem than all

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

104 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

TABLE 2
SELF-ESTEEM SCORES BY GROUP

Prisoner Group n M SD

Accused nonisolated 20 8.8 4.19

Convicted nonisolated 18 8.67 6.94
Accused isolated 6 6.83 5.91
Convicted isolated 10 1 4.45
On assignment 14 10.28 4.93

other prisoners currently in jail, F(1, 50) = 12.8, p < .0008, but the group size was
too small to draw any definite conclusions.
In any case, prisoners in detention who are not isolated (which here included
the nonisolated convicted and the nonisolated awaiting trial) did not differ signifi-
cantly on self-esteem from the prisoners on outside assignments. Isolated prison-
ers, whether awaiting trial or already convicted (M = 3.18, SD = 5.65), differed
from nonisolated prisoners (nonisolated convicted, nonisolated awaiting trial, and
prisoners working outside) (M = 9.15, SD = 5.41). The very low self-esteem score
seems to come from the isolated prisoners. Student’s t test comparing isolated
prisoners with nonisolated ones yielded 3.81, p < .0003; Brown-Forsythe: t(66) =
3.72, p < .001. Note, finally, (see Table 3) that the LOC variable did not differenti-
ate the groups of prisoners considered here. LOC and self-esteem did not vary
with age.

ATTRIBUTIONS
The first finding for the attribution variable was that internality was higher for
conformist than for deviant conduct. Although this result may be linked to the
material used, it is interesting to note that only those prisoners who were on out-
side assignments did not follow this general rule. If we compare the attributions
made by the various groups of prisoners, we find a number of significant differ-
ences (see Table 4). On the conformist score, the most internal prisoners were
those awaiting trial. Next came the convicted in jail, and finally, prisoners work-
ing outside. The convicted prisoners (whether in prison or working outside) were
less internal on conformist behaviors than were the accused awaiting trial. The
greatest effect on whether internal attributions were preferred for conformist
behaviors was not the fact of having to serve one’s sentence in prison or being
allowed to work off-site, but rather the penal situation of being convicted, accused,
or on assignment.
For deviant behaviors, the most internal prisoners were the ones working out-
side. Behind them were those awaiting trial and, last, the convicted currently in
jail. The fact of serving one’s sentence in prison or working off-site had a signifi-
cant impact on internality for deviant behaviors: Prisoners on outside assignments

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

Control and Self-Esteem 105

TABLE 3
SELF-ESTEEM AND LOCUS OF CONTROL: GROUP COMPARISONS

Self-Esteem Locus of Control

n M SD Test M SD Test

Convicted in jail 28 6.25 6.96 5.59 0.27

Accused in jail 26 8 5.01 F = 2.22 5.37 0.24 F = 0.26
Conviction on
assignment 14 10.28 4.93 5.28 0.41
Accused 26 8 5 5.37 0.24
t = 0.26 t = 0.37
All convicted 42 7.59 0.93 5.50 0.22
Imprisoned 54 7.09 0.8 5.47 0.18
t = 1.8a* t = 0.41
On assignment 14 10.28 4.93 5.28 0.41
Convicted in jail 28 6.25 6.96 5.59 0.24
Convicted on t = 2.16a** t = 0.79
assignment 14 10.28 4.93 5.28 0.41
a. Equal within-group variances were assumed (Brown-Forsythe test).
*p < .05. **p < .01.

were more internal than those in prison, t(66) = 2.08, p < .04. Prisoners working
off-site (who, again, have been convicted) tended to be more internal on the devi-
ant score than the convicted currently in prison, t(40) = 1.78, p < .08. There was a
genuine effect of being imprisoned or on assignment, which showed up in the fact
that those working outside were more internal on the deviant score than all other
subjects. Prisoners on assignment had an internality score about equal on con-
formist and deviant behaviors, unlike the other prisoners, who were more internal
on conformity than on nonconformity.
As a whole, the more time the prisoners spent in prison, the fewer internal attri-
butions they made for both deviant and conformist behaviors (r = 3.56, p = .006;
model with goodness of fit). This was especially true for the imprisoned convicted
and conformist behaviors. The deviance internality ratings of prisoners who were
convicted or awaiting trial in prison differed from those of prisoners working out-
side, but their conformity internality ratings did not.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study should be regarded with caution due to the small sam-
ple size. Researchers conducting studies on imprisonment are well aware of the
difficulties inherent in this type of work, which remains a necessity despite the
constraints involved. The present study analyzed some of the effects of different
types of imprisonment on causal attributions, the LOC, and self-esteem.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

106 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

TABLE 4
SCORES ON ATTRIBUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR DEVIANT AND CONFORMIST BEHAVIORS

Conformist Deviant
M SD Test M SD Test

Convicted in jail 4.39 1.73 3.45 1.2

Accused in jail 5.02 1.33 F = 3.03a* 3.28 1.4 F = 2.29
Convicted on assignment 4 1.46 4.21 1.6
Accused 5.02 1.33 3.28 1.48
t = 2.33a* t = 1.3
All convicted 4.27 1.65 3.68 1.3
Imprisoned 4.74 1.54 3.36 1.36
t = 1.67 t = 2.08a*
On assignment 4 1.46 4.21 1.62
Convicted in jail 4.39 1.73 3.45 1.2
t = 0.74 t = 1.78
Convicted on assignment 4 1.46 4.21 1.62
a. Equal within-group variances were assumed (Brown-Forsythe test).
*p < .05.

First, the penal situation (being convicted and in prison, accused and awaiting
trial in prison, or convicted and on assignment) appears to alter a prisoner’s socio-
cognitive state of mind. For deviant behaviors, prisoners working off-site were
more internal; they also had more self-esteem than the others. Prisoners currently
in jail obtained a higher internality score on conformist behaviors but a lower
score on deviant behaviors than did prisoners on assignment. Imprisonment,
therefore, does not appear to reinforce internality on deviance. For conformist
behavior, the effect seems to follow less from being in prison or doing outside
work than it does from whether one is simply accused or already convicted: Those
awaiting trial were more internal than the convicted. The results for the isolation
variable are also interesting, because the isolation of an accused or convicted pris-
oner was associated with low self-esteem (especially for the convicted) but was
not linked to the LOC.
It must be underlined that people who are chosen for outside assignment may
be chosen because of their already good self-esteem and their high level of inter-
nality. There was no record of these scores prior to their jail period; however, no
difference has been found between convicted, accused, or convicted on assign-
ment prisoners regarding the internality or self-esteem scores on committal
(Abdellaoui, 1997).
The time spent in prison is known to have a considerable impact on a prisoner:
The longer one is in prison, the lower one’s self-esteem. The role of anger can be a
cofactor for low self-esteem or internality. Goodstein and McKenzie (1984) dem-
onstrated that prisoners develop a perspective of powerlessness. These authors
stressed the importance of exerting personal control or choice and the ability to

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

Control and Self-Esteem 107

predict future events in understanding adjustment to prison. We can assume,

along with other authors (Bryson & Groves, 1989), that higher self-esteem may
lead to a lower rate of recidivism. Because of overpopulation in French pris-
ons—one of the highest in Europe with a detention rate of 99 per 100,000 inhabi-
tants (Tournier, 1995) and 55,278 prisoners in metropolitan France on July 1,
1997 (Ministère de la Justice, 1997)—penal reformers generally prefer to try to
limit the size of the prison population rather than to improve the conditions in
which prisoners are held (Pease, 1994). Time in prison had an effect here on the
conformist score but not on the deviant score: The longer the prisoners were in
jail, the less internality they displayed for conformist conduct. This seems to be
inconsistent with psychological rehabilitation goals set by the institution.
Like Reynolds (1988), we did not find a significant correlation between self-
esteem on the Rosenberg scale and the LOC. However, Downs and Rose (1991)
and Lau and Leung (1992) did obtain a correlation in delinquents between an
external LOC and low self-esteem, which was not replicated here. If we assume
that high self-esteem promotes internalization of behaviors, then we can see that
imprisonment does not play a role in this respect. Assuming that it is beneficial for
prisoners to rate themselves as internal and to feel that they can change the situa-
tion, we have established that in reality, the more time they spend in prison, the
more their internality decreases (Blatier, 1999). If internality declines over time,
then prison is not a place that induces normativeness.
Going deeper into the issue of normativeness, unlike the prisoners on outside
assignments, those in jail were more internal on the conformist score than on the
deviant score, especially among the accused awaiting trial. One can wonder
whether it is really the value of the behavior that is internalized and not just the
behavior itself; if so, we are dealing here with a normativeness effect (thinking
that one can have an effect and that one can in fact change one’s deviant behavior).
It would be a good idea to construct a questionnaire that would provide further
insight into this issue. A final question raised here is whether it is the imprison-
ment that reinforces external attributions of deviant behavior or whether it is
working off-site that increases internal ones.
One could question the finding that among prisoners working outside, there
were more internal explanations, which are more desirable in the eyes of the insti-
tution (which deems individuals to be responsible for what happens to them). One
could also look at whether prisoners working outside strive to look good so they
will be released sooner. Internal explanations are glorified in the social world, that
is, individuals making judgments consider people who prefer internal explana-
tions to be more worthy (Beauvois, 1984; Beauvois & Dubois, 1988; Dubois,
1987). Prisoners on assignment appear to be more internal than others, which may
reflect either strategic internality (as part of a self-presentation process) or true
internalization. Could these prisoners have developed an awareness of the norma-
tiveness of internality as a mode of explanation (still called normative clear-
sightedness; Py & Somat, 1991) that one finds more often when an individual is
being judged by someone with some degree of social power (Beauvois, 1994)?

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

108 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Going even further, we can wonder whether, rather than having internalized the
behaviors, these prisoners have not internalized the operating mode of the people
who are doing the judging.
The problem of prisoners is indeed the internalization of behaviors, particu-
larly deviant ones. Now, all of our prisoners currently in jail were more internal on
the conformist score, which may reflect their cognitive integration of certain
norms, their desire to present themselves as internal (see the accused awaiting
trial). Likewise, it is not as necessary for prisoners on outside assignments to
prove that they are internal (highest self-esteem score, least need to control, and
deviant internality score closest to conformist internality score). We can thus
wonder about the low deviant internality score of prisoners in jail and their high
conformist internality score, by comparison to the equivalent deviant-conformist
scores among prisoners on outside assignments (as found in the questionnaire
validation study for individuals not imprisoned). A future study could hypothe-
size that prisoners on outside assignments are more like everyday people, whose
internality score is constant no matter what type of behavior is being judged,
either because they are in fact more normative or because they have less need to be
identified as having adopted the norms. In our study, the internal explanations
chosen by the prisoners corresponded more to motivations expressed in terms of
enjoyment (“they enjoy . . . ,” “they want to take risks . . . ”) than to the actual inter-
nalization of values, which should incorporate the negative value of an act. So far,
we have tested self-presentation internality more than the internalization of values.
If we look solely at these preliminary results on prisoners’ internality, this
study suggests that working outside the prison is a good way of serving one’s sen-
tence. If the goal of imprisonment is to reinforce behavioral internality, these
results argue in favor of the development of alternative types of punishment
instead of continuing to inflict imprisonment as the sentence, still the main means
used today. The results of this study should also lead to the reconsideration of the
negative effects of imprisonment on accused individuals awaiting trial.

REFERENCES

Abdellaoui, S. (1997). Stratégies sociocognitives du détenu. Doctoral dissertation, Université Pierre

Mendès-France, Grenoble.
Abdellaoui, S., & Blatier, C. (1998). Traduction française et validation d’une échelle de LOC pour
prisonniers. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 48(2), 3-17.
Baguena, M.-J., & Diaz, A. (1991). Personality, sexual differences, and juvenile delinquency: Struc-
tural analysis. Analisis y Modificacion de Conducta, 17(53-54), 427-437.
Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In R. G. Geen, & E. I. Donnerstein
(Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews. London: Academic Press.
Beauvois, J.-L. (1984). La psychologie quotidienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Beauvois, J.-L. (1994). Traité de la servitude libérale: Analyse de la soumission. Paris: Dunod.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

Control and Self-Esteem 109

Beauvois, J.-L., & Dubois, N. (1988). The norm of internality in the explanation of psychological
events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 299-316.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universi-
ties Press.
Blaskovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem: Measures of personality and social psy-
chological attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
Blatier, C. (1999). La délinquance des mineurs: L’enfant, le psychologue, le droit. Grenoble, France:
Presses Universitaires.
Bryson, J.-S., & Groves, D.-L. (1989). Correctional recreation and the self-esteem of prison inmates.
Psychology and Human Development, 2(2), 89-101.
Debuyst, C. (1985). Modèle éthologique et criminologique. Brussels: Mardaga.
Deschamps, J.-C., & Clémence, A. (1987). L’explication quotidienne: Perspectives psychosociolo-
giques. Fribourg, Switzerland: Delval.
Dobson, C., Goudy, W. J., Keith, P. M., & Powers, E. (1979). Further analysis of Rosenberg’s Self-
Esteem Scale. Psychological Reports, 44, 639-641.
Downs, W.-R., & Rose, S.-R. (1991). The relationship of adolescent peer groups to the incidence of
psychosocial problems. Adolescence, 26(102), 473-492.
Dubois, N. (1987). La psychologie du contrôle: les croyances internes et externes. Grenoble, France:
Presses Universitaires.
Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: Some results for a college
sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 404-421.
Goodstein, L., & McKenzie, D. L. (1984). Personal control and inmate adjustment to prison. Crimi-
nology, 22(3), 343-369.
Grusec, J. E. (1983). The internalization of altruistic dispositions: A cognitive analysis. In T. Higgins,
D. N. Rube, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A sociocultural per-
spective (pp. 275-293). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
Hensley, W. E., & Roberts, M. K. (1976). Dimensions of Rosenberg’s scale of self-esteem. Psycho-
logical Reports, 38, 583-584.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person per-
ception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York:
Academic Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska sympo-
sium on motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Lau, S., & Leung, K. (1992). Self-concept, delinquency, relations with parents and school, and Chi-
nese adolescents’ perception of personal control. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(5),
615-622.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
McKay, M. M., Chapman, J.-W., & Long, N. R. (1996). Causal attributions for criminal offending and
sexual arousal: Comparison of child sex offenders with other offenders. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 35, 63-75.
Ministère de la Justice. (1997). Statistiques de la population prise en charge en milieu fermé au
1.07.1997. Paris: Author.
Nair, E. (1994). How do prisoners and probationers explain their predicament? An attributional analy-
sis. Psychologia—An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 37(2), 66-71.
Nisbett, R. E., Caputo, C., Legant, M., & Marecek, W. (1973). Behavior as seen by the actor and as
seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 154-164.
Pease, K. (1994). Cross-national imprisonment rates: Limitations of method and possible conclu-
sions. British Journal of Criminology, 4, 116-130.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015

110 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Pugh, D. N. (1992). Prisoners and locus of control: Initial assessments of a specific scale. Psychologi-
cal Reports, 70, 523-530.
Py, J., & Somat, A. (1991). Normativité, conformité et clairvoyance: leurs effets sur le jugement
évaluatif dans un contexte scolaire. In J.-L. Beauvois, R. V. Joule, & J.-M. Monteil (Eds.), Perspec-
tives cognitives et conduites sociales: Vol. 3. Quelles cognitions? Quelles conduites? Fribourg,
Switzerland: Delval.
Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 850-856.
Reynolds, W. M. (1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 52, 223-240.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., & Schoenbach, C. (1989). Self-esteem and adolescent problems: Model-
ing reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 54(6), 1004-1018.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80, 609.
Rotter, J. B., Liverant, S., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). The growth and extinction of expectancies in
chance controlled and skilled tasks. Journal of Psychology, 52, 161-177.
Salehi, I. (1981). La théorie de l’apprentissage social de la personnalité de J. B. Rotter: le concept de
lieu de contrôle du renforcement. Journal de Thérapie Comportementale, 3(2), 103-117.
Shaw, J.-M., & Scott, W.-A. (1991). Influence of parent discipline style on delinquent behaviour: The
mediating role of control orientation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 61-67.
Silber, E., & Tipett, J. (1965). Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. Psycho-
logical Reports, 16, 1017-1071.
Simpson, C. K., & Boyal, D. (1975). Esteem construct generality and academic performance. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 35, 897-907.
Tournier, P. (1995). La population des prisons est-elle destinée à croître? Colloque “Surveiller et
puni”, 20 ans après. Sorbonne: CESDIP.
Vallières, E. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Traduction et validation canadienne-française de l’échelle
de l’estime de soi de Rosenberg. New York: Elsevier.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1985). “Spontaneous” causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), 74-84.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributed theory of motivation and emotion. New York, Springer-Verlag.

Catherine Blatier, Ph.D.

Professor of Clinical Psychology
Université Pierre Mendès-France
UFR Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société
BP 47X
38040-GRENOBLE CEDEX
France

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 31, 2015