UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

No guts, no gains! The relation between living group climate and social developmentof juvenile delinquents in detentionHeynen, E.J.E.

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Heynen, E. J. E. (2016). No guts, no gains! The relation between living group climate and social development ofjuvenile delinquents in detention

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, statingyour reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Askthe Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date: 12 Jul 2018

No Guts, No Gains!The relation between living group climate and

social development of juvenile delinquents in detention

Evelyn J. E. Heynen

NO GUTS, NO GAINS!

The relation between living group climate and social development of juvenile

delinquents in detention

Evelyn Heynen

© copyright: Evelyn Heynen, Selfkant 2015 Picture: Nadja Perbaums Cover design: Anne Wagemans ISBN 978-3-00-051848-5

This PhD Thesis was financially supported by Hogeschool Leiden, Leiden University of Applied Sciences

NO GUTS, NO GAINS!

The relation between living group climate and social development of juvenile

delinquents in detention

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. Dr. D. C. van den Boom

ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde

commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op vrijdag 29 januari 2016, te 13 uur

door

Evelyn Josefine Elisabeth Heynen

geboren te Sittard

Promotiecommissie

Promotores: Prof. Dr. A.M. Korebrits

Prof. Dr. G.J.J.M. Stams

Co-promotores: Dr. G.H.P. Van Der Helm

Dr. M.J. Cima

Overige leden: Prof. Dr. J. Hendriks

Prof. Dr. L.W.C. Tavecchio

Prof. Dr. A. Popma

Prof. Dr. R. Didden

Dr. A. M. L. Collot D’Escury-Koenigs

Faculteit: Faculteit der Maatschappij en Gedragswetenschappen

GREATEST STRENGTH

Break him, the tough guy said.

He's got to know who's boss.

Tie him up, pull him down, put some sense in his head.

He might get hurt, but that's the risk, it's only the horse's loss.

Is he mean, or simply filled with fear?

Tradition would say it doesn't matter.

Break his will to fight...you hear?

Or your body he will batter.

I've come to learn it isn't so,

This traditional belief.

Communicate, and let him know.

Violence will only get you grief.

Create a path, and watch him learn

To partner with our kind.

Be fair, and his trust you'll earn.

Be gentle, and a friend you'll find.

Training is not a battle that a man

is obliged to win.

Learning should be looked upon

as a way of having fun.

Leave your horse his dignity,

and view him with a grin.

Now your horse will see it through,

'til every job is done.

The greatest strength a man can achieve

Is gentleness-I know.

Cause your horse in you to believe,

And your inner strength will grow.

-Monty Roberts-

(from: From my hands to yours. Lessons from a lifetime of training)

PROLOGUE

Although at first glance it may seem strange, the relation between horses and

their teachers is in many aspects comparable to that of young prison inmates and

their group workers.

“Make it easy for him to do right, and difficult to do wrong”. Do not break his will.

Breaking the will of horses is in many aspects comparable with the situation of

adolescents in juvenile justice institutions where juveniles have to behave like

group workers want them to behave (Harvey, 2005; Van der Helm & Hanrath,

2012; Zimbardo, 2007).

According to the theory of Roberts (2000, p.17), a horse is able to develop in a

positive environment. There is ample evidence that young detainees are able to

develop as well in a positive environment (Souverein, Van der Helm, & Stams,

2013). The worst thing you can do to a horse is to separate it from its herd

(Roberts, 2002). This is also comparable with the situation of young prison

inmates. Only within a positive social environment young juveniles are able to

develop. It is thus important for them to experience a positive living group climate

(Van der Helm, 2011).

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink”. “You can lead a

man to knowledge but you can’t make him think” (Roberts, 2002). For horses and

mankind, education is a matter of survival. Treatment is more related to the

knowledge of people how to behave, than to their manpower (Roberts, 2002,

p.24). This can also be compared to the situation of young juveniles – treat them

with respect and it will work. The grass you need for the horses will not grow by

pulling at it (Van der Helm, Beld, & Stams, 2014).

REFERENCES Harvey, J. (2005). Young men in prison. surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton UK: Willan. Roberts, M. (2000). Join Up, horse sense for people, Harper Collins Publisher, London. Roberts, M. (2002). Die Sprache der Pferde [From my hands to yours, lessons from a lifetime of training championship horses], Bastei Lübbe, Köln. Van der Helm, G.H.P. (2011). First do no harm: group climate in secure correctional institutions. VU University, PhD thesis. Amsterdam: SWP. Van der Helm, G.H.P. & Hanrath, J. (2012). Wat werkt in de gesloten jeugdzorg [what works in secure residential youthcare], Amsterdam, SWP. Van der Helm, P. Beld, M. Stams, G.J. (2014). De hardnekkige mythe dat straffen helpt bij opvoeding in de gesloten jeugdzorg [the enduring myth that punishment aids upbringing in residential youth care], Orthopedagogiek: Onderzoek en Praktijk. 53, 164-175. . Souverein F., Van der Helm G.H.P., & Stams G.J.J.M, (2013). `Nothing works` in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review. 35, 1941-1945. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.010. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.

INDEX

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 11

CHAPTER 2

MEASURING GROUP CLIMATE IN A GERMAN YOUTH PRISON: A GERMAN VALIDATION OF THE PRISON GROUP CLIMATE INSTRUMENT 25

CHAPTER 3

MEASURING EMPATHY IN A GERMAN YOUTH PRISON A VALIDATION OF THE GERMAN VERSION OF THE `BASIC EMPATHY SCALE´ (BES) IN A SAMPLE OF INCARCERATED JUVENILE OFFENDERS 39

CHAPTER 4

I DON’T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT! THE RELATION BETWEEN JUVENILE DELINQUENTS’ RESPONSES TO SOCIAL PROBLEM SITUATIONS AND EMPATHY IN SECURE JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS 55

CHAPTER 5

THE RELATION BETWEEN LIVING GROUP CLIMATE, AGGRESSION AND CALLOUS UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS IN DELINQUENT BOYS IN DETENTION 75

CHAPTER 6

FEELINGS OF OTHERS DON’T IMPRESS ME MUCH! THE EFFECTS OF LIVING GROUP CLIMATE ON EMPATHIC BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENT MALE OFFENDERS 105

CHAPTER 7

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND EPILOGUE 123

SUMMARY

DANKWOORD

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

ATTENDED CONFERENCES

AFFILIATIONS OF CO-AUTHORS

11

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

12

INTRODUCTION

Cesare Lombroso was in 1894 one of the first to conduct research on the

development of criminal behavior. He stated that human beings were predestined

for criminal behavior due to their physical configuration and were born as

criminals. In 1942 Edward Sutherland stated that criminal behavior is learned,

such as other behavior we learn. As there was limited empirical evidence for this

learning theory, during the 60’s and 70’s of the 19th century great attention was

given to studies focusing on prevalence of genetic syndromes and chromosomal

abnormalities associated with aggressive, antisocial and criminal behavior

(Burgess & Akers, 1966; Mednick & Christiansen, 1977). However, prospective and

population-based studies soon dismissed this theory as being the sole cause of

such behavior with more emphasis on developmental processes being

responsible. In the 90’s of the previous century the focus switched again to a

more cognitive psychological and social approach (Blair, 1995; Davis, 1996;

Moffitt, 1993). Today we presume that a bio-psycho-social model is the basis for

the development of aggressive, non-empathic and criminal behavior (Raine,

2013). As we find the influence of the social environment to be in the shadow of

the biological and psychological aspects of modern science the aim of the present

dissertation is to shine more light on this topic and its relation with criminal

behavior, especially in detained youth.

After 7 million years of evolution, today we know, humans are social

beings equipped with a ”social brain” that helped survival in (hunter-gatherer)

groups in the past (Boehm, 2014; Dunbar, 1998). Social selection in evolution has

biased humans to behave pro-social and cooperative (Frith & Frith, 2008, 2009).

From early infancy, children learn to imitate social and moral behavior of their

caregivers (Bandura, 1973; Heipertz & Young, 2014; Killen & Rizzo, 2013). Children

as young as 6 months old prefer agents who help others over agents who hinder

others (Hamlin, Wynn & Bloom, 2007; Killen & Rizzo, 2013), and they have a

special ability to recognize, receive and learn from each other (Baldwin, Markman,

Bill, Desjardins, Irwin, & Tidball, 1996). But without persistent care, support and

good examples of caregivers, a child won’t be able to learn and develop, resulting

13

in the expansion of serious behavioral problems (Fanti & Henrich, 2010; Shaffer,

1996).

Although caregivers normally bring up their children in a social way, not

all children are able to behave socially ('the human factor', Kitcher, 2004). Stress

and substance use by parents during pregnancy can result in behavioral problems

of the infant (Knudsen et al., 2014). These infants are prone to more crying and

are less easily soothed, causing problems in already over-burdened families (Barr,

2012; Raine, 2013). Negligence or mistreatment by caregivers and a negative

environment will result in decreased sensitivity for ‘trust’ hormones (serotonin

and oxytocin) and more sensitivity for dopamine and testosterone, enhancing

competitiveness and search for rewards, often without respecting others (Den

Ouden et al., 2013). Stress, as a result of maltreatment or neglect of caregivers,

can result in deficits of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal-Axis (HPA-Axis, Popma

& Raine, 2006) functioning, resulting in a lower fear conditioning and more callous

and unemotional traits (Raine, 2013). Hereditary deficits in emotional processing,

changes in the structure of the brain and related neuro-hormones (cortisol,

dopamine) can impact on antisocial behavior (Fairchild et al, 2013).

Recent research has shown that a combination of genetic and

environmental factors can result in aggression and anti-social behavior (Caspi, et

al., 2002; Raine, 2013). The structural and functional brain development continues

into late adolescence. A relative immaturity in the frontal cortical neural

circuitries, often caused by enduring environmental stress, can be a predictor of

risk-taking and criminal behavior, such as substance use (Crone & Dahl, 2012;

Raine, 2013). Research has shown that within a safe environment and with

persistent care and responsivity of caregivers, also neglected children are able to

develop positively (Somerville, Jones, & Casey, 2010; Van der Helm, 2011). As we

know that environmental stress can predict the development of antisocial

behavior, the question is whether a positive and stable environment with positive

care, treatment and rehabilitation efforts can diminish antisocial behavior. Since

research has demonstrated that criminal behavior is not solely inborn, there could

be possibilities to change that behavior. Brain dysfunction as one of the main

causes of persistent anti-social, criminal and delinquent behavior is not

14

irreversible as modern science has shown (Raine, 2013). Especially in young

children and adolescents, the brain is very malleable and has the capacity to grow,

develop and make repairs (Arden & Linford, 2009; Lenroot & Giedd, 2006; Shore,

1997). For these repairs a stable social environment without too much stress is

needed (Raine, 2013), as the main stress hormone, cortisol, is neurotoxic (Uno et

al., 1994). But living in secure residential youth care often means living in a social

group and confrontation with complex social problem situations and challenges in

dealing with these situations (Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Van der Helm & Stams,

2012). When entering the prison system, juveniles bring several complex

behavioral problems they experienced before (‘import hypothesis’) leading to

failures of reintegration (Liebling & Maruna, 2005) and problems of coping with

their social environment (Van der Helm, Beunk, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2014).

During detention, juveniles often experience a repressive environment with stress

and coercion, a lack of positive stimulants to advance positive development and a

lack of support by peers and group workers (Van der Helm & Stams, 2012). The

presence of antisocial youth with different behavioral problems and group

workers who want to be ‘marshal’ and ‘patron’ can lead to feelings of loneliness,

deprivation, disadvantage and competition (Van der Helm & Stams, 2012; White,

Shi, Hirschfield, Mun, & Loeber, 2009).

As Schubert et al. (2012) recently demonstrated, juvenile prisoners can

change their behavior if they gain more positive perceptions within and across the

juvenile setting they live in. Research in the field of social neuroscience has shown

that a stimulating environment can result in better executive functioning of the

brain, more advanced social cognition and social learning (Gazzola, Aziz Zadeh, &

Keysers, 2006; Iacoboni & Dapretto, 2006; De Vignemont & Singer, 2006) and can

even result in decreased levels of impulsivity and fear (Wykes et al., 2002). Van

der Helm et al. (2012) showed a positive living group climate to be associated with

higher levels of cognitive empathy in a group of delinquent boys. Recent research

has also shown that a positive and stable environment, with a main focus on

positive interpersonal contact, can support the personal development of detained

youth (Lipsey, 2009; Soeverein, van der Helm, & Stams, 2013). This can foster

trust, which supports positive development of the social brain. Positive

15

interpersonal contact can decrease fear, depression, anger and aggression, can

stimulate empathy, moral reasoning, and can regulate impulsive and oppositional

behavior (Keysers, 2015; Norman, Lawrence, Iles, Benattayallah, & Karl, 2014; Van

der Helm et al., 2012). It is thus not the principle of punishment or a “hard time”

that works in juvenile justice, but a combination of flexibility, control and care to

create a safe environment (De Valk, Van der Helm, Beld, Schaftenaar, Kuiper, &

Stams, 2015; Van der Helm et al. 2014).

The present dissertation will add more content to research focusing on

the stimulation of (social) development within a positive environment during

detention. One of the main goals of imprisonment, not solely in the Netherlands

and Germany, is treatment and rehabilitation into the social world (Bruning et al.,

2011; Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009; Harvey, 2005; Liebling & Maruna, 2005;

Wolthuis & Vandenbroeke, 2009). To succeed in this reintegration process

juveniles have to ‘unlearn’ their social, emotional and behavioral failures. Before

entering the prison system, juvenile delinquents are often unable to respond

appropriately to their social environment due to aversive childhood experiences

(Asscher, Van der Put, & Stams, 2015; Hoeve et al., 2009, 2012) and/or

neurobiological deficits (Raine, 2013), which might hamper the development of,

for example, empathy, one of the main basic elements to behave pro-socially.

Recent research has shown that a therapeutic approach has more effect

on reduction of aggression and antisocial behavior of juveniles than a more

punishment-oriented approach, and supports social development and successful

rehabilitation (De Valk, et al., 2015; Lipsey, 2009; Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, &

Beauregard, 2008; Ros, Van der Helm, Wissink, Stams & Schaftenaar, 2013).

Accordingly, in delinquent youth, a therapeutic climate has shown to be essential

for recovery, growth and rehabilitation (Evans-Chase & Zhou, 2014: Schubert et.

al., 2012: for an oversight see: Souverein, Van der Helm, & Stams, 2013). The

present dissertation aims to add more knowledge to the field of behavioral

research in the context of a positive prison environment. This dissertation will

investigate if a positive living group climate is associated with increased empathic

behavior, adequate responding to social problem situations, and decrease of CU-

traits and aggression in juvenile offenders.

16

Living Group Climate in Secure Residential Youth Care

Already in 1953, the World Health Organization stated that “climate is the single

most important factor in the efficacy of treatment” (p. 17) administered to

psychiatric patients. Today’s living group climate research is based on the

following definitions of social climate: “the material, social, and emotional

conditions of a given unit and the interaction between such factors” (Moos, 1989).

And “a set of properties or conditions relating to the internal environment of an

organization, as they are perceived by its members” (Ajdukovic, 1990, p. 422). The

social climate is thus defined as a multifactorial construct based on different

mechanisms that describe how social relations in a group are experienced by the

persons living and working in this group.

Recognition of the importance of the social climate among prison inmates

formed the early basis of living group climate research in residential youth care

and consequently the development of the Prison Group Climate Instrument (PGCI,

Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011; for a discussion see also Tonkin,

2015). The PGCI questionnaire is central for the investigation of living group

climate research in the present dissertation. Four factors characterize living group

climate: support, growth, repression and atmosphere (Van der Helm et al., 2011).

The scale for support assesses the support prisoners perceive from staff.

The growth scale measures juvenile’s developmental possibilities and hope for the

future. The repression scale evaluates the perceived repression, strictness of rules

and control, lack of fairness and flexibility in the living group. Finally, the group

atmosphere scale assesses the degree to which the physical and social

environment can foster feelings of safety and trust among the inmates (Van der

Helm et al., 2011). An open living group climate is defined by high levels of

support, ample opportunities for growth, minimal repression and a clean, safe

and structured environment, with clear rules and a daily routine in which inmates

and workers trust and respect each other (Van der Helm et al., 2011).

17

Aims and outlines of this dissertation

Today, there is abundant knowledge on the effects of individual treatment of

juvenile offenders (Garrido & Morales, 2007; Lipsey, 2009), but in particular the

influences of the ‘social-together’ on the development and behavior of inmates

need further examination (Marshall & Burton, 2010). Young prison inmates are

not able to escape from the compulsory environment they have to share with

others, but if the environment is positive they may also develop in a pro-social

way (Schubert et al., 2012). As outlined above, a positive living group climate in

residential youth care can be the foundation of successful treatment and

rehabilitation and is also the basis for research conducted in the present PhD

project. The general aim of this thesis was to investigate whether there is a

relation between a therapeutic living group climate and juveniles’ social

development (including deficits) in terms of empathy, aggression, CU-traits and

dealing with complex social situations.

The findings of the present dissertation are based on research conducted

in German and Dutch juvenile justice institutions. As the investigation of living

group climate with the PGCI is the main concept of the present dissertation and

there was no German validation of this scale, Chapter 2 examines the validity and

reliability of the PGCI questionnaire in German residential youth care.

There was also no instrument to investigate another main concept of this

dissertation. Therefore, Chapter 3 investigates the validation of the German

version of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES) in a sample of incarcerated adolescent

male offenders. As previous research has mainly focused on the usage of the BES

in a general adolescent population or mixed samples, this chapter adds more

knowledge to the field of empathy research in adolescents within a youth

correctional facility.

In Chapter 4 inadequate responses to social problem situations in youth

correctional facilities and their relation with cognitive and affective empathy will

be discussed. This chapter focuses on problems with competition, giving or

accepting help and problems with accepting authority. All of them are common

daily problems young prison inmates have to deal with, and which in this chapter

are expected to be related to cognitive and affective empathy. More specifically,

18

we hypothesize inappropriate responses to social problem situations in terms of

competition, social disadvantage, receiving/providing help and accepting

authority to be related to lower levels of empathy.

Chapter 5 investigates if living group climate could influence behavior of

delinquent youth in youth prison. High levels of CU-traits in combination with

reactive and proactive aggressive behavior have shown to be a major problem in

youth correctional facilities. We examine whether a positive and open living group

climate is associated with aggressive behavior and callous unemotional traits. It is

hypothesized that a positive and open living group climate is associated with less

reactive and proactive aggression and less CU-traits in detained juvenile

offenders.

Chapter 6 describes a longitudinal replication of a previous cross-sectional

study to investigate the influences of positive living group climate on the

development of empathy. It is hypothesized that an open living group climate

with positive support, possibilities for growth and atmosphere and low repression

rates will be associated with more empathy during detention.

The final chapter 7 provides an overall discussion of the results of the five

studies in this dissertation. Future directions for living group climate research in

residential youth care will be provided.

19

REFERENCES

Ajdukovic, D. (1990). Psychosocial climate in correctional institutions: Which attributes describe it? Environment & Behavior. 22, 420-432. DOI:10.1177/0013916590223006. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. Arden, J., & Linford, L. (2009). Brain-based Therapy for Adults. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Asscher, J.J., Van der Put, C.E., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2015). Gender differences in the

association between child maltreatment and adolescent offending. Journal of

Family Violence. 30, 215-225. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-014-9668-4.

Baldwin, D. A., Markman, E. M., Bill, B., Desjardins, R. N., Irwin, J. M. & Tidball, G. (1996). Infants’ reliance on a social criterion for establishing word-object relations. Child Development. 67, 3135–3153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01906. Bandura, A. (1973) Aggression: a social learning theory analysis. New York: Prentice-Hall. Barr, R.G. (2012). Preventing abusive head trauma resulting from a failure of normal interaction between infants and their caregivers, PNAS,109. Boehm, C. (2014). The moral consequences of social selection. Behaviour. 151, 167-183. DOI: 10.1163/1568539X-00003143. Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition. 57, 1-29. DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-P. Brothers, L. (1990). The social brain: a project for integrating primate behavior and neurophysiology in a new domain. Concepts Neuroscience. 1, 27–51. Bruning, M. R., De Jong, M. P., Liefaard, T., Schuyt, P. M., Doek, J. E., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2011). Wegwijs in het jeugdsanctierecht [Find your way in youth sanction law]. Wolf Legal Publishers. . Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems. 14, 128-147. DOI: dx.DOI.org/10.2307/798612. Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Taylor, A., & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851-854. . Crone, E.A., Dahl, R.E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility, Nature Review Neuroscience. 13, 636-50. DOI:10.1038/nrn3313. David-Barrett, T. and Dunbar, R.I.M. (2013). Processing power limits social group size: computational evidence for the cognitive costs of sociality. Proceedings of the

20

Royal Society. 280. (1765), DOI:10.1098/rspb.2013.1151 Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach (pp. 55-6). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. . Den Ouden, H.E.M., Daw N.D., Fernandez, G., Elshout, J.A., Rijpkema, M., Hoogman, M., Franke, B., Cools, R. (2013). Dissociable effects of dopamine and serotonin on reversal learning. Neuron. 20, 1090-1100. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.08.030. De Valk, S., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Beld, M., Schaftenaar, P., Kuiper, C., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2015). Does punishment in secure residential youth care work? An overview of the evidence. Journal of Children’s Services. 10, 3-16. DOI.org/10.1108/JCS-11- 2014-0048.

De Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: how, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,10, 435-441. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.008. . Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). "The social brain hypothesis". Evoluation and Anthropology. 6, 178–190. Evans-Chase, M. & Zhou, H. (2014). A systematic review of the juvenile justice intervention literature: what it can (and cannot) tell us about what works with delinquent youth. Crime & Delinquency. 60, 451-470. DOI 10.1177/0011128712466931. Fairchild, G., van Goozen, S.H.M., Calder, A.J. Goodyer, I.M. (2013). Research review: evaluating and reformulating the developmental taxonomic theory of antisocial behavior, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 54, 924–940. DOI:10.1111/jcpp.12102. Fanti, K. A., & Henrich, C. C. (2010). Trajectories of pure and co-occurring internalizing and externalizing problems from age 2 to age 12: Findings from the NICHD study of Early Child Care. Developmental Psychology. 46, 1159-1175. DOI.org/10.1037/a0020659. Frith, C. D. & Frith, U. (2008). Implicit and explicit processes in social cognition. Neuron. 60, 503–510. DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.032. . Frith, U. & Frith,C. (2009). The social brain: allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Science. 365, 165-176. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0160. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R.E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 8, 991–998. DOI:10.1111/j.1469- 7610.2008.02057.x. Garrido, V., & Morales, L.A. (2007). Serious (Violent or Chronic) juvenile offenders: a systematic review of treatment effectiveness in secure corrections. Campbell Collaboration. Gazzola, V., Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Keysers, C. (2006). Empathy and the somatotopic auditory mirror system in humans. Current Biology. 16, 1824-1829. DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.072. Hamlin, K.J., Wynn, K., Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature. 450, 557-559. DOI:10.1038/nature06288. . .

21

Harvey, J. (2005). Young men in prison. Surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton UK: Willan. Heipertz, L., & Young, L., (2014). A social cognitive developmental perspective on moral judgement. Behaviour. 151, 315-335. DOI: 10.1163/1568539X-00003131. Heynen E. J. E., Van der Helm, G. H. P. , Stams G. J. J. M. & Korebrits A. M. (2014). Measuring group climate in a German youth prison: A German validation of the prison group climate instrument. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. 14, 45- 54. DOI:10.1080/15228932.2013.868176. . Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 37, 749-775. DOI 10.1007/s10802-009- 9310-8. Hoeve, M., Stams, G. J. J., van der Put, C. E., Dubas, J. S., van der Laan, P. H., & Gerris, J. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 40, 771-785. DOI 10.1007/s10802-011-9608-1. Iacoboni, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006). The mirror neuron system and the consequences of its dysfunction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 942-951. DOI:10.1038/nrn2024. Keysers C. (2011) The empathic brain. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Social Brain Press. Kitcher, P. (2004). Evolutionary theory and the social uses of biology. Biology and Philosophy. 19, 1-15. DOI: 10.1023/B:BIPH.0000013273.58226.ec. Killen, M & Rizzo, M.T. (2014). Morality, intentionality and intergroup attitudes. Behaviour. 151, 337-359. DOI: 10.1163/1568539X-00003132. Knudsen, A.K., Skogen, J.C., Ystrom, E., Sivertsen, B., Tell, G.S., Torgersen, L. (2014). Maternal pre-pregnancy risk drinking and toddler behavior problems: the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 23, 901-911. DOI: 10.1007/s00787-014-0588-x. Lenroot, R.K. & Giedd, J.N. (2006). Brain development in children and adolescents: insights from anatomical magnetic resonance imaging, Neuroscience & bio behavioral reviews. 30, 718-729. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.001. Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). Introduction: The effects of imprisonment revisited. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.). The effect of imprisonment (pp. 1–32). Collumpton, UK: Willan. . Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders. 4, 124-147. DOI:10.1080/15564880802612573. Marshall, W.L., & Burton, D.L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 15, 141-149. DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.008. Mednick, S. A., & Christiansen, K. O. (1977). Biosocial bases of criminal behavior. Gardner Press.

22

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review. 100, 674-701. DOI.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674. Moos, R. H. (1989). Ward Atmosphere Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. . Norman, L., Lawrence, N. Iles, A. Benattayallah, A. Karl, A. (2014). Attachment-security priming attenuates amygdala activation to social and linguistic threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 10, 832-839. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsu127. Parhar, K. P., Wormith, S. W., Derkzen, D. M., & Beauregard, A. M. (2008). Offender coercion in treatment: A meta-analysis of effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behaviour. 35, 1109-1135. DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320169. Popma, A. & Raine, A. (2006). Will future forensic assessment be neurobiological? Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 15, 429-444. DOI:10.1016/j.chc.2005.11.004. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1, 515-526. DOI.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512. Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence, the biological roots of crime, Pantheon. Ros, N., Van der Helm, P., Wissink, I., Stams G.J.& Schaftenaar, P. (2013). Institutional climate and aggression in a secure psychiatric setting, The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 24, 713-727. DOI: 0.1080/14789949.2013.848460. Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Loughran, T.A., & Losoya, S.H. (2012). Perceptions of institutional experience and community outcomes for serious adolescent offenders, Criminal Justice and Behavior. 39, 71-93. DOI: 10.1177/0093854811426710. Shaffer, R. (1996). Social development. Blackwell Publishing. Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain: new insights into early development. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, pp. 26-27. Somerville, L. H., Jones, R. M., & Casey, B. J. (2010). A time of change: behavioral and neural correlates of adolescent sensitivity to appetitive and aversive environmental cues. Brain and Cognition, 72, 124-133. DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.07.003. Souverein, F., Van der Helm G. H. P., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2013). ‘Nothing works’ in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review. 35, 1941–1945. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.010. Sutherland, E. H. (1942). Development of the theory. In: Karl Schuessler (ed.) Edwin H. Sutherland on Analyzing Crime, pp. 13–29. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tonkin, M. (2015), A review of questionnaire measures for assessing the social climate in prisons and forensic psychiatric hospitals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. DOI: 0306624X15578834. Uno, H., Eisele, S., Sakai, A., Shelton, S., Baker, E., DeJesus, O., & Holden, J. (1994).

23

Neurotoxicity of glucocorticoids in the primate brain. Hormones and Behavior. 28, 336-348. DOI:10.1006/hbeh.1994.1030. . Van der Helm, G.H.P. (2011). First do no harm: group climate in secure correctional institutions. VU University, PhD thesis. Amsterdam: SWP. Van der Helm, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Measuring group climate in prison. The Prison Journal. 91,158–176. DOI: 10.1177/0032885511403595. Van der Helm, G.H.P., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2012). Conflict and Coping by Clients and Group Workers in Secure Residential Facilities. In: Oei, K & Groenhuizen, M. Progression in Forensic Psychiatry: about Boundaries. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Van der Helm, G.H.P, Beunk, L. , Stams, G.J.J.M & van der Laan, P.H. (2014). The relation between detention length, living group climate, coping and treatment motivation among juvenile delinquents in a youth correctional facility. The Prison Journal. 94, 260-275. DOI: 10.1177/0032885514524884. . Van der Helm, G. H. P., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2012). Conflict and coping by clients and group workers in secure residential facilities. Progression in forensic psychiatry: About Boundaries, 553-564. . White, H. R., Shi, J., Hirschfield, P., Mun, E. I., & Loeber, E. R. (2009). Effects of institutional confinement for delinquency on levels of anxiety and depression among male adolescents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 8, 295-313. DOI: 10.1177/1541204009358657 Wolthuis, A., & Vandenbroucke, M. (2009). Schade herstellen tijdens jeugddetentie. Een evaluatieonderzoek naar herstelgericht werken in Forensisch Centrum Teylingereind. [Recovering damage during youth detention, an evaluation study to investigate recovery focussed work inthe forensic centre of Teylingereind]. Research Report Verwey Jonker Instituut. World Health Organization (1953). Expert committee on mental health: 3rd report. Geneva, Switzerland. . Wykes, T., Brammer, M., Mellers, J., Bray, P., Reeder, C., Williams, C., & Corner, J. (2002). Effects on the brain of a psychological treatment: cognitive remediation therapy functional magnetic resonance imaging in schizophrenia. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 181, 144-152. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.181.2.144. . Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.

24

25

MEASURING GROUP CLIMATE IN A

GERMAN YOUTH PRISON: A GERMAN VALIDATION OF THE PRISON GROUP CLIMATE INSTRUMENT

Evelyn Heynen, Peer van der Helm, Geert-Jan Stams & Andries Korebrits

Measuring group climate in a German youth prison: A German validation of the prison group climate instrument, (2014) Journal of Forensic

Psychology Practice. 14. 45-54.

26

ABSTRACT

Recently Van der Helm, Stams and Van der Laan (2011) developed the Prison

Group Climate Instrument (PGCI) to investigate group climate quality in forensic

psychiatric institutions and secure residential treatment facilities for delinquent

juveniles and young adults. The Dutch version contains 36 items and four scales,

measuring support from group workers, growth, atmosphere and repression. The

present study examined construct validity, convergent validity and reliability of

the German version of the PGCI in a sample of 218 delinquent late adolescents

and young adults in a German prison. A confirmatory factor analysis with four first

order factors – “support”, “growth”, “group atmosphere”, and “repression” – and

“overall group climate” as a second order factor showed a good fit to the data and

indicated construct validity of the German version of the PGCI. Preliminary

support was found for convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients

were sufficient for all scales. In future studies, the PGCI can be used to assess the

climate in judicial and forensic psychiatric care in Germany in order to improve

safety, treatment outcomes, and rehabilitation in a forensic setting.

27

INTRODUCTION

Secure treatment and imprisonment of young juveniles is often an “ultima ratio.”

The impact of incarceration and resulting consequences on personal development

and recidivism, however, are largely unknown (Marshall & Burton, 2010;

Schubert, Mulvey, Loughran, & Loysa, 2012; Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan,

2011). During the year 2011, 60.067 “criminals” in Germany were incarcerated.

Nearly 10% (6,099) were between the ages of 14 and 24 (Deutsches Bundesamt

für Statistik, 2012). Actual numbers show that there are 5,603 young prison

inmates in Germany and 1,466 of them in Nordrhein-Westfalen (Anzahl der

Gefangenen im Jugendstrafvollzug in Deutschland nach Bundesländern, 2012).

A main goal of the juvenile justice system is to prevent recidivism and to

promote rehabilitation. Imprisonment, however, can negatively affect juvenile

delinquents (Liebling & Maruna, 2005). Youth detention can destabilize

personality and can have negative influences on work and social relationships,

personal status, self-control, and self-esteem (Köhler, 2004). Stress, anxiety, and

lack of social support are associated with detention and can result in aggressive

behavior in a secure setting (Ros, Van der Helm, Wissink, Stams, & Schaftenaar, in

press; Van der Helm, Klapwijk, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2009). In prisoners with a

preexisting mental disorder, problems can aggravate during detention (Van der

Helm & Stams, 2012; Vreugdenhil, Doreleijers, Vermeiren, Wouters, & Van den

Brink, 2004; White, Shi, Hirschfield, Mun, & Loeber, 2009).

The actual prevalence of psychological disturbances in young German

prison inmates is largely unknown. A study performed in the north of Germany

(Schleswig-Holstein) showed 81% of imprisoned youths to have conduct problems

and 77% to have personality disorders (Köhler, 2004). Violence and drug

dependence are key problems before, during and after time of arrest

(Walkenhorst, 2012). Especially in western Germany, ethnic diversity, language

problems, and different religions and rituals often result in problems among

prisoners and employees.

28

A prison population with a high prevalence of psychiatric disorders and behavioral

problems, resulting in frequent incidents and criminal conduct inside the prison

system, is considered to be a constant threat to the prison climate for inmates as

well as workers. Recent research (Souverein, Van der Helm, & Stams, 2013)

showed that a negative prison climate decreases chances for successful

rehabilitation and increases risks for recidivism. To achieve positive results, no

matter how difficult, climate research in prison seems necessary to improve

conditions inside. Van der Helm et al. (2011) developed the Prison Group Climate

Instrument (PGCI) to assess living group climate quality. Items from the PGCI were

derived from existing instruments measuring prison climate and were adapted for

specific use at the living-group level.

The PGCI consists of four scales: support, growth, repression, and

atmosphere. Support is designated as professional behavior and in particular the

responsivity of group workers toward specific needs of the inmates. Paying

attention to inmates, taking complaints seriously, respect, and trust are important

characteristics of support. Growth pertains to learning opportunities, hope for the

future, and giving meaning to prison stay. Repression deals with perceptions of

strictness and control, unfair and haphazard rules, and lack of flexibility at the

living group. The group atmosphere scale pertains to the way inmates treat and

trust one another, feelings of safety, being able to get some peace of mind, and

having enough daylight and fresh air.

A differentiation can be made between an “open” and a “closed” prison

climate. An open climate is characterized by support, clear opportunities for

growth, safety, structure, and flexibility (atmosphere) and can lead to greater

treatment motivation and internal locus of control (Van der Helmet al., 2009),

fewer criminal cognitions (Groeneweg, Van der Helm, Stams, & Asscher, 2013),

and more empathy (Van der Helm & Stams, 2012). An open group climate has

been found to facilitate cognitive behavioral treatment and multifocal programs

for serious and violent adolescent prisoners (Garrido & Morales, 2007; Parhar,

Wormith, Derkezen, & Beauregard, 2008). An open climate, feelings of safety, and

a positive group climate can reduce competition among prison inmates and may

subsequently foster more safety at the living group. Research has shown that a

29

more positive group climate is associated with significantly fewer behavioral

problems outside prison and a decreased risk for recidivism (Schubert et al.,

2012). A climate is defined as closed if there are few opportunities for growth, if

support by prison staff is almost absent, and if group atmosphere is negative

(Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Ross, Diamond, Liebling, & Saylor, 2008; Ross, Liebling

& Tait, 2011; Van der Helm et al., 2011). The Dutch PGCI is widely used in the

Netherlands and abroad to assess living group quality and to stimulate

organizational development and quality awareness. By using the PGCI, inmates

can express their voice.

The present study examined validity and reliability of the German PGCI in

218 young delinquents in Germany. Construct validity was investigated by means

of confirmatory factor analysis. Convergent validity was investigated by examining

the associations between the four PGCI scales and German school mark ratings of

support, growth, atmosphere, and repression. Reliabilities were examined by

calculating Cronbach’s alpha and Goodman’s Lambda2.

METHOD

Participants

A sample of 218 male, adolescent, and young adult prisoners in Germany

completed the translated version of the PGCI. The response rate was 98%.

Participants were randomly selected from a German prison by the researchers in

the last quarter of 2012. All participants were ages between 17 and 25 (M = 20.41,

SD = 1.70). For 62.2%, the reason for detention was assault/bodily harm, for

44.9% it was theft, and for 45.5% it was robbery/extortion. A total of 73.1% of the

participants were German, and 12.8% were Turkish. A total of 33.6% of the

participating prisoners had not finished school, 45.4% had finished German

Hauptschule (lower secondary school), 5.9% had finished special education, and

15.2% had finished higher education.

30

Instruments

PRISON GROUP CLIMATE INSTRUMENT

The original Dutch version of the PGCI (Van der Helm et al., 2011) was translated

into German by the first author of this article, who is a native Dutch and German

speaker. This translation was checked by two other native bilingual German and

Dutch speakers. The PGCI consists of 36 questions ranging on a 5-point Likert scale

from 1= don´t agree to 5= fully agree. Each question belongs to only one of the

four aspects of group climate. The scale for support (Unterstützung) covers 11

Items and assesses the professional behavior of group workers and the support

prisoners receive by them. An example of an item from the support scale is

“Group workers treat me with respect.” The growth (Wachstum) scale consists of

seven items. This scale assesses developmental possibilities, hope for future, and

the feelings and thoughts about the prison stay. An example of a growth scale

item is “I learn the right things here.” The repression (Repression) scale consists of

six Items. This scale assesses the repression, strictness of rules and control,

fairness, rules, and the lack of flexibility in the living group that prisoners

experience during their prison stay (Van der Helm & Stams, 2012). An example of

a repression item is “You have to ask permission for everything.” The group

atmosphere (Atmosphäre) scale includes seven items and assesses group

atmosphere. Atmosphere is related to the degree to which the physical and social

environment can foster feelings of safety and trust among the inmates (Van der

Helm et al., 2011). An example of an atmosphere item is “We trust each other

here.” An open group climate is defined by high levels of support, ample

opportunities for growth, minimal repression, and a clean, safe, and structured

environment, with clear rules and a daily routine in which inmates and workers

trust and respect each other (Van der Helm et al., 2010).

RATINGS OF LIVING GROUP QUALITY BY MEANS OF GERMAN SCHOOL MARKS

We asked participants to evaluate the quality of the living group climate with a

“school mark” (Preston & Colman, 2000), ranging from 1 (is very good) to 6 (is

very bad), related to the common used school marks in Germany. For the ease of

31

interpretation, we reverse-keyed the school marks in that a high score represents

a positive evaluation of the construct that is measured. School marks were

reversed into 1 (is very bad) to 6 (is very good). Participants rated support from

group workers, the extent to which they were learning something in the

institution, and the atmosphere, and the honesty in interpersonal contacts at the

living group related to fairness of rules and regulations.

Statistical Analysis

Construct validity and internal consistency of the German translation were

examined by means of confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS 18 and reliability

analysis in SPSS 20 (both Cronbach’s alpha and Goodman’s Lambda2).

A multifactor model was specified in which each item loaded on only one factor.

For a good-fitting model, cut-off values of CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, and RMSEA < 0.05

are required (Kline, 2005). Convergent validity was assessed by computing

Pearson’s correlations between the four PGCI scales and corresponding school

marks for support, growth, atmosphere, and repression.

RESULTS

A confirmatory factor analysis of the 36 items was performed using AMOS 18. The

model that best fitted the data consisted of four factors: Unterstützung

(support/12 items), Wachstum (grow/8 items), Repression (repression/9 items),

and Atmosphäre (atmosphere/7 items) and a second-order factor of overall group

climate (36 items). This model showed a satisfactory fit to the data: RMSEA = .044,

CFI =.931, TLI = .904, χ2( 358) = 507.2, p > .00. The RMSEA was lower < 0.05, and

CFI and TLI were > 0.90. Cronbach’s Alpha and Goodman’s Lambda2 were good

for Unterstützung α =.855/Lambda2 = .876 and Wachstum α =.855/Lambda2 =

.864, and sufficient for Repression α = .668/Lambda2 = .672 and Atmosphäre α

=.665/Lambda2 = .697; Table 1).

32

Table 1. Standardized Regression Weights Group number 1 - Default model

Item No. Scale/ Item Scale/ Item German

Standardized Estimates

Growth Wachstum

13 I work at my future here Ich arbeite hier an meiner Zukunft .830

14 What I'm learning here is preparing me for my life outside

Die Zeit die ich hier drinnen verbringe, bereitet mich auf mein Leben draußen vor .655

16 What I'm learning here is helping me outside

Ich lerne hier drinnen, wie ich draußen mein Leben gestalten kann .680

20 Group workers allow me some space Ich kann mich hier frei entfalten .700

24 What I'm learning here is helping me Was ich hier lerne ist sinnvoll .773

25 I know what I'm working at Ich weiß woran ich hier arbeite .721

27 I learn the right things here Ich lerne hier sinnvolle Dinge .824

Support Unterstützung

2 When I have a problem, there is always somebody I can turn to

Ich kann immer mit jemandem über meine persönlichen Probleme sprechen .303

5 Taking initiative is welcomed by group workers Ich darf eigene Ideen einbringen .364

6 Group workers treat me with respect Die Justizvollzugsbeamten behandeln mich mit Respekt .839

7 I trust the group workers Ich vertraue den Justizvollzugsbeamten .805

8 Group workers treat all group members equivalent and honest

Die Justizvollzugsbeamten behandelnd die Gruppenmitglieder gleichwertig und ehrlich .691

9 Group workers’ pay attention to me and respect my feelings

Die Justizvollzugsbeamten respektieren meine eigene Meinung und meine Gefühle .719

21 Group workers stimulate me Die Justizvollzugsbeamten motivieren mich, neue Dinge auszuprobieren .661

22 When I complain about something, Group workers take it seriously

Beschwerden werden hier immer ernst genommen .608

28 There are always enough people to help me

Es gibt immer genügend Justizvollzugsbeamte die mir helfen können .672

31 Group workers treat me with respect, even if I'm angry

Auch wenn ich ausflippe, werde ich mit Respekt behandelt .362

32 We regularly discuss things with the group workers

Wir tauschen uns oft mit den Justizvollzugsbeamten über unser Leben hier drinnen aus

.527

33

Item No. Scale/ Item Scale/ Item German

Standardized Estimates

Repression Repression

3 You have to ask permission for everything Ich muss immer für alles einen Antrag stellen .351

23 I waste my time here Ich verschwende hier meine Zeit .561

26 Sometimes I'm bored Ich langweile mich hier oft .702

29 They don't understand me here Man versteht mich hier oft falsch .488

33 We have nothing to do here Hier gibt es wenig zu tun .572

34 Sometimes it is dirty and smelly Manchmal ist es hier schmutzig und es stinkt .888

Atmosphere Atmosphäre

1 The atmosphere is good at the group Die Atmosphäre in der Wohngruppe ist angenehm .722

4 I feel fine here Ich fühle mich wohl in meiner Wohngruppe .674

10 I get some peace of mind at the group Ich komme in meiner Wohngruppe ausreichend zur Ruhe .588

11 We trust each other here In der Wohngruppe vertrauen wir uns untereinander .582

17 I always feel safe at the group Ich fühle mich hier immer sicher .461

19 You can trust everybody here Man kann hier jedem vertrauen .552

36 We have enough fresh air and daylight Es gibt in unserer Wohngruppe genügend frische Luft und Tageslicht .330

Table 2 shows that correlations between the PGCI scales (support, growth,

atmosphere, and repression) and the corresponding school marks were all

significant and in the expected direction. Support was positively related to the

question “The support you get from the group workers” (r = .614, p < 0.01);

growth was positively related to the question

“What you learn (here)” (r = 503, p < 0. 01); atmosphere was positively related to

the question “The atmosphere at your living group” (r = .543, p < 0.01); and

repression was positively related to the question “The rules you have to comply

with” (r = .290, p < 0.01).

34

Table 2. Mean, standard deviation and school marks

M SD N

school mark 1

School mark 2

school mark 3

School mark 5

support growth atmosphere repression

support 32,34 8,84 189 ,614(**) ,393(**) ,217(**) -,487(**)

growth 24,54 6,21 200 ,378(**) ,503(**) ,146(*) -.286 (**)

atmosphere 21,71 4,52 208 ,300(**) ,222(**) ,543(**) -,186 (**)

repression 20,06 4,66 204 -,303(**) -,383(**) -,183(**) ,290(**)

** p<0.01, *p<0.05

DISCUSSION

This study was performed to examine validity and reliability of the German

translation of the PGCI in a group of late adolescents and young adults in a

German youth prison. A confirmatory factor analysis supported construct validity,

while some preliminary evidence was found for convergent validity. Internal

consistency reliabilities were acceptable. Support and growth showed the highest

internal consistency and loaded highest on the “overall group climate” scale. This

is in line with the findings by Van der Helm et al. (2011) in their validation study of

the Dutch version of the PGCI, showing that support and growth are the most

prominent indicators of group climate in prison.

Support by group workers and their responsivity to the personal needs of

the inmates can facilitate a successful rehabilitation during detention. Growth is

related to learning skills and reflects learning to give life a sense (Van der Helm et

al., 2011). The reliabilities of atmosphere and repression were lower than the

reliabilities of support and growth. This can be explained by the fact that these

scales contain fewer items and may also be related to the fact that there is more

heterogeneity among the items of the atmosphere and repression scales in order

to adequately capture the multi-faceted nature of these constructs (Van der Helm

et al., 2011).

35

Limitations of this study were related to characteristics of the sample,

which only consisted of male prisoners. A further limitation is the inclusion of only

one prison, which hampers the generalizability of the study findings. Furthermore,

there was no other validated group climate instrument available to assess

convergent validity, and it was not possible to conduct behavioral observations of

the group climate. Convergent validity was, therefore, examined by means of

single-item school marks assessing support, growth, atmosphere, and repression.

For this reason, conclusions about convergent validity of the PGCI should be

considered preliminary.

Positive support by group workers can lead to a therapeutic alliance,

treatment motivation, and possibilities for change (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith,

2006; Van der Helm & Stams, 2012). Growth is connected to developmental

possibilities and hope for a better future. Prisoners should have positive feelings

about what they can learn during their stay and should learn meaningful skills

(Goldberg, 2009; Van der Helm & Stams, 2012). An “open group climate” can

reduce competition and aggression among inmates and workers (Van der Helm &

Stams, 2012). The four dimensions of the PGCI also reflect the daily tasks and

problems of group workers in forensic youth care (Van der Helm & Stams, 2012).

In Germany the PGCI can be used as an assessment tool for living group climate in

order to improve safety for inmates and group workers and eventually

rehabilitation of the juvenile delinquents.

36

REFERENCES Andrews, D. A., Bonta J., & Wormith J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52. 7–27. Anzahl der Gefangenen im Jugendstrafvollzug in Deutschland nach Bundesländern [Amount of Detainees in Youth Prison] (2012, March 31). Retrieved from: http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37477/umfrage/gefan geneimjugendstrafvollzug-in-deutschland/ (stand 18-12-2012). Deutsches Bundesamt für Statistik [German Office for Statistics]. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/ Rechtspflege/Justizvollzug/Tabellen/Strafgefangene.html. Garrido, V., & Morales L. A. (2007). Serious (violent or chronic) juvenile offenders: A systematic review of treatment effectiveness in secure corrections. Campbell Collaboration 7. 1–46. DOI:10.4073/csr.2007.7 Goldberg, E. (2009). The new executive brain: Frontal lobes in complex a world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Groeneweg, M. J., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Asscher J. J. (2013). Incarcerated adolescents in a delayed-return society: When I don’t get what I want, I take it because it’s mine. I-D compensation and incarcerated adolescents in a delayed-return society: an application of Martin’s theory. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20. 735–748. DOI:10.1080/13218719.2012.730902, Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Köhler, D. (2004). Psychische Störungen bei jungen Straftätern. [psychological disorders in young juveniles]. Hamburg, Germany: J. Kovac. Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). Introduction: The effects of imprisonment revisited. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The effect of imprisonment (pp. 1–32). Collumpton, UK: Willan. Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15. 141–149. Parhar, K. P., Wormith, S. W., Derkezen, D. M., & Beauregard A. M., (2008). Offender coercion in treatment: A meta-analysis of effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35. 1109–1135. Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104. 1–15. Ros, N., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Wissink, I., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Schaftenaar, P. (in press). Institutional climate and aggression in a secure psychiatric setting.

37

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. DOI: org/10.1080/14789949.2013.848460. Ross, M. W., Diamond, P. M., Liebling, A., & Saylor, W. G. (2008). Measurement of prison climate: A comparison of an Inmate measure in England and the USA. Punishment & Society, 10. 447–474. Ross, M. W., Liebling A., & Tait S. (2011). The relationships of prison climate to health service in correctional environments: Inmate health care measurement, satisfaction and access in prisons. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 50. 262–274. Schubert, C.A., Mulvey E. P., Loughran T. A., & Loysa, S. H. (2012). Perceptions of institutional experience and community outcomes for serious adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39. 71–93. Souverein, F., Van der Helm G. H. P., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2013). ‘Nothing works’ in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review, 35. 1941–1945. Van der Helm, P., Klapwijk M., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2009). “What works” for juvenile prisoners: The role of group climate in a youth prison. Journal of Children’s Services, 4. 36–48. Van der Helm, G. H. P., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2012). Conflict and coping by clients and group workers in secure residential facilities. In K. Oei & M. Groenhuizen (Eds.), Progression in forensic psychiatry: About boundaries (pp. 553–564). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kluwer. Van der Helm, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Measuring group climate in prison. The Prison Journal, 91. 158–176. Vreugdenhil, C., Doreleijers, T., Vermeiren, R., Wouters, L., & Van den Brink, W. (2004). Psychiatric disorders in a representative sample of incarcerated boys in the Netherlands. American Medical Association, 43. 97–104. Walkenhorst, P. (2012). Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Jugendstrafvollzug [Federal Agency for Political Formation]. Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/ apuz/32971/jugendstrafvollzug. White, H. R., Shi, J., Hirshfield, P., Mun, E. I., & Loeber, E. R. (2009). Effects of institutional confinement for delinquency on levels of anxiety and depression among male adolescents. Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22. 257–277.

38

39

MEASURING EMPATHY IN A GERMAN

YOUTH PRISON – A VALIDATION OF THE GERMAN VERSION OF THE `BASIC EMPATHY SCALE´ (BES) IN A SAMPLE OF INCARCERATED JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Evelyn Heynen, Peer van der Helm, Geert-Jan Stams & Andries Korebrits

Submitted

40

ABSTRACT

Lack of empathy is related to aggression, delinquency and criminal offense

recidivism. The present study examined construct validity and reliability of the

German version of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES) in a sample of 94 detained

German male juvenile offenders (aged 14-26). A confirmatory factor analysis with

a two-factor-model of affective and cognitive empathy showed a good fit to the

data. The factor structure of the original 20 item scale, however, could not be fully

replicated in the German juvenile prison sample. Therefore, the scale was reduced

to 12 items. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were good for both affective

and cognitive empathy. Concurrent validity of the BES was demonstrated only for

cognitive empathy, which was significantly associated with callous-unemotional

traits. Although results are promising, a replication study is needed to test

concurrent, convergent, divergent and predictive validity of the German version

of the BES as well as test-retest reliability.

41

INTRODUCTION

While there is a decrease in the number of incarcerated adolescents, the severity

of their offenses remains a challenge for present-day society (Blumstein, 2002;

CDC, 2013; European Commission, 2014; Stelly & Thomas, 2013). Young

delinquents (especially the group showing severe offenses) often do not feel

emotions of shame and guilt about their delinquent behavior (Raine, 2013;

Schalkwijk, Stams, Stegge, Dekker, & Peen, in press), and have been shown to lack

empathy (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Van Langen, Wissink, Van Vugt, Van der

Stouwe, & Stams, 2014).

Empathy, “the ability to understand and share another's emotional state

and context” (Cohen & Strayer, 1996), is an important social competency (Davis,

1994; De Waal, 2009). For instance, Eisenberg and Strayer (1987), even as Jolliffe

and Farrington (2006), showed that empathy was positively associated with

prosocial behavior. Higher levels of empathy have been shown to be related to

less aggression and disruptive behavior and lower incidence of conduct disorder

(Cohen & Strayer, 1996; De Wied, Goudena, & Matthys, 2005; Miller & Eisenberg,

1988).

Deficits in empathy have shown to be related to aggression, low fear

conditioning (Popma & Raine, 2007), low impulse control, selfishness (for an

overview, see Hosser & Beckurts, 2005), and callous-unemotional (CU) traits

(Hare, 2013; Munoz et al, 2011; Raine, 2013; Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, &

Lilienfeld, 2011). Individuals characterized by CU-traits are cold, callous, and lack

moral emotions, such as regret, shame, remorse and empathy (Frick, 1995; Van

der Helm, Stams, Van der Stel, Van Langen, & Van der Laan, 2012) and engage in

more severe offenses (Frick, Ray, Thornton, & Kahn, 2013). Previous research has

shown that youth high on CU-traits are able to understand (cognitive empathy),

but cannot experience (affective empathy) the feelings of others (Dadds et al.,

2009). A vast body of research has demonstrated that lack of empathy is related

to (re)offending (see the meta-analysis by Van Langen et al., 2014). Therefore,

empathy in delinquent youth is an important factor to consider in forensic youth

care (Van der Helm et al., 2012).

42

Based on the theory of Cohen and Strayer (1996), empathy is defined as a

bi-dimensional construct and consists of ‘affective traits’ (the capacity to

experience the emotions of another; Bryant 1982) and ‘cognitive abilities’ (the

capacity to comprehend the emotions of another; Hogan, 1969). This bi-

dimensional model of cognitive and affective empathy was supported by

distinctive relations between cognitive and affective empathy and criminal

offenses in a meta-analysis by Jolliffe and Farrington (2004) and Van Langen et al.

(2014). In their quantitative reviews, cognitive empathy was stronger related to

criminal offenses compared to affective empathy. In line with their meta-analytic

findings, Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) developed an assessment tool to examine

both affective and cognitive empathy in adolescents: the Basic Empathy Scale

(BES).

Development of the Basic Empathy Scale

To date, several self-report measures have been developed to investigate

empathy (Davis, 1980; Hogan, 1969; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972, Zhou, Valiente,

& Eisenberg, 2003). Jolliffe and Farrington developed the Basic Empathy Scale to

overcome several psychometric shortcomings of the existing measures. In the

development of the original English BES, 40 items measuring empathy were

administered to 363 adolescent high school students. Explorative factor analysis

yielded a two-factor solution (20 items remaining) with cognitive and affective

empathy, which was replicated in a confirmatory factor analysis (Jolliffe &

Farrington, 2006).

Validity of the original BES was supported by significant relations between

empathy and prosocial behavior, intelligence (for females only), extraversion

(cognitive empathy only), neuroticism (affective empathy only), agreeableness,

conscientiousness (for males only), parental supervision, socioeconomic status

and age (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). In the Dutch version, a relation was found

between cognitive and affective empathy and prosocial behavior (Van Langen,

Stams, Van Vugt, Wissink, & Asscher, 2014). Finally, divergent validity of the

original BES was demonstrated in the non-relation with socially desirable

responding (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006).

43

Cross-cultural measurement of Empathy

Although the BES has been shown to be a valid and reliable instrument in

different countries, such as the Netherlands (Van Langen et al., 2015), Spain

(Salas-Wright, Olate, & Vaughn, 2012), China (Geng, Xia, & Qin, 2012), Italy

(Albiero, Matricardi, Speltri, & Toso, 2009) and France (Ambrosio, Olivier, Didon,

& Besche, 2009), there is no valid and reliable instrument to investigate cognitive

and affective empathy in delinquent youth in Germany. While cross-cultural

studies support the validity and reliability of the BES, only few studies have

validated the BES among juvenile offenders. Salas-Wright et al. (2013) validated

the Spanish BES in a sample of high-risk youths involved in gangs in the area of

San Salvador, which resulted in an adapted 7-item BES scale, assessing both

cognitive and affective empathy. Pechorro, Ray, Salas-Wright, Maroco and

Gonalves (2015) validated the adapted 7 item BES in a sample of incarcerated

juveniles in Portugal. Van Langen et al. (2015) validated the Dutch version of the

BES in a mixed sample of juvenile offenders and non-delinquent adolescents,

resulting in a 19-item BES, although 7 items showed rather low factor loadings in

the delinquent sample. It should be noted that the Dutch language bares much

resemblance to the German.

Current study

We conducted a validation study of the BES to examine validity and reliability of

the translated German BES in 94 young incarcerated delinquents in a German

youth prison. Construct validity was investigated by using a confirmatory factor

analysis and reliability was examined by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. Given that

low empathy is a core component of CU-traits, a negative correlation between

empathy (BES) and callous and unemotional traits (ICU, Frick, 2003) was

considered indicative of concurrent validity (Kimonis et al., 2008).

44

METHOD

Participants

A sample of 94 male adolescent and young adult prisoners, randomly selected

from the prison population of a German youth prison, completed the German

version of the BES. The response rate was 84%. Non-response was due to lack of

trust in anonymity of research outcomes and compulsory court attendance during

research. Juveniles in a detention awaiting trial were not able to take part due to

safety regulations. All participants were aged between 14 and 26 years (M =

20.33; SD =2.07) and detained for severe crimes (burglary, armed street-robbery,

assault, extreme violence, murder). Mean detention time at this prison was nine

months.

After ethical approval had been obtained from the institutional review

board of the University of Applied Sciences Leiden, all adolescents voluntarily

agreed to participate in this study, signed an informed consent declaration, and

were told that their answers would be treated confidentially and anonymously

and would be accessed only by the researchers.

Instruments

BASIC EMPATHY SCALE (BES)

The BES was originally developed by Jolliffe and Farrington (2006), and assesses

two components of empathy, cognitive and affective empathy. The original BES

consists of 20 items, based on the four human basic emotions: anger, fear,

sadness and joy (Eckman, 2004), with answering categories ranging on a 5-point-

likert scale from 1= I don´t agree to 5=I fully agree. In the present study, the

validated English version (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) of the BES was translated

into German. The adapted German version was then back-translated into English

by two separate researchers (Table 1).

45

INVENTORY OF CALLOUS UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS (ICU)

The ICU was developed by Frick (2003), and is a 24-item valid and reliable self-

report inventory using a 4–point Likert-scale, ranging from 0=not at all true to

3=definitely true, to investigate callous and unemotional traits in adolescent

offenders. The content of the ICU was based on the Antisocial Process Screening

Device (APSD; Frick & Hare, 2001), which has been shown to designate a distinct

and important group of antisocial youth, who show a number of characteristics

associated with the construct of psychopathy. In the present study the German

version (Essau, Sasagawa, & Frick, 2006) of the self-report questionnaire was used

for the group of young delinquent participants to investigate concurrent validity

of the Basic Empathy Scale. The scale is divided into three subscales: callousness

(e.g., “the feelings of others are unimportant to me”; α = .70), unemotional (e.g.,

“I hide my feelings from others”; α = .64) and uncaring (e.g., ”I try not to hurt

others’ feelings”; α = .73) (Kimonis et al., 2008). These sub-scales form a higher

order callous-unemotional dimension (α = 0.77). In the present study the higher

order ICU-factor was used, showing good reliability (α = .81).

Statistical Analysis

Construct validity of the German translation was examined by means of

confirmatory factor analysis in Mplus (version 6.11). A bi-dimensional model

(affective and cognitive empathy) was specified in which each item loaded on only

one factor. For a valid model cut-off values of CFI >0.90, TLI >0.90 and RMSEA

<0.05 were required (Kline, 2005). Calculations of Cronbach’s alpha and

correlational analyses were conducted in SPSS 21. Concurrent validity was

investigated by examining correlations between both concepts of empathy and

the presence of CU-traits. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations

of the BES and the ICU.

46

RESULTS

Construct Validity of the BES

A confirmatory factor analysis of the translated 20 items was performed. The

initial model did not show a good fit to the data: RMSEA = .101; CFI = .753; TLI =

.619. The model that best fitted the data consisted of two dimensions: ´affective

empathy´ (6 items), and ´cognitive empathy´ (6 items), and a significant

association between cognitive and affective empathy. This model showed a good

fit to the data: RMSEA = .038; CFI = .977; TLI = .969. Cronbach´s Alpha was

acceptable for both dimensions: ´affective empathy´ (α = .71); and ´cognitive

empathy´(α = .78). The correlation between the two BES subscales was significant

(r = .534, p = .000).

Table 1. Standardized Regression Weights (Group number 1 - Default model)

Item

No. Scale/ Item Scale/ Item German

Standardize

d Estimates

Cognitive empathy Kognitieve Empathie

3

I can understand my friend’s happiness

when she/he does well at something

Ich verstehe, dass meine Freunde sich

freuen, wenn sie etwas gut gemacht

haben. 0.649

9

When someone is feeling ‘down’ I can

usually understand how they feel

Wenn jemand sich schlecht/”down“ fühlt,

verstehe ich wie er/sie sich fühlt. 0.743

10

I can usually work out when my friends are

scared

Ich kann sehen, wann meine Freunde

Angst haben. 0.459

12

I can often understand how people are

feeling even before they tell me

Ich verstehe oft schon wie Menschen sich

fühlen, bevor sie mir etwas darüber erzählt

haben. 0.510

14

I can usually work out when people are

cheerful

Ich kann meistens sehen/ ich merke gut,

wann andere Menschen glücklich sind. 0.542

47

Item

No. Scale/ Item Scale/ Item German

Standardize

d Estimates

Cognitive empathy Kognitieve Empathie

16

I can usually realize quickly when a friend

is angry

Ich merke schnell, wenn ein Freund/eine

Freundin böse ist. 0.613

Affective empathy Affektive Empathie

2 After being with a friend who is sad about something, I usually feel sad

Wenn ich einen Freund besucht habe, der traurig ist, fühle ich mich meistens anschließend selber auch traurig. 0.505

5

I get caught up in other people’s feelings easily

Ich lasse mich leicht durch die Gefühle anderer beeinflussen.

0.329

8 Other people’s feelings don’t bother me at all

Die Gefühle anderer Menschen berühren/interessieren mich überhaupt nicht. 0.386

11 I often become sad when watching sad things on TV or in films

Ich werde traurig, wenn ich erbärmliche/schreckliche Dinge im TV oder in einem Film sehe. 0.418

17 I often get swept up in my friend’s feelings Ich kann mich in die Gefühle meiner Freunde versetzen 0.874

18 My friend’s unhappiness doesn’t make me feel anything.

Wenn meine Freunde unglücklich sind, interessiert mich das nicht. 0.400

Intercepts: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Concurrent validity

To investigate concurrent validity we conducted a correlation analysis between

the two dimensions of the BES and the ICU. Only the correlation between

cognitive empathy and CU- traits was significant (r = -.263, p = .034; see Table 2).

48

Table 2. Descriptive statistics (M & SD) and correlations between ICU and BES

M SD

cognitive empathy

affective empathy

cognitive empathy 3.47 .77

affective empathy 3.13 .73 .534**

ICU 1.39 .32 .263* .050

* p<.05; **p<.01

DISCUSSION

This study was performed to test the validity and reliability of the translated

German version of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES), a measurement instrument that

can be used to assess empathy, also in incarcerated juvenile offenders. A

confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis were performed, which yielded

a valid and reliable 12-item bi-dimensional (cognitive and affective) German

version of the BES. Furthermore, concurrent validity was demonstrated in a

significant and negative correlation between cognitive empathy and callous-

unemotional traits, which is in line with the meta-analysis by Stams et al. (2006),

who demonstrated that juvenile delinquents with psychopathic traits showed a

lack of moral cognition. In line with previous research (Dadds et.al., 2009;

Pechorro et al., 2015; Munoz, Qualter, & Padget, 2011) a significant correlation

between affective empathy and CU-traits was also expected, but could not be

confirmed in the present study, possibly because juvenile delinquents tend to

hide their emotions for fear of being considered as weak by their peers (Van der

Helm et al., 2012). We found partial evidence for concurrent validity of the

German version of the BES, that is, only for cognitive empathy.

It is important to notice that the present validation study was conducted

in a sample of male incarcerated juvenile offenders with different levels of

education, various ethical backgrounds and diverse types of offending. To date,

most validation studies of the BES have been conducted in more homogeneous

samples of non-delinquent youth. Salas-Wright et al. (2013) and Pechorro et al.

(2015) examined validity of the BES in samples of Spanish and Portuguese juvenile

49

delinquents. Interestingly, the items of the Spanish and Portuguese 7-item

adapted version of the BES were preserved in the German version.

The Dutch validation study was conducted in a mixed sample of

incarcerated juvenile offenders and adolescents from the general population, and

resulted in 19 items, with 7 items showing rather low factor loadings in the

delinquent participants (five < .30, two < .15). Item 6, “I find it hard to know when

my friends are frightened”, was removed. This item was also removed from the

German version and refers to strong and negative emotions, such as sadness,

fright and anxiety (see also removed items 4 “I get frightened when I watch

characters in a really scary movie”; items 13 ‘Seeing a person who has been

angered has no effect on my feelings’ and 15 “I tend to feel scared when I am with

friends who are afraid”, showing as well low factor loadings in the Dutch sample).

Delinquent youth may have learned to mask their real attitudes when dealing

with strong and negative emotions (Geng, Xia & Qin, 2012; Van der Helm, 2012).

Three negatively phrased items (item 1” My friend’s emotions don’t affect

me much.”, item 7 “I don’t become sad when I see other people crying”, and item

19 ‘ I am not usually aware of my friend’s feelings’) were also removed from the

German version. This is in line with results from the Spanish and Portuguese

validation studies (Pechorro et al, 2015; Salas-Wright et al., 2012). In the Dutch

validation study, the negatively phrased items also proved to have relatively low

factor loadings, but were not removed (Van Langen et al., 2015). Possibly those

negatively phrased items tend to be misunderstood by the participants. It has

been shown that misinterpretation of negatively phrased items may occur in

individuals with low educational levels (Benson & Wilcox, 1981, Carlsson, Merlo,

Lindström, Östergen, & Lithman, 2006) and individuals with intellectual disabilities

(Cordery & Sevastos, 1993, Wehmeyer & Garner, 2003). One item (number 4, “I

get frightened when I watch characters in a really scary movie”), designed to

measure affective empathy in response to viewing scary movies, was also

removed. This item may be perceived as unrealistic compared to the real world’s

violence juveniles were exposed to in their life (Salas-Wright et al., 2012). In the

Dutch juvenile sample the factor loading of item 4 was also low. Despite losing 7

50

items in the German version of the BES, the remaining 12 items still represent the

four human basic emotions: anger, fear, sadness and joy (Eckman, 2004).

Limitations of this study were related to characteristics of the sample, and

limited sample size (N=94). The sample consisted of adolescent male prisoners

and was conducted in only one institution, which could hamper the

generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, no other validated empathy

instrument was used to assess convergent validity. No divergent validity was

tested, for instance by examining associations between empathy and social

desirability, or predictive validity, by investigating associations between empathy

and criminal offense recidivism. Finally, we did not establish test-retest reliability.

Results of this study should therefore be considered as preliminary.

The present study is the first to investigate the psychometric properties of

the BES in a sample of incarcerated German juvenile offenders. Although only 12

items of the original 20 item version were retained, the adapted BES is still

considered to be a promising instrument to investigate two dimensions of

empathy (affective and cognitive) in the specific population of young detained

German offenders. However, more research is needed to establish validity and

reliability of the BES in a larger delinquent sample and adolescents with a mild

intellectual disability, who make up a sizeable portion in (youth) prisons (Kaal,

Negenman, Roeleveld, & Embregts, 2011). Moreover, divergent, convergent and

predictive validity should be tested as well as test-retest reliability. We conclude

that the German version of the BES could be a useful instrument for researchers

and clinicians. It can be used to monitor individual treatment outcomes or

evaluate the effectiveness of treatment programs targeting empathy during

detention in Germany.

51

REFERENCES

Ambrosio, F., Olivier, M., Didon, D., & Besche, C. (2009). The basic empathy scale: A French validation of a measure of empathy in youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 160–165, DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.020. Albiero, P., Matricardi, G., Speltri, D., & Toso, D. (2009). The assessment of empathy in adolescence: a contribution to the Italian validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of adolescence, 32, 393-408, DOI:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.01.001. Benson, J., & Wilcox, S. (1981). The effect of positive and negative item phrasing on the measurement of attitudes. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from ERIC database.(ED204404). Blumstein A., (2002). Youth, guns, and violent crime. The Future of Children, 12, 38-53. Bryant, B.K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53,413-425. Carlsson, F., Merlo, J., Lindström, M., Östergren, P.O., & Lithman, T. (2006). Representativity of a postal public health questionnaire survey in Sweden, with special reference to ethnic differences in participation. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 34, 132-139, DOI: 10.1080/14034940510032284. Centers for disease control and prevention (2013). Violent crime arrest rates among persons aged 10-24 years, by sex and year, United States, 1995–2011, http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at- a_glance/vca_temp-trends.html. Cohen, D., & Strayer J., (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 32, 988-998, DOI.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.988. Cordery, J. L., & Sevastos, P. P. (1993). Responses to the original and revised job diagnostic survey: is education a factor in responses to negatively worded items? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 141-143, DOI.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.988. Dadds, M.R., Hawes, D.J., Frost, A.D.J., Vasallo, S., Bunn, P., Hunter, K., & Merz, S. (2009). Learning to ‘talk the talk’: the relationship of psychopathic traits to deficits in empathy across childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 599– 606,DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02058.x. Davis, M. H., (1994). Empathy: a social psychological approach. Westview Press. De Waal, F. B. M., Smith-Churchland, P., Pievani, T., & Parmigiani, S. (2014). Evolved morality: The biology and philosophy of human conscience, Leiden, Brill. Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. , (1987). Critical issues in the study of empathy. In: Empathy and its development. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. (pp. 3-13). New York: Cambridge University Press. European Comission (2014). Eurostat Statistics Explained http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_statistic

52

Essau, C.A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P.J., (2006). Callous-Unemotional traits in a community sample of adolescents, Assessment, 13, 454-469, DOI: 10.1177/1073191106287354. Frick, P. J. (2003). The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Unpublished rating scale, The University of New Orleans. Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2013). Can callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin. 140, 1- 57. DOI.org/10.1037/a0033076. Geng, Y., Xia, D., & Qin, B (2012). The Basic Empathy Scale: A Chinese validation of a measure of empathy in adolescents. Child Psychiatry Human Development, 43, 499–510, DOI: 10,1007/s10578-011-0278-6. Hare, R.D., (2013). "Hare Psychopathy Checklist". Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders. Retrieved September 4, 2013. Hogan, R.D., (1969). development of an empathy scale. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 33, 307-316, DOI.org/10.1037/h0027580. Hosser, D. & Beckurts, D. (2005). Empathie und Delinquenz [empathy and delinquency], Forschungsbericht des Kriminologischen Forschungsinstitutes Niedersachsen e.V., Hannover. Jolliffe, D. & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441–476, DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001. Jolliffe, D. & Farrington D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589–611, DOI:10.1016. Kaal, H.L., Negenman, A.M., Roeleveld, E. & Embregts, P.J.C.M., (2011). De problematiek van gedetineerden met een lichte verstandelijke beperking in het gevangeniswezen [problems of detainees with a mild intellectual disability in residential care], WODC, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie [Ministry of Security and Justice] . Kimonis, E.R., Frick, P.J., Skeem, J.L., Marsee, M.A., Cruise, K., Munoz, L.C., …& Morris, A.S., (2008). Assessing callous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the inventory of Callous-unemotional traits. International journal of law and psychiatry, 31, 241-252, DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.04.002. Kline R.B., (2005). Principles and practice of structural Equation Modeling (2

nd ed.). New

York, NY: Guilford. Mehrabian, A. & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of personality, 40, 525-543, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x. Miller, P.A. & Eisenberg, N., (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/ antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324-44, DOI.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.324. Munoz, L.C., Qualter, P. & Padgett, G., (2011). empathy and bullying: exploring the

53

influence of callous-unemotional traits. Child psychiatry & Human development, 45, 183-196, DOI: 10.1007/s10578-010-0206-I. Pechorro, P., Ray, J.V., Salas-Wright, C., Maroco, J., & Goncalves, R.A. (2015). Adaptation of the Basic Empathy Scale among a Portuguese sample of incarcerated juvenile offenders. Psychology, crime & law,(ahead-of-print) 1-16, DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2015.1028546. Popma, A. & Raine, A. (2006). Will future forensic assessment be neurobiological? Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15, 429-444, DOI:10.1016/j.chc.2005.11.004. Raine, A.(2013), The anatomy of violence, the biological roots of crime, Pantheon. Salas-Wright, C.P. Olate, R. & Vaughn, M.G., (2013). Assessing Empathy in Salvadoran High-Risk and Gang-Involved Adolescents and Young Adults: A Spanish Validation of the Basic Empathy Scale, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 1393-1416, DOI: 10.1177/0306624X12455170. Schalkwijk, F. Stams, G.J.J.M, Stegge, H., Dekker, J. & Peen. J. (in press). The conscience as a regulatory function: Empathy, shame, guilt, pride and moral orientation in delinquent adolescents. International. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. . Skeem, J. L.; Polaschek, D. L. L.; Patrick, C. J. & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 95–162, DOI. 10.1007/1529100611426706. Stelly, W., & Thomas, J. (2013). Strukturevaluation des baden-württembergischen Jugend Strafvollzuges, Forum Strafvollzug, 62, 344-348. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M. , van der Stel, J. C., van Langen, M. A. M., & van der Laan, P. H. (2012). Group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated boys. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1149–1160, DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11421649. Van Langen M., Stams, G.J.J.M., Van Vugt, E.S., Wissink, I.B., & Asscher, J.J. (2014). Explaining female offending and prosocial behavior: The role of empathy and cognitive distortions. Laws, 3, 706–720, DOI:10.3390/laws3040706. Van Langen, M., Wissink, I. B., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., & Hoeve, M. (2015). A validation study of the Dutch translation of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES). Manuscript submitted for publication. Van Langen, M., Wissink, I. B., van Vugt, E.S., Van der Stouwe, T., & Stams, G. J. J. M., (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis, Aggression and Behavior, 19, 179-189, DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003. Wehmeyer, M.L., Garner, N.W. (2003). The impact of personal characteristics of people with intellectual and developmental disability on self-determination and autonomous functioning. Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities, 16, 255-265, DOI: 10.1046/j.1468-3148.2003.00161.x.

54

Zhou, Q, Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Empathy and its measurements, positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. (pp. 269-284). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

55

I DON’T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU

WANT! THE RELATION BETWEEN JUVENILE DELINQUENTS’ RESPONSES TO SOCIAL PROBLEM SITUATIONS AND EMPATHY IN SECURE JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS

Evelyn Heynen, Peer van der Helm, Inge Wissink,

Geert-Jan Stams & Xavier Moonen I don’t care about what you want. The relation between juvenile

delinquents’ responses to social problem situations and empathy in

secure juvenile institutions (2015)

Journal of Interpersonal Violence.12.1-15

56

ABSTRACT

The present study examined the relation between juvenile delinquents’ responses

to social problem situations and empathy in secure juvenile institutions. The

sample consisted of 79 delinquent boys (62%) and 49 delinquent girls (38%),

aged 12 to 19 years. Results showed problems with accepting authority to be

negatively related to both affective and cognitive empathy. Inadequate coping

with competition was negatively related to cognitive empathy, whereas

problems with receiving or giving help were negatively related to affective

empathy. The central role of authority problems suggests that group workers

could influence adolescents’ empathy development by helping them to learn to

cope with social problem situations.

57

INTRODUCTION

Empathy is the tendency to understand and share the emotions of others (Cohen

& Strayer, 1996). It is an indispensable capacity to connect with others (Davis,

1983) and has therefore an important function in social contact (Baron-Cohen,

2011; De Waal, 2010; Pinker, 2012). Research has shown that juvenile delinquents

function on lower levels of empathy compared to their non-delinquent peers

(Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Van Langen, Wissink, Van Vugt, Van der Stouwe, &

Stams, 2014), but it is not yet clear which factors are responsible for lower levels

of empathy in juvenile delinquents. One of the explanations is that juvenile

delinquents have not learned to respond appropriately to their social

environment due to aversive childhood experiences (Asscher, Van der Put, &

Stams, 2015; Hoeve et al., 2009, 2012) and/or neurobiological deficits (Raine,

2013), which might hamper the development of empathy.

The present study examines whether inappropriate responses to social

problem situations are negatively associated with empathy in incarcerated

juvenile delinquents. If so, empathy of incarcerated juvenile delinquents may be

enhanced by targeting their aversive reactions to social problem situations in

secure residential youth care. Notably, Eltink, Van der Helm, Wissink and Stams

(2015) found a more structured, safe and therapeutic residential environment,

designated as an open living group climate, to be associated with less

inappropriate responses to social problem situations in incarcerated juvenile

delinquents. Van der Helm et al. (2011c) identified four inappropriate responses

to social problem situations in juvenile delinquents that may negatively affect the

development of empathy: inadequate coping with competition, and problems

with social disadvantage, receiving/giving help and accepting authority.

Regarding the first inappropriate response, inadequate coping with

competition, it is well-documented that the perception of competition is

associated with lower levels of empathy (Cikarel & Van Bavel, 2014; De Wied,

Gispen-De Wied, & Van Boxtel, 2010; Gilin, Maddux, Carpenter, & Galinsky, 2013)

or may even trigger counter-empathic reactions (Lanzetta & Englis, 1989). Most

research on this topic, however, has been conducted in experimental laboratory

58

settings, which might hamper the generalizability of the research findings to

natural settings. It has also been shown that adequate coping with competition

requires well-developed social perspective taking abilities (Galinsky, Maddux,

Gilin, & White, 2008; Gilin et al, 2013), which have been found to be

underdeveloped in juvenile delinquents (Matthys, Cuperus, & Van Engeland,

1999; Van der Helm et al., 2011c), hampering their moral affective and cognitive

understanding (Larden, Melin, Holst, & Langstrom, 2006; Stams et al., 2006; Van

Langen et al., 2014). The present study is the first to examine the relation

between inadequate reactions to perceived competition and empathy among

juvenile delinquents in youth prison.

It is plausible to suggest that the inability to cope with competition could

enhance feelings of social disadvantage. Regarding the second inappropriate

response, problems with social disadvantage, it can be derived from social

comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) that not being able to cope with perceived

social disadvantage can result in either negative self-focused emotions, such as

shame and embarrassment, or negative other-focused emotions, such as

resentment and envy (Smith, 2000). In particular, the other-focused negative

emotions seem incompatible with feelings of empathy. Because experiences of

social disadvantage may result in both self- and other-focused negative emotions

in incarcerated juvenile delinquents, the relation between perceived social

disadvantage and empathy is equivocal. The present study aims to shed more

light on this relation.

The relation between on the one hand difficulties in receiving/giving help

and accepting authority and on the other hand empathy may be considered from

the perspective of institutional living group climate. An open living group climate

is designated by support from group workers, opportunities for growth, and a

prosocial atmosphere among juveniles (Van der Helm, 2011a). Such a supportive

environment is thought to promote helping behaviors among juveniles and

between prison staff and juveniles, fostering affiliation and empathy (Van der

Helm, Stams, Van der Stel, Van Langen, & Van der Laan, 2012). In contrast, a

closed or repressive living group climate is characterized by extreme power

imbalance, deprivation, repression and lack of protection, which not only is

59

antagonistic to helping one another and accepting authority, but also reduces

empathy at the same time (Van der Helm et al., 2012, Van der Helm, 2011a). The dominant role of authority problems in the development and

maintenance of delinquent behavior among adolescents has also been

established in the seminal work of Emler on ‘reputation-enhancement theory’

(Emler, 1984, 1990). Emler and Reicher (1995) argued that perceived unfair

treatment by authority figures contributes to a sense of marginalization, a

negative attitude to institutional authority and a non-conforming self-reputation

(identity) of being tough, unemotional and non-empathic, which provides a

condition for antisocial peer group membership and, subsequently, delinquent

behavior.

To conclude, problems with authority and receiving or providing help may

reflect a repressive social environment and contribute to an antisocial identity

formation, which are both detrimental for, or perhaps even incommensurable

with, empathy development.

Attachment theory provides another explanation for the relations

between difficulties in receiving/giving help, accepting authority and problematic

empathy development, in particular because helping and concern for others,

including empathy, are assumed to be implicated in both the attachment and

caregiving system (Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005). Notably, many

juvenile delinquents have a history of negative life events, including child abuse

and neglect (Asscher, Van der Put, & Stams, 2015), which has set the stage for

both attachment problems (Hoeve et al., 2012, Van IJzendoorn, Schuengel, &

Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1999) and difficulties with authority figures (Van der

Helm, 2011a).

Adolescents in residential youth care, in particular juvenile delinquents,

tend to have insecure working models of attachment, that is, they have a

negative model of the self as being not worthy of love and a negative model of

others as being not accepting and insensitive to their needs (Hoeve et al., 2012;

Zegers, Schuengel, Van IJzendoorn, & Janssens, 2006). Therefore, receiving and

giving help as well as accepting authority of adult caregivers (i.e., group workers,

prison staff) can be highly problematic, and may at the same time reduce

60

empathy, mainly because attachment insecurity directs attention to one’s own

emotional state rather than the emotional state of others, including their well-

being or distress (Fonagy & Target, 1997). To summarize, problems with receiving

or giving help and accepting authority from professional caregivers may be

considered as attachment-related problems, which can hamper empathy

development.

The present study is conducted to investigate whether there is a relation

between responses to social problem situations in incarcerated juvenile

delinquents and their levels of empathy. We hypothesize inappropriate responses

to social problem situations in terms of inadequate coping with competition, and

problems with social disadvantage, receiving/giving help and accepting authority

to be related to lower levels of empathy.

METHOD

Participants

The present study was conducted with 79 delinquent boys (62%) and 49

delinquent girls (38%) residing in 3 different youth prisons in the Netherlands.

Participants were randomly selected in the institutions. The mean age of

respondents was 15.7 years (SD = 1.4, range 12-19 years). The mean time of stay

was 28 weeks (SD = 15.2 range 1-74 weeks). A total of 97 (76%) of the participants

were born in the Netherlands. All adolescents participated voluntarily (response

rate of 95%). Parents (for those participants aged 12-18) and participants signed

an informed consent declaration form and were told that their answers would be

treated confidentially and anonymously and would be accessed only by the

researchers. As a token of gratitude for their participation, the adolescents

received a telephone card or a small gift of €5.50. All names on the questionnaires

were deleted and were replaced by a code number in SPSS. In order to protect the

privacy of the adolescents, researchers had no access to their names.

Questionnaires were administered by specially trained graduate students of the

Professional University of Leiden, School of Social Studies (Bachelor of Social Work

61

and Master Youth Care) and the University of Amsterdam (Department of

Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences).

Measures

TAXONOMY OF PROBLEMATIC SOCIAL SITUATIONS-ADOLESCENT VERSION

(TOPS-A)

The TOPS-A was developed by adapting Matthys’ (Matthys, Cuperus, Maassen, &

Van Engeland, 2001) original instrument for self-report use in forensic settings

(Van der Helm et al., 2011c). The questionnaire consists of 22 items measuring

perceived social problem behavior as the main construct. The questionnaire

contains four scales: problems with ‘being disadvantaged’ (8 items), ‘facing

competition’ (5 items), ‘receiving/giving help’ (3 items) and ‘accepting authority’

(6 items). The following questionnaire items are examples of inappropriate

responses to social disadvantage – ‘When others tell me I have the wrong clothes,

I yell at them’ – problems with competition -- ‘When I lose, I quit playing’ –

problems with receiving/giving help -- ‘If someone else feels down, it is his/her

problem’ – and problems with accepting authority – ‘If a group worker is talking, I

just interrupt when I feel so’.

Construct validity and reliability of the TOPS-A were established, and

found to be satisfactory, by means of confirmatory factor analysis and internal

consistency analyses in a group of juvenile delinquents placed in Dutch juvenile

justice facilities (Van der Helm et al., 2011c). Cronbach’s alpha reliability

coefficients of the four scales were as follows: receiving/giving help α = .69,

competition α = .77; accepting authority α = .79, and social disadvantage, α = .81.

BASIC EMPATHY SCALE (BES)

The BES (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) was developed on the basis of the four basic

emotions: anger, sadness, fear, and happiness (Power & Dalgleish, 1997) and was

translated into Dutch and validated for the Netherlands by Van Langen, Wissink,

Stams, Asscher, and Hoeve (2014). Empathy consists of ‘affective traits’ (the

62

capacity to experience the emotions of another; Bryant 1982) and a ‘cognitive

ability’ (the capacity to comprehend the emotions of another; Hogan, 1969). The

BES consists of 20 items measuring cognitive (9 items) and affective empathy (11

items). An example of an item that measures cognitive empathy is ‘I can see when

my friends are afraid’, and an item measuring affective empathy is ‘When I am

with friends who are afraid, I feel afraid too’.

Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) performed a confirmatory factor analysis in

their validation study among 720 adolescent school children and found a

satisfactory fit for the two-factor model and satisfactory reliabilities (α = .79 and α

= .85 for cognitive empathy and affective empathy, respectively). Van Langen et

al. (2012) replicated their study with 1789 adolescents and found comparable

results (a two-factor solution and internal consistency reliabilities of α = .72 and α

= .81 for cognitive empathy and affective empathy, respectively). In the current

study, we found internal consistency reliabilities of α = .81 for cognitive empathy

and α =.75 for affective empathy.

RESULTS

Preliminary analyses

Table 1 shows the correlations (one tailed significance) between the four factors

of social problem situations and cognitive and affective empathy. Problems with

social disadvantage were negatively correlated with cognitive empathy (r = -.376,

p < .01) and affective empathy (r = -.190, p < .05). Inadequate coping with

competition was negatively correlated with cognitive empathy (r = -.348, p < .01)

and negatively but not significantly correlated with affective empathy. Problems

with receiving/giving help were negatively correlated with both, cognitive and

affective empathy (r = -.249 and r = -.268, respectively, p < .01). Problems with

accepting authority were also negatively correlated with both, cognitive and

affective empathy (r = -.436, and r = -.291, respectively; p < .01).

63

Table 1.Means and standard deviations of social problem situations, cognitive and affective empathy, and correlations among these variables

M SD 2.

Competiti

on

3.

Accepting

/

giving

help

4.

Accepting

authority

5.

Cognitive

empathy

6.

Affective

empathy

1.Being

disadvantaged

3.573 1.401 .538** .465** .634** -.376** -190*

2. Problems

with

competition

1.510 .720 .404** .441** -.348** -.168

3. Problems

with accepting/

giving help

2.574 1.052 .523** -.249** -.268**

4. Problems

with accepting

authority

1.847 .820 -.436** -.291**

5. Cognitive

empathy

2.600 .325 .284**

6. Affective

empathy

1.800 .241

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

Structural equation model

To further investigate relations between the inappropriate responses to social

problem situations and cognitive and affective empathy a structural equation

model was fitted to the data using Mplus (version 6.11). We chose to only present

the best-fitting model. Fit-indices (CFI, TLI, and RMSEA1) and the model Chi-

Square, also designated as the generalized likelihood ratio, were used to evaluate

model fit (Kline, 2005). The following cut-off values are indicative of close model

fit: NFI2 and CFI > .90, TLI > .95 and RMSEA < .06, whereas a non-significant Chi-

Square indicates exact model fit (Arbuckle, 2007; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005).

1 NFI (Normed Fit Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) are indices of goodness of fit that are independent of sample size. Models that fit well score favourably on these fit-indices. For further references see Arbuckle (2007).

64

The model showed a good fit to the data when using a null hypothesis

significance test: X2 (6) = 7.842, p = .250. Fit indices that are less sensitive to

differences in sample size than the Chi-square test (Sivo et al., 2006) showed an

exact fit to the data: CFI= .989; TLI =.975; RMSEA = .049. It can be derived from

Figure 1 that inadequate coping with competition and accepting authority were

negatively related to cognitive empathy, while problems with receiving/giving

help and with accepting authority were negatively related to affective empathy.

We tested indirect effects using a method for testing indirect effects in

multiple mediator models (Preacher & Hays, 2008). Results showed that the

relation between social disadvantage and cognitive empathy was mediated by

problems with competition (Indirect effect = .137; Z = 2.827, p = .005). The

relation between social disadvantage and affective empathy was mediated by

problems with accepting authority (Indirect effect = .106; Z = 2.106, p = .035).

Finally, there was a trend showing that the relation between accepting/giving help

and cognitive empathy was mediated by problems with accepting authority

(Indirect effect = -.061; Z = 1.935, p = .053).

65

Figure 1. SEM model of social problem situations and empathy

+ p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 (two-tailed significances)

DISCUSSION

This study examined the relation between inappropriate responses to social

problem situations and (cognitive and affective) empathy in a group of juvenile

delinquents placed in Dutch secure juvenile institutions. Problems with

competition were negatively related to cognitive empathy, whereas problems

with receiving or giving help were negatively related to affective empathy. The

relation between social disadvantage and cognitive empathy was mediated by

problems with competition. Difficulties in accepting authority were negatively

related to both affective and cognitive empathy, and mediated the relation

between problems with social disadvantage and affective empathy and the

relation between accepting/giving help and cognitive empathy (a trend). It

appears that in particular the degree to which incarcerated juvenile delinquents

Affective empathy

.537***

.-.175+

-.212*

Social disadva ntage

Cognitive empathy

-.347***

-.255**

.288***

.501***

Inadequate competition

Authority problems

Receiving/giving help

.167+

66

accept authority provides the key to understanding the relation between their

responses to social problem situations and empathy.

Adolescents in secure juvenile institutions tend to face a long history of

failures at school and conflicts with authorities (Loeber, Slot, Van der Laan, &

Hoeve, 2009; Shapiro, Smith, Malone, & Collaro, 2010). Failure to accept authority

often aggravates problems, leading to a downward coercive cycle of aggression

and negative encounters with authorities (Granic & Patterson, 2006), which could

result in delinquency (Tarry & Emler, 2007). The central role of ‘authority’

indicates that group workers could have a negative or positive influence on

adolescents’ empathy development, by being either unresponsive or responsive

to the developmental needs of the juvenile delinquents.

There is empirical evidence to suggest that repression reinforces

negative experiences with authority figures, damages therapeutic alliance and

undermines treatment motivation, whereas responsiveness sets the stage for

new and more positive experiences with adults that are intrinsically beneficial,

and which substantially reduce problems with authority (Parhar, Wormith,

Derkzen, & Beauregard, 2008; Van der Helm, 2011a; Ward, Melser, & Yates,

2007).

The negative relation between problems with competition and cognitive

empathy may be explained by reputation-enhancement theory (Emler &

Reicher, 1995), because competition in secure juvenile institutions often

pertains to peer group leadership status, which may be enhanced by a

reputation of callous and non-empathic responding to others (Osgood & O’Neil

Bridell, 2006; Van der Helm, 2011a; Harvey, 2005).

Results of the present study indicate that the relation between problems

with social disadvantage and cognitive empathy was not direct, but mediated by

inadequate coping with competition. It is possible that those who experienced

most problems with social disadvantage were either prone to suffer from

isolation, humiliation and other forms of peer group aggression or inclined to be

isolated, hostile and aggressive themselves (Fluttert, 2011), which in both cases

may create serious problems with inadequate coping with competition (Harvey,

2005). Subsequently, inadequate coping with competition, as hypothesized,

67

proved to be related to lower levels of empathy in the present study.

As already alluded to in the introduction of this article, receiving or

giving help may be considered as an attachment-related concept reflecting

secure or insecure working models of attachment, that is, the lens through

which a person views and interprets social behavior of self and others (Bowlby,

1988; Zegers, 2007). In other words, we argue that problems with receiving or

giving help reflect insecure working models of attachment, which may hamper

the development of mentalizing abilities and both cognitive and affective

empathy. However, this hypothesis was only supported for affective empathy,

showing a weak association with receiving/giving help, which might cast doubt

on the explanation in terms of attachment. The alternative hypothesis pertains

to the negative effect of a repressive living group climate, which is thought to be

antagonistic to helping one another, on empathy development. Again, results of

this study do not convincingly support this hypothesis, in particular because Van

der Helm et al. (2012c) found a repressive living group climate to be related to

cognitive empathy only.

There are some limitations of this study that need to be acknowledged.

First, only self-report measures were used to assess both inappropriate responses

to social problem situations and empathy, which may yield inflated correlations

due to shared measure variance. Second, self-report of social behavior and

empathy may be affected by socially desirable responding. Third, the sample size

was too small to allow for multi-level analysis in order to account for dependency

of measurements in hierarchically structured data (i.e., inmates are nested into

living groups). Notably, the neglect of statistical dependency can result in chance

capitalisation and the risk of spurious research findings. Also, this study was cross-

sectional, which sets limits to the causal interpretation of our study findings. The

evidence is at best correlational, leaving open the possibility that empathy would

be an antecedent of responses to social problem situations (Weiner, 2006). We

post-hoc tested this model, which showed cognitive empathy to be stronger

related to responses to social problem situations than affective empathy, which

concurs with results from the best-fitting model presented in this study. However,

the alternative model fitted the data less well than the hypothesized (best-fitting)

68

model. Because of this and other limitations the results of this study should be

interpreted with caution.

As the present study only provides preliminary evidence of associations

between problematic responses to social problem situations and empathy in

incarcerated juvenile delinquents, results should be replicated in a prospective

longitudinal study that allows for the examination of contextual effects by means

of multi-level analyses. Nevertheless, this study opens the way to further research

into the effectiveness of group interventions with incarcerated adolescents and

possibilities of empathy development with subsequent recidivism reduction. For

instance, social skills training, improvement of the therapeutic alliance (McLeod,

2011) and of living group climate (Eltink et al.,2015) could reduce inappropriate

responses to social problem situations, in particular authority problems, and could

hereby improve moral development (EQUIP, Gibbs, 2003; Van Stam et al., 2014).

Ultimately, individualized social skills treatment in secure institutional facilities,

targeting inadequate social information processing in social problem situations

and aggression, could turn out to be a major factor contributing to effectiveness

of secure institutional treatment (Hoogsteder et al., 2014, 2015).

69

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Highlights of changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5.

Retrieved from http://www.DSM5.org. Arbuckle, J.L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.

Asscher, J.J., Van der Put, C.E., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2015). Gender differences in the

association between child maltreatment and adolescent offending. Journal of

Family Violence. 30, 215-225. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-014-9668-4.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-118, DOI:10.1037/0022- 3514.51.6.1173. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge. Briddell, L. O. N. (2006). Peer effects in juvenile justice. Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: problems and solutions, (pp. 141-161). New York: Guilford Press. Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth, Developmental Psychology, 32, 988-998, DOI:10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.988. De Wied, M., Gispen-de Wied, C., & van Boxtel, A. (2010). Empathy dysfunction in children and adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders. European Journal of Pharmacology, 626, 97-103, DOI:10.1016/j.ejphar.2009.10.016. Eltink, E.M.A., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I.B., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2015). The relation between living group climate and reactions to social problem situations in detained adolescents. I stabbed him because he looked mean at me”, International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, DOI.10.1080/14999013.2015.1033110 Emler, N. (1984). Differential involvement in delinquency: toward an interpretation in terms of reputation management. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 13, 173–237. . Emler, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputation. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 171–193, DOI:10.1080/14792779108401861. Emler, N., & Reicher, S. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Festinger, L. A. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117- 140, DOI: 10.1177/001872675400700202. . Fluttert, F.A.J. (2011). Management of inpatient aggression in forensic mental health (Doctoral dissertation). University of Utrecht, Enschede: Gilde Print. Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside

70

the head of your opponent, the differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19, 378-384, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x. Gilin, D., Maddux, W. W., Carpenter, J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). When to use your head and when to use your heart the differential value of perspective-taking versus empathy in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 3-16, DOI: 10.1177/0146167212465320. . Granic, I., & Patterson, G.R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: a dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113, 101-131, DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.101. Harvey, J. (2005). Young men in prison. Surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton UK: Willan. . Hoeve, M., Stams, G.J.J.M., Van der Put, C.E., Duba, J.S., Van der Laan, P.H., & Gerris, J.R.M. (2011). A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 77-785, DOI: 10.1007/s10802-011-9608-1. Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W. H., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: a meta- analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 749-775, DOI: 10.1007/s10802- 009-9310-8. Hoogsteder, L.M., Kuijpers, N., Stams, G.J.J.M., Van Horn, J.E., Hendriks, J., & Wissink, I.B. (2014). Study on the effectiveness of responsive aggression regulation therapy (Re-ART). International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 25-35, DOI: 10.1080/14999013.2014.893711. Hoogsteder, L.M., Stams, G.J.J.M., Figge, M., Changoe, K., Horn, J.E. van, Hendriks, J., & Wissink, I.B. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of individually oriented cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) for severe aggressive behavior in adolescents. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 26, 22-37, DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2014.971851. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55, DOI:10.1080/10705519909540118. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the basic empathy scale, Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589–611, DOI:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2

nd edition).

New York: The Guilford Press. . Lardén, M., Melin, L., Holst, U., & Långström, N. (2006). Moral judgement, cognitive distortions and empathy in incarcerated delinquent and community control adolescents. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 453-462, DOI:10.1080/10683160500036855. Loeber, R., Slot, N.W., Laan, P.H. van der, & Hoeve, M. (eds.). (2013). Tomorrow’s

71

criminals: the development of child delinquency and effective interventions. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. . Matthys, W., Cuperus, J.M., & Van Engeland, H. (1999). Deficient social problem-solving in boys with ODD/CD, with ADHD, and with both disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 311–321, DOI:10.1097/00004583-199903000-00019. Matthys, W., Cuperus, J.M., Maassen, G.H., & Van Engeland, H. (2001). The assessment of the situational specificity of children’s problem behaviour in peer–peer context. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 413–420, DOI: 10.1111/1469- 7610.00734. McLeod, B. D. (2011). Relation of the alliance with outcomes in youth psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 603-616, DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.02.001. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817-839, DOI:10.1037/0022- 3514.89.5.817. Parhar, K.P., Wormith, S.W., Derkzen, D.M., & Beauregard, A.M. (2008). Offender coercion in treatment: a meta-analysis of effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 35, 1109-1135, DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320169. . Pinker, S. (2011). The better Angels of our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes. New York: Penguin. . Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. (1997). Cognition and emotion: from order to disorder. Hove: Psychology Press. . Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. . Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: the biological roots of crime. Vintage, New York. Shapiro, C.J, Smith, B.H, Malone, P.S., & Collaro, A.L. (2010). Natural experiment in deviant peer exposure and youth recidivism. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 242-251, DOI:10.1080/15374410903532635. Sivo, S.H., Fan, X., Willta, E.L., & Willse, J.T. (2006). The search for ‘optimal’ cutoff proper- ties: fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education,74, 267-288, DOI:10.3200/JEXE.74.3.267-288. . Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In Handbook of Social Comparison (pp. 173-200). Springer US. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.). Sociological Methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. . Stams, G. J., Brugman, D., Deković, M., van Rosmalen, L., van der Laan, P., & Gibbs, J. C.

72

(2006). The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: a meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 692-708, DOI:10,1007/s10802-006-9056-5. Tarry, H., & Emler, N. (2007). Attitudes values and moral reasoning as predictors of delinquency. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 169–183, DOI: 10.1348/026151006X113671. Van der Helm, G.H.P. (2011a). First do no harm: group climate in secure correctional institutions. Vu University, PhD thesis. Amsterdam: SWP. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Van der Stel, J. C., Van Langen M. A. M., & Van der Laan, P.H. (2011b). Group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated boys. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1149-1160 DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11421649. . Van der Helm, G.H.P, Matthys, W., Moonen, X., Stams, G.J.J.M, Giesen, N., & van der Heide, E.S. (2011c). Measuring inappropriate responses of adolescents to problematic social situations in secure institutional and correctional youth care: a validation study of the TOPS-A. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1579-1595, DOI: 10.1177/0886260512468322. . Van IJzendoorn, M.H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225-249. Van Langen, M., Wissink, I.B., Stams, G.J.J.M., Asscher, J.J., & Hoeve, M. (2014). A validation study of the Dutch translation of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES). Manuscript submitted for publication. Van Langen, M.A.M., Wissink, I.B., Van Vugt, E.S., Van der Stouwe, T., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: a meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 179-189, DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003. Van Stam, M.A., Van der Schuur, W.A., Tserkezis, S., Van Vugt, E.S., Asscher, J.J., Gibbs, J.C., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2014). The effectiveness of Equip on sociomoral development and recidivism reduction: a meta-analytic study. Children and Youth Services Review, 38, 260-275, DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.002. Ward, T., Melser, J., & Yates, P. M. (2007). Reconstructing the risk need responsivity model: a theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 208-228, DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2006.07.001. . Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zegers, M.A.M. (2007). Attachment among institutionalized adolescents, mental representations, therapeutic relationships and problem behavior. Dissertation, Amsterdam: VU University. . Zegers, M.A.M., Schuengel, C., Van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Janssens, J. (2006). Attachment representations of institutionalized adolescents and their professional caregivers: predicting the development of therapeutic

73

relationships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 325-334, DOI:10.1037/0002-9432.76.3.325.

74

75

THE RELATION BETWEEN LIVING GROUP

CLIMATE, AGGRESSION AND CALLOUS UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS IN DELINQUENT BOYS IN DETENTION

Evelyn Heynen, Peer van der Helm, Maaike Cima,

Geert-Jan Stams & Andries Korebrits The relation between living group climate, aggression and callous

unemotional traits in delinquent boys in detention (submitted for second

revision) International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology

76

ABSTRACT

Aggression and Callous-Unemotional (CU-) traits are a common problem in

incarcerated delinquent youth. The present study was conducted to examine

whether living group climate was associated with aggression and CU-traits in late

adolescent male offenders (N = 156) in a German youth prison. A structural

equation model was fitted to the data and showed associations between

repression and reactive aggression, repression and callousness, and atmosphere

and uncaring behavior, but no associations between an open and supportive living

group climate and aggression and CU-traits. Previous research in Dutch youth

prisons did not find a relation between repression and aggression, and a negative

relation between a positive living group climate and aggression. These different

findings may reflect differences in the German and Dutch Prison system.

Implications for practice are discussed.

77

INTRODUCTION

Aggression and criminal behavior by adolescents constitute a major social

problem. While a decrease in youth crime in Europe is evident, there are still

problems with the severity and violent nature of it (Blumstein, 2002; Center for

disease control and prevention, 2013, European Commission, 2014, Stelly &

Thomas, 2013). A large sub-group of young delinquents, up to 18 years old, are

often described as “callous” and “unemotional” (Asscher et al., 2011), and show

high rates of aggression and conduct disorder (Fazel, Doll, & Langström, 2008).

Callous-Unemotional (CU-) traits are characterized by a persistent pattern

of behavior that reflects a disregard for others, lack of empathy (Frick & Ray,

2014) and an increased risk for (severe) aggression (Frick & White, 2008; Kimonis

et al., 2014). Previous research reported the importance of distinguishing

between reactive aggression (e.g., in response to provocation, threat or other

adverse social risks), which is based on the frustration-aggression model (Dollard,

Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939), and proactive aggression, which is goal

directed and instrumental (Dodge, 1991; Polman et al., 2004) and considered to

be a product of social learning (Bandura, 1973). The difference between reactive

and proactive aggression is apparent in different causes (etiology) and effects

(Raine et al., 2006). Reactive aggression is related to internalizing problems (Card

& Little, 2006), deficits in information processing (Crick and Dodge,1996; Raine et

al., 2006 ) and executive functioning (Giancola et al., 1996; Raine et al., 2006) and

is associated with negative emotionality and anxiety (Fite et al., 2009), whereas

proactive aggression is driven by relatively positive outcome expectancies

(Bandura, 1973) and is more common in delinquents (Card & Little, 2006) and

individuals with poor peer relationships or antisocial personality traits (Cima &

Raine, 2009; Raine, et al., 2006). Youth high on CU-traits tend to demonstrate

both more reactive and proactive aggression (Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane,

2003), which is not only associated with the development of criminal behavior,

but may also form a problem during incarceration (Frick & & Dickens, 2006;

Marsee, Silverthorn, & Frick, 2005; Ros, Van der Helm, Wissink, Stams, &

Schaftenaar, 2013).

78

When entering the juvenile justice facility, juveniles take along several

difficulties, such as aggression, criminal behavior, substance abuse and psychiatric

problems, often related to mild intellectual disabilities (importation hypothesis:

Cline & Wheeler, 1968; Gover, MacKenzie, & Armstrong, 2000; Kaal, Negenman,

Roeleveld, & Embregts, 2011; Kaal, Overvest, & Boertjes, 2014). Problems often

start in early childhood and are related to stress, neglect, maltreatment or

deprivation (Asscher, Van der Put, & Stams, 2015), resulting in failure of

treatment and social isolation (Spinhoven et al., 2010; Van Vliet & Oei, 2006). At

present, research is conducted to examine the degree to which CU-traits are

stable personality characteristics (Frick & Moffitt, 2010; Frick, Stickle, Dandreaux,

Farrell, & Kimonis, 2005) and if they can be influenced by the environment

(Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005). Van der Helm, Stams, Van der Stel, Van

Langen and Van der Laan (2012) argue that an open living group climate in youth

prison, especially positive contact between staff and inmates (see also: Listwan,

2013), a structured and safe environment and possibilities for personal

development and growth can stimulate empathy and subsequently reduction of

CU-traits (De Waal, Smith-Churchland, Pievani, & Parmigiani, 2014, Viding et al.,

2005).

Research has shown that juvenile prisoners can change their behavior if

they gain more positive perceptions of the setting they live in (Schubert et al.,

2012). In Europe, young prison inmates often live in so called living groups of 8-12

juveniles under supervision of group workers. Those group workers play a central

role in the creation of the living group climate, which can be defined as open

(responsive) or closed (repressive; Van der Helm, Klapwijk, Stams, & Van der Laan,

2009; Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011b). In fact, it is most likely a

continuum between these two extremes. An ‘open’ living group climate is

characterized by support, clear opportunities for growth, safety, structure and

flexibility, and can increase treatment motivation, internal locus of control and

decrease criminal cognitions (Van der Helm et al., 2011). Especially if group

workers offer support and good possibilities for growth (i.e., going back to

school), aggressive incidents can decrease (Ros et al., 2013). An open climate can

also result in advanced social cognition, social learning and more empathy

79

(Groeneweg, Van der Helm, Stams, & Asscher, 2013; Iacoboni & Dapretto, 2006;

Van der Helm et al., 2012b).

The living group climate is defined as ‘closed’ if there are few

opportunities for growth, if support by prison staff is almost absent and if group

atmosphere is negative (Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Ross, Diamond, Liebling, &

Saylor, 2008; Ross, Liebling, & Tait, 2011; Van der Helm et al., 2011b). A closed

living group climate is highly repressive, can damage the therapeutic alliance and

treatment motivation during detention, but can also lead to more aggressive

behavior of juveniles and increased stress levels (Van der Helm et al., 2011b,

Van der Helm, et al., 2012a).

Several authors (Popma & Raine, 2006; Sato, Uono, Matsuura, & Toichi,

2009) have argued that prolonged stress can lead to a shift in the stress hormone

cortisol, released by the Hypothalamic Pituitary Adrenal (HPA) Axis, resulting in

less empathy and more callousness. A closed living group climate in youth prison,

characterized by few opportunities for growth, lack of support by prison staff and

a lack of safety, has been shown to result in stress and violence among inmates

(Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Ross, et al., 2008; Ross, et al., 2011; Van der Helm et

al., 2011b).

To date, there is no study investigating the relation between living group

climate and CU-traits. Because high levels of CU-traits in combination with

aggressive behavior are a common problem in youth detention and create a

central component of violent behavior in young prisoners, the present study

focuses on how living group climate is related to the behavior of delinquent youth

in residential care.

The following hypothesis will be investigated: A positive and open living

group climate is associated with less aggressive behavior and less callous-

unemotional traits in detained youth offenders. As the present study was

conducted in a diverse sample of young prison inmates, we will account for the

effects of age, ethnicity and type of offense on living group climate, aggression

and CU-traits.

80

METHOD

Participants

The present study was conducted in a German Youth Prison. A sample of 156

delinquent, adolescent, male prisoners was randomly selected from the part of

the prison population that was accessible at the start of our study. All prisoners

lived in groups of 15-20 young inmates. Participants were aged between 17 and

25 years (M =20.44; SD=1.64). In the participating prison, delinquents between

the ages of 14-27 were incarcerated. The main reason for detention was ‘inflicting

personal injury’ (62%). Most respondents had a German nationality (73%), and

13% Turkish and 14% other nationalities. Education levels were generally low:

33% had not completed education, 45% had completed the lowest level of

education. All adolescents voluntarily agreed to participate in this study, signed an

informed consent declaration, and were told that their answers would be treated

confidentially and anonymously and would be accessed only by the researchers.

Instruments

PRISON GROUP CLIMATE INSTRUMENT (PGCI)

The PGCI (original version: Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011b) consists

of 36 questions with a five-point-likert scale ranging from 1= don´t agree to 5=

fully agree. Each question belongs to only one of the four aspects of living group

climate: support, growth, atmosphere and repression. The scale for ´support´

assesses the professional behavior of group workers and describes juvenile’s

experience of support by staff. An example of an item from the support scale is

“group workers treat me with respect.” The ´growth´ scale assesses

developmental possibilities, hope for the future and feelings and thoughts about

detention. An example of a growth scale item is “I learn the right things here”. The

´repression´ scale assesses repression, strictness of rules and the control prisoners

experience during their imprisonment. An example of a repression item is “You

have to ask permission for everything”. Finally, the ´atmosphere´ scale assesses

81

group atmosphere related to prisoners’ own feelings of safety and trust. An

example of an atmosphere item is “We trust each other here” (Heynen, Van der

Helm, Stams, & Korebrits, 2014; Van der Helm et al., 2011b). The questionnaire

measures whether the living group climate in a group setting is open and

therapeutic or closed and repressive. An open group climate is defined by high

levels of support, ample opportunities for growth, minimal repression and a clean,

safe and structured environment (Heynen et al., 2014; Van der Helm et al., 2011).

In the present study the German version of the PGCI was used (Heynen et

al., 2014). Reliability coefficients of the German questionnaire were good for

‘support’ (α = .85) and ‘growth’ (α = .85) and sufficient for ‘repression’ (α = .67)

and ‘atmosphere’ (α = .66) (Heynen et al., 2014). Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for

the present study were also good for growth (α =. 86) and support (α =.84) and

sufficient for repression (α = .61) and atmosphere (α = .63).

INVENTORY OF CALLOUS UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS (ICU)

The ICU scale developed by Frick (2003) is a 24-item self-report measure, with

four response categories ranging from 0=not at all true to 3=definitely true. In the

present study the German version of the self-report questionnaire was used. This

self-report scale has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument to

investigate CU-traits in adolescent offenders. The scale is divided into three

subscales: Callousness (e.g., “the feelings of others are unimportant to me”; α =

.70), Unemotional (e.g., “I hide my feelings from others”; α = .64) and Uncaring

(e.g., ”I try not to hurt others’ feelings”; α = .73 this item is reversely coded;

Kimonis et al., 2008). The present study showed good reliabilities for callousness

(α = .72) and uncaring (α = .76) and a sufficient reliability for unemotional (α =

.60).

82

The RPQ, developed by Raine and colleagues in 2006, consists of 23 items ranging

on a 3-point scale (from 0=never, 1=sometimes, to 2=often) and makes a

differentiation between reactive (11 items, “Gotten angry when frustrated”) and

proactive (12 items, “Vandalized something for fun”) aggression. The RPQ

assesses both physically and verbally aggressive behaviors, and in the case of

reactive aggression assesses anger generated in response to external stimuli

(Raine et al., 2006). The RPQ has shown to be a valid and reliable instrument to

investigate reactive and proactive aggression with a significant proactive–reactive

inter-correlation and good internal consistency (α = 0.89; Raine et al., 2006; see

also Cima, Raine, Meesters, & Popma, 2013). In the present study, we

administered this questionnaire during the last month. As there was no translated

German version of the RPQ, the first author of this study, a bilingual native Dutch

and German speaker, translated the Dutch version of the test into German. The

German Version was then back-translated by another Dutch and German native

speaker. In the present study, the scale has a good internal consistency for

reactive aggression (α = .80) and proactive aggression (α = .84).

Statistical Analysis

Pearson correlation analyses were conducted in SPSS 21.0 to examine

associations between the different dimensions of living group climate, reactive

and proactive aggression and CU-traits. Subsequently, structural equation

modeling (SEM) was conducted in Mplus (version 6.11) to test a model (ML) with

direct paths between the latent variable living group climate (support, growth,

repression, and atmosphere), reactive and proactive aggression, and CU-traits

(callousness, uncaring, and unemotional). The model also included the effects of

age, ethnicity, and type of offense on living group climate, reactive and proactive

aggression and CU-traits, and accounted for associations among reactive and

proactive aggression and CU-traits. The sample size was considered to be

sufficient to conduct reliable SEM, given the favorable ratio between the sample

size and free parameters to be estimated of 5 to 1 (Bentler & Chou, 1987),

REACTIVE PROACTIVE AGGRESSION QUESTIONNAIRE (RPQ)

83

because a reasonable sample size for a simple SEM model is estimated to be N =

150 (Muthen & Muthen, 2002), and because the sample size of our study

guaranteed sufficient statistical power (.80) to detect small effects at p < .05

(Cohen, 1988; Westland, 2010). Moreover, SEM results were largely consistent

with simple correlation analyses (see below).

Both the fit-indices (CFI, TLI, and RMSEA3) and the model Chi-Square

statistic, also designated as the generalized likelihood ratio, were used to evaluate

model fit (Kline, 2005). The following cut-off values are indicative for a close

model fit: CFI > .95, TLI > .95 and RMSEA < .06, whereas a non-significant Chi-

Square indicates exact model fit (Arbuckle, 2005; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005).

Modifications indices (MI’s) were used to guide improvement of model fit

between the hypothesized and alternative (modified) model.

RESULTS

PRELIMINAIRY ANALYSIS

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the sub-(scales) for living

group climate, reactive and proactive aggression and CU-traits as well as the

correlations among these variables. Significant and positive correlations were

found between repression and callousness (r = .229, p = .001), atmosphere and

unemotional traits (r = .159, p = .05), and also between repression and reactive

aggression (r = .275, p = .01). There were also significant and positive correlations

between all subscales of the ICU and proactive aggression (callousness: r = .468, p

= .001; uncaring: r = .285, p = .001; unemotional: r = .214, p = .01). Furthermore,

there were significant correlations between reactive aggression and callousness (r

= .488, p = .001), uncaring (r = .213, p = .01) and support (r = -.172, p = .05).

3 CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), NFI (Normed Fit Index) and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) are indices of goodness of fit that are independent of sample size. Models that fit well score favourably on these fit-indices. For further references see Arbuckle (2007).

84

Finally, there was a significant and positive correlation between reactive and

proactive aggression (r = .734, p = .001).

85

Tab

le 1

. Mea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

s a

nd

Co

rrel

ati

on

s a

mo

ng

th

e P

GC

I, IC

U a

nd

RP

Q

M

(SD

)

callo

usn

ess

un

cari

ng

un

emo

tio

nal

sup

po

rt

gr

ow

th

re

pre

ssio

n

at

mo

sph

ere

re

acti

ve

aggr

essi

on

callo

usn

ess

1

.02

(.4

4)

1

u

nca

rin

g 1

.17

(.5

4)

.37

0*

**

1

un

emo

tio

nal

1

.72

(.6

0)

.32

2*

**

.

33

2*

**

1

su

pp

ort

2

.84

(.8

1)

-.

13

2

-.0

06

.0

63

1

gr

ow

th

3.4

1 (

.89

)

.01

8

-.0

72

.0

01

.5

40

**

*

1

re

pre

ssio

n

3.3

9 (

.71

) .2

29

**

-.1

19

.07

3

-.3

24

**

*

-.2

45

**

1

atm

osp

her

e

3.0

3 (

.65

)

.00

7

-.1

08

.1

59

*

.53

9*

**

.3

31

**

*

-.1

89

*

1

re

acti

ve

aggr

essi

on

1

4.8

2 (

4.1

9)

.4

88

**

*

.21

3*

*

.1

57

-

.17

2*

.0

69

.2

75

**

-0.0

22

1

pro

acti

ve

aggr

essi

on

1

1.0

0 (

5.3

0)

.46

8*

**

.28

5*

**

.2

14

**

-.1

14

.15

7

.1

06

-0.0

21

.7

34

**

*

N =

15

6

* p

< .

05

, **

p <

.01

, ***

p <

.00

1 (

two

-tai

led

sig

nif

ican

ce)

86

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING

To investigate the relations between living group climate, reactive and proactive

aggression, and CU-traits, a structural equation model was fitted to the data

(N=156), accounting for the effects of age, ethnicity and type of offending on

living group climate, aggression and CU-traits, and allowing correlations among

reactive aggression, proactive aggression and CU-traits. The initial model did not

show a good fit to the data: χ2 (38) = 73.893, p = .000, CFI = .902, TLI = .838 and

RMSEA = .078. Therefore, a second model was fitted to the data, with some

changes made on the basis of modification indices: paths were added between

repression and reactive aggression and callousness, and between atmosphere and

uncaring, while unemotional and uncaring were allowed to correlate.

The modified model showed a good fit to the data: χ2 (34) = 44.228, p =

.113, CFI = .972, TLI = .948 and RMSEA = .044, and a significant improvement of

model fit: χ2 (4) = 29.665, p < .001, which was substantiated by considerable

changes in the other fit indices (CFI, TLI and RMSEA). It can be derived from Figure

1 (showing standardized coefficients, dashed lines representing non-significant

paths, and solid lines representing significant paths) that repression was positively

related to reactive aggression (.196, p = .001) and callousness (.236, p = .001),

while atmosphere was negatively related to uncaring (-.166, p = .016).

Furthermore, reactive and proactive aggression were positively associated with

CU-traits (.537 and .542, p = .000, respectively), reactive aggression was positively

associated with proactive aggression (.745, p = .000), and uncaring was positively

associated with unemotional (.216, p = .012). The control variable ‘age’ showed a

borderline-significant association with CU-traits (-.179, p = .058), indicating that

CU-traits were more common in younger inmates (the Appendix shows all

standardized coefficients, standard errors, z-values and p-values).

Figu

re 1

. Str

uct

ura

l Eq

ua

tio

n M

od

el o

f Li

vin

g G

rou

p C

lima

te, C

U-t

rait

s a

nd

Ag

gre

ssio

n

87

88

DISCUSSION

There is accumulating empirical evidence showing that the social environment can

be more influential than individual factors in explaining both antisocial (Pinker,

2011; Raine, 2014; Zimbardo, 2004) and prosocial behavior (Van IJzendoorn &

Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2014). Also, juvenile offenders change their behavior in

response to the social environment, that is, perceived environmental demands

and pressures (Steinberg, 2009; Schubert et al., 2012; Van der Helm & Stams,

2012). Research has shown that an open living group climate could influence

successful rehabilitation and secure institutional treatment (Van der Helm et al.,

2012, for an overview see Souverein, Van der Helm, & Stams, 2013). Although the

rate of violent delinquency has been declining during the past three decades,

serious and violent (juvenile) offending remains a significant problem (e.g. Clarke,

2013; Hanslmaier, Kemme, Stoll, & Baier, 2014; LaFree, Curtis, & McDowall, 2015;

OJJDP, 2011; Snyder, 2012). The most violent offenders often show high levels of

aggression and CU-traits (Frick & Dickens, 2006; Monahan et al., 2001; Salekin,

Rogers, & Sewell, 1996). The present study is to our knowledge the first to

examine the relation between living group climate and both aggression and CU-

traits in a juvenile justice institution.

Results of this study show that perception of a more repressive living

group climate is associated with more callousness and reactive (but not proactive)

aggression in incarcerated juvenile offenders, which is consistent with the

deprivation hypothesis, indicating that a repressive climate is related to more

antisocial behavior within prison (Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996). Our study results

are also in line with research showing the distinctiveness of reactive aggressive

behavior in response to perceived adverse environmental circumstances,

including repression (the present study), and proactive aggressive behavior, which

is instrumental and anticipates reward (Card & Little, 2006; Kempes, Matthys, De

Vries, & Van Engeland, 2005; Polman, Orobio de Castro, Koops, Van Boxtel, &

Merk, 2007; Raine et al., 2006). However, outcomes of this study are not in line

89

with previous research on living group climate in Dutch youth prisons, which

showed that an open and supportive living group climate was associated with less

aggression, whereas repression was unrelated to aggression (Ros et al., 2011; Van

der Helm et al., 2011). In the Netherlands, juvenile delinquents receive structured

clinical treatment during detention in order to reduce the risk for criminal offense

recidivism (Hoogsteder et al., 2014). As the present study was carried out in a

German youth prison, it seems plausible to suggest that the relation between

living group climate and aggression might be affected by differences in the

juvenile prison system between Germany and the Netherlands, and the respective

goals of retribution, deterrence or rehabilitation. The German juvenile prison system particularly focuses on formal

education, reduction of drug use and aggression (§ 40 Jugendstrafvollzugsgesetz,

Bundesministerium der Justiz, 2006; Walter, 1999, 2009), but does not target

reduction of aggression of juvenile offenders by means of psychiatric care,

evidence-based offender rehabilitation programs, such as Equip (Helmond,

Overbeek, & Brugman, 2012) and Responsive Aggression Replacement Therapy

(Hoogsteder et al., 2014). The recent 2013 vision of the 9 Dutch youth prisons

(Van der Helm, Van Tol, & Stams, 2012) explicitly states that an open living group

climate and psychiatric help are the two main pillars of the system.

In a post-hoc analysis (Appendix 2) we compared living group climate,

assessed with the PGCI, between the German juvenile justice institution (the

present study) and juvenile justice institutions in the Netherlands (Van der Helm

et al., 2011), matched for gender and age, and found significantly higher levels of

support (d = .70) and group atmosphere (d = .43) in the Netherlands, and no

differences in growth and repression. Notably, De Swart et al. (2012) conducted a

meta-analysis on the effectiveness of residential care, and showed general group

care to be ineffective without the delivery of evidence-based treatment. Another

review of young offenders (Koehler, Loesel, Akoensi, & Humphreys, 2013) showed

that purely deterrent and supervisory interventions even slightly increased

juvenile recidivism. When treatment was the main goal, results were more

positive in terms of recidivism reduction, especially when cognitive behavioral

90

therapy was applied. Given that the Dutch forensic juvenile justice institutions

deliver evidence-based treatment and psychiatric care, an open and supportive

living group climate may reduce aggression problems and eliminate the negative

effects of repression. In Germany, however, an open and supportive living group

climate may possibly have no positive effects on CU-traits and aggression because

evidence-based treatment is lacking, while the negative effects of repression are

not dampened by the use of evidence-based treatment. Only one of the indicators

of an open and supportive living group climate (i.e., a positive group atmosphere

among juveniles) was related to better outcomes (less uncaring behavior), which

seems consistent with our line of reasoning. Notably, growth and support, just as

the overall dimension representing an open living group climate, were unrelated

to aggression or CU-traits.

Other explanations for different results in Germany and the Netherlands

may be found in measurement issues. The Dutch study by Van der Helm et al.

used the Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Buss & Durkee, 1957) to assess

self-reported aggression, whereas the present German study used the RPQ. The

BDHI is more focused on trait like features of aggression, whereas the RPQ is

more focused on state like features of aggression. We suggest that a repressive

prison environment may have negative effects on state like features of

aggression, but less on trait like features of aggression. Notably, the repression

experienced by incarcerated juvenile delinquents may partly be a continuation of

their aversive child-rearing experiences, as was recently demonstrated by

Asscher, Van der Put and Stams (2015), which may explain why repression did not

show a significant association with trait like aggression. However, such an

explanation does not seem in agreement with the significant relation between

repression and callousness in the present study. On the other hand, Baron-Cohen

(2011) has argued that empathy, which is incompatible with CU-traits, can be

‘shut on or shut off’, depending on the quality of the environment. In prison,

where the environment is thought to have a great (or even extreme) impact on

the behavior of inmates (Van der Helm, 2011) callous and unemotional behavior

can therefore be more state- than trait-like. This may particularly be the case for

91

adolescents whose brain is still maturating and personality is still developing

(Lenroot & Giedd, 2006).

Although the PGCI has been shown to be a valid and reliable

measurement instrument to assess living group climate in juvenile justice

institutions in Germany and the Netherlands (Heynen, 2014), measurement

invariance for the German and Dutch version of the PGCI has never been

demonstrated, which means that the size of the factor loadings may differ across

the German and Dutch version. Notably, the repression scale of the PGCI consists

of items measuring both repression and deprivation. Deprivation items load

relatively high on the German repression scale of the PGCI, whereas repression

items load relatively high on the Dutch repression scale of the PGCI. It can

therefore be concluded that the association between repression and aggression

particularly signals the negative effects of deprivation in the German youth prison,

which interpretation is in line with the lack of attention paid to psychosocial

development in the German prison system.

The present results have to be considered in light of some limitations. A

first limitation is that the PGCI does not distinguish between repression and

deprivation. We therefore argue that the PGCI needs further development to

account for repression and deprivation in separate scales, which facilitates

research on the unique effects of repression and deprivation and their

combination. A second limitation is that living group climate was assessed by

means of adolescent self-report only, and was not supplemented with

independent objective observations or assessment of the perspective of prison

staff and group workers. A third limitation pertains to the cross-sectional nature

of this study, which does not permit testing the transactional relation between

environment and individual characteristics, and sets limits to the causal

interpretation of the results. While the present study showed that a hard prison

environment may have adverse effects on the frequency of (reactive) aggressive

behavior and the emergence (or stability) of callousness, the opposite could also

be true: Prison staff or group workers may resort to a stricter schedule if

confronted with inmates who are both callous and prone to show aggressive

92

behavior. As the analysis is correlative, based on self-reports of inmates only, and

does not compare various institutions (and living groups) with each other that

differ in terms of climate (e.g., by means of multilevel analysis), it cannot be

excluded that juvenile delinquents with pronounced CU-traits and a greater

propensity toward aggression may be more inclined to view their surroundings as

hostile. Hence, hostile attribution bias (Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch,

& Monshouwer, 2002) could be an alternative explanation for the results of our

study, at least in part. A final limitation is that the sample consisted of male

offenders only, which restricts generalizability. It would be interesting to compare

a sample of boys and girls because of the expected differences in the

development of aggression during detention (Asscher et al., 2015; Crick, Bigbee, &

Howes, 2008). Future research should examine the longitudinal relations between

living group climate, aggression and CU traits in a more diverse sample of

detained juvenile offenders.

Despite these limitations, the present study is the first to investigate

whether there is a relation between living group climate and both aggression and

CU-traits, showing that repression is associated with aggressive behavior and

callousness in detained youth. This study provides empirical support for the

association between repression and antisocial behavior in a context where social

support from professional staff appears to be low, the group atmosphere al., 2008

among inmates is relatively negative, and evidence-based treatment for detained

youth is lacking. The prevalence rate of any mental disorders among detained

male adolescents is almost 70% (Colins et al., 2010) and the longitudinal relation

between on the one hand externalizing and comorbid disorders and on the other

hand criminal offense recidivism is substantial (Wibbelink, Hoeve, Stams, & Oort,

2015). The outcomes of this study also raises doubts about ‘get tough’ approaches

in prison in general (Gendreau, Goggin, French & Smith 2006; Collier, 2014) and

calls for a more effective and rehabilitative prison management (Lipsey, 2009;

Listwan, 2013; Parhar et al., 2008).

93

94

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J.L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.

Asscher, J.J., Van der Put, & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2015). Gender differences in the association

between child maltreatment and adolescent offending. Journal of Family

Violence. 30, 215-225. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-014-9668-4.

Asscher, J.J., Van Vugt, E.S., Stams, G.J.J.M., Deković, M., Eichelsheim, V.I. , & Yousfi, S.

(2011). The relationship between juvenile psychopathic traits, delinquency and

(violent) recidivism: a meta-analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

52, 1134-1143. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02412.x. .

Bandura A (1973) Aggression: a social learning theory analysis. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Bentler, P.M., & Chou, C.P. (1987) Practical issues in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methods & Research. 16,78-117. DOI: 10.1177/0049124187016001004. Blumstein A., (2002). Youth, guns, and violent crime. Future Child. 12, 38-53. Bundesministerium der Justiz Berlin, Bundesministerium für Justiz Wien, Eidgenössische Justiz Und Polizeidepartment Bern, (2007), Europäische Jugendstrafvollzugs- Grundsätze, Die Empfehlung des Europarates REC2 (2006) 2, Forum Verlag Godesberg. Buss, A.H., Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consultative Psychology, 21, 343-349. Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 466-480.DOI: 10.1177/0165025406071904. Centers for disease control and prevention, (2013). Violent crime arrest rates among persons ages 10-24 years, by sex and year, United States, 1995–2011, http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at- a_glance/vca_temp-trends.html. Cima, M, & Raine, A. (2009). Distinct characteristics of psychopathy relate to different subtypes of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences. 47, 835-840. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.031. Cima, M., Raine, A., Meesters, C., & Popma, A. (2013). Validation of the Dutch Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ): Differential Correlates of Reactive and Proactive Aggression From Childhood to AdulthoodAggressive Behavior, 39, 99-113. Colins, O., Vermeiren, R., Vreugdenhil, C., Van den Brink, W., Doreleijers, T., & Broekaert,

95

E. (2010). Psychiatric disorders in detained male adolescents: a systematic literature review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatrie-Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 55, 255- 263. . Clarke, S. (2013). Trends in crime and criminal justice, 2010. Eurostat: Statistics in Focus. Cline, H. F., & Wheeler, S. (1968). The determinants of normative patterns in correctional institutions. Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, 2, 173-184. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2

nd edition).

Hillsdale. NJLawrence Earlbaum Associates. . Crick, N.R., Bigbee, M.A., & Howes, C. (2008). Gender differences in children’s normative beliefs about aggression: how do I hurt Thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 76, 1003-1014, DOI:10.111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01779.x. Crick N.R., & Dodge K.A. (1996) Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development. 67, 993–1002. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 8624.1996.tb01778.x. De Waal, F. B. M., Smith-Churchland, P., Pievani, T., & Parmigiani, S. (2014). Evolved morality: The biology and philosophy of human conscience, Leiden, Brill. De Swart, J. J. W., Van den Broek, H., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., Van der Laan, P. H., Holsbrink-Engels, G. A., & Van der Helm, G. H. P. (2012). The effectiveness of institutional youth care over the past three decades: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review.34, 1818-1824. Dodge K.A. (1991) The Structure and Function of Reactive and Proactive Aggression in the Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. In: Pepler DJ,Rubin KH (eds.) The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 201–218. Dollard J., Doob, C.W., Miller, N.E., Mowrer, O.H., Sears, R.R. (1939) Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eltink, E.M.A., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I.B., & Stams, G.J.J.M., (2015). the relation between living group climate and reactions to social problem situations in detained adolescents; “I stabbed him because he looked mean at me”, International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, DOI.10.1080/14999013.2015.1033110 European Comission (2014). . . http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_statistics Fazel S, Doll H, Långström N., (2008). Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 25 surveys, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1010-9, DOI:10.1097/CHI.ObO13e31817eecf3. Fite, P. J., Raine, A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. A. (2009). Reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent males: Examining differential outcomes 10

96

years later in early adulthood. Criminal Justice and Behavior. DOI: 10.1177/0093854809353051. Frick, P. J. (2003). The inventory of callous-unemotional traits. Unpublished rating scale, The University of New Orleans. Frick, P. J., & Dickens, C. (2006). Current perspectives on conduct disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports. 8, 59−72. DOI: 10.1007/s11920-006-0082-3. Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E. (2003). Callous- unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 31, 457-470.DOI 10.1023/A:1023899703866. Frick, P. J., Stickle, T. R., Dandreaux, D. M., Farrell, J. M., & Kimonis, E. R. (2005). Callous–unemotional traits in predicting the severity and stability of conduct problems and delinquency. Journal of abnormal child psychology. 33, 471- 487.DOI: 10.1007/s10648-005-5728-9. . Frick, P.J., & Moffitt, T.E. (2010). A proposal to the DSM-V childhood disorders and the ADHD and disruptive behavior disorders work groups to include a specifier to the diagnosis of conduct disorder based on the presence of callous- unemotional traits. Washington: APA. Frick P.J. & White S.F. (2008). Research review: the importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 49, 359–75, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469- 7610.2007.01862.x. Frick, P. J., & Ray, J. V. (2014). Evaluating callous‐unemotional traits as a personality construct. Journal of personality. DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12114. Groeneweg, M.J. , Van der Helm, G.H.P. Stams, G.J.J.M. & Asscher, J.J. (2013). When I don't get what I want, I take it because it's mine. I-D compensation and incarcerated adolescents in a delayed-return society: an application of Martin's theory. Psychiatry,Psychology and Law, 20, 735-748. DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2012.730902. Gover, A.R., MacKenzie, D.L. and Armstrong. G.S. (2000). Importation and deprivation explanations of juveniles’ adjustment to correctional facilities, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 44. 450-67. Hanslmaier, M., Kemme, S., Stoll, K., & Baier, D. (2014). Der qualitative Teil der Untersuchung: die Expertenbefragung. In Kriminalität im Jahr 2020 (pp. 29-46). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. . Harvey, J. (2005). Young men in prison: Surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton: Willan. Harer M.D., & Steffensmeier, D.J., (1996). Race and prison violence. Criminology, 34,323- 355, DOI:10.1111/j-1745-9125.1996.tb012.10.x. .

97

Heynen E.J.E., van der Helm, G.H.P, Stams G.J.J.M, Korebrits A.M., (2014). Measuring group climate in German youth prison - A German validation of the `Prison Group Climate Instrument´ (PGCI), Journal of forensic psychology practice, 14, 45-54, DOI:10.1080/15228932.2013.868176. Helmond, P., Overbeek, G., & Brugman, D. (2012). Program integrity and effectiveness of a cognitive behavioral intervention for incarcerated antisocial youth on cognitive distortions, social skills, and moral development. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1720–1728. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.05.001. Hoogsteder, L.M., Kuijpers, N., Stams, G.J.J.M., Van Horn, J.E., Hendriks, J., & Wissink, I.B. (2014). Study on the effectiveness of responsive aggression regulation therapy (Re-ART). International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 25-35. DOI:10.1080/14999013.2014.893711. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55, DOI:10.1080/10705519909540118. . Iacoboni, M. & Dapretto, M., (2006). The mirror neuron system and the consequences of its dysfunction, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 942-951, DOI:10.1038/nrn2024. Kaal, H. L., Negenman, A. M., Roeleveld, E., & Embregts, P. J. C. M. (2011). De problematiek van gedetineerden met een licht verstandelijke beperking in het gevangeniswezen [problems of detainees with a mild intellectual disability in detention]. Tilburg: Prismaprint. . Kaal, H. L., Overvest, N., & Boertjes, M. (Red. 2014). Beperkt in de keten. Mensen met een licht verstandelijke beperking in de strafrechtketen [ People with a mild intellectual disability in prison care]. Den Haag: Boom Lemma. Kempes, M., Matthys, W., De Vries, H., & Van Engeland, H. (2005). Reactive and proactive aggression in children A review of theory, findings and the relevance for child and adolescent psychiatry. European child & adolescent psychiatry. 14, 11-19. DOI 10.1007/s00787-005-0432-4. Keysers C. (2011) The empathic brain. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Social Brain Press. Koehler, J. A., Loesel, F., Akoensi, T. D., & Humphreys, D. K. (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 19–43. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-012- 9159-7. Kimonis, E.R., Fanti, K., Goldweber, A., Marsee, M.A., Frick, P.J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Callous-unemotional traits in incarcerated adolescents, Psychological Assessment, 26, 227-237. DOI: 10.1037/a0034585. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). NewYork: The Guilford Press. . LaFree, G., Curtis, K., & McDowall, D. (2015). How effective are our ‘better angels’?

98

Assessing country-level declines in homicide since 1950. European Journal of Criminology. 12, 482-504. DOI: 10.1177/1477370815584261. Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). Introduction: The effects of imprisonment revisited. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 1-32). Cullompton, UK: Willan. . Listwan, S. J. (2013). Introduction to Juvenile Justice. Bridgepoint Publishing. Lenroot, R. K., & Giedd, J. N. (2006). Brain development in children and adolescents: insights from anatomical magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 30, 718-729. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.001. Marsee, M. A., Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (2005). The association of psychopathic traits with aggression and delinquency in non-referred boys and girls. Behavioural Sciencesand the Law. 23, 803. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.662. Muthen, L. K., & Muth ´ en, B. (2002). How to use a Monte ´ Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling. 4, 599–620. DOI:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8. OJJDP [Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention] (2011). Juvenile arrests 2009. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73, 916-934. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00447. Parhar, K. K., Wormith, S.J., Derkzen, D.M.& Beauregard, A.M., (2008), Offender Coercion in Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1109-1135, DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320169. . Polman, H., de Castro, B. O., Koops, W., van Boxtel, H. W., & Merk, W. W. (2007). A meta- analysis of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 35, 522-535.DOI 10.1007/s10802- 007-9109-4. Popma, A. & Raine, A. (2006). Will future forensic assessment be neurobiological? Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15, 429-444, DOI:10.1016/j.chc.2005.11.004. Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber,R. Gatzke-Kopp,L., Lynam,D., Reynolds,C., Stouthamer- Loeber,M. & Liu, J., (2006). The Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential Correlates of Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Adolescent Boys, Aggresive Behavior, 32, 159–171, DOI: 10.1002/ab.20115. Ros, N, Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I. , Stams. G.J.J.M & Schaftenaar, P., (2013). Institutional climate and aggression in a secure psychiatric setting. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24, 713-727, DOI.org/10.1080/14789949.2013.848460. Ross, M.W., Diamond, P.M., Liebling, A. & Saylor, W.G. (2008). Measurement of prison

99

social climate: A comparison of an Inmate measure in England and the USA. Punishment & Society, 10, 447-474, DOI: 10.1177/1462474508095320. Ross, M.W., Liebling, A. & Tait, S., (2011). The Relationships of Prison Climate to Health Service in Correctional Environments: Inmate Health Care Measurement, Satisfaction and Access in Prisons, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 50, 262-274, DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00658.x. . Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review and meta-analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised: Predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice. 3, 203–215.DOI: 10.1111/j.1468- 2850.1996.tb00071.x. Sato, W., Uono, S., Matsuura, N., & Toichi, M. (2009). Misrecognition of facial expressions in delinquents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 3, 27-39. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online. 8, 23-74. Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Loughran, T.A., & Losoya, S.H., (2012). Perceptions of Institutional Experience and Community Outcomes for Serious Adolescent Offenders, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 71-93, DOI: 10.1177/0093854811426710. Sideridis, G., Simos, P., Papanicolaou, A., & Fletcher, J. (2014). Using structural equation modeling to assess functional connectivity in the brain: Power and sample size considerations. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 74, 733-758. DOI: 10.1177/0013164414525397. Singer, T., Seymour, B., O' Doherty, J.P., Stephan, K.E., Dolan, R.J., Frith, C.D., (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others, Nature. 439, 466-469, DOI:10.1038/nature04271. . Snyder, H. N. (2012). Arrest in the United States, 1990-2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, The Bureau of Justice Statistics. Souverein F., Van der Helm G.H.P & Stams G.J.J.M, (2013). `Nothing works` in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review. 35, 1941-1945. Spinhoven, P., Elzinga, B.M., Hovens, J.G.F.M., Roelofs, K., Zitman, F.G., van Oppen, P., & Penninx, B.W.J.H. (2010). The specificity of childhood adversities and negative life events across the life span to anxiety and depressive disorders, Journal of Affective Disorders, 126, 103–112, DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2010.02.132. Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review in Clinical Psychology, 5, 47-73, DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153603. Stelly, W., Thomas, J.(2013). Strukturevaluation des baden-württembergischen Jugend Strafvollzuges, Forum Strafvollzug, 6, 344-348. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Klapwijk, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., & van der Laan, P. H.

100

(2009). “What works” for juvenile prisoners: the role of group climate in a youth prison. Journal of Children’s Services, 4, 36- 48. DOI.org/10.1108/17466660200900011. Van der Helm, G.H.P. (2011). First do no harm: group climate in secure correctional institutions. VU University, PhD thesis. Amsterdam: SWP. Van der Helm, G.H.P, Matthys, W., Moonen, X., Stams, G.J.J.M, Giesen, N., & van der Heide, E.S. (2011). Measuring inappropriate responses of adolescents to problematic social situations in secure institutional and correctional youth care: a validation study of the TOPS-A. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1579-1595, DOI: 10.1177/0886260512468322. . Van der Helm, G.H.P., Boekee, I., Stams, G.J.J.M., & Van der Laan, P.H. (2011a). Fear is the key: keeping the balance between flexibility and control in a dutch youth prison. Journal of Children’s Services, 4, 248–263, DOI:0886260512468322. Van der Helm P., Stams G.J.J.M, & Van der Laan P.H. (2011b). Measuring group climate in prison. The Prison Journal, 91,158-176, DOI: 10.1177/0032885511403595. Van der Helm, G.H.P., & Stams, G.J.J. M. (2012a). Conflict and Coping by Clients and Group Workers in Secure Residential Facilities. In: Oei, K. & Groenhuizen, M. Progression in Forensic Psychiatry: About Boundaries (p. 553-564). Amsterdam: Kluwer. Van der Helm, G.H., Stams G.J., Stel van der, J.C., Langen van, M.A., Laan van der P.H., (2012b). Group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated boys, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1149-60, DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11421649. . Van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., (2014). Prosocial development and situational morality, neurobiological, parental and contextual factors, in Pathways to Peace: The Transformative Power of Children and Families, The MIT Press, DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027984.003.0010. Van Vliet, J.A. & T.I. Oei, (2006). Detention under a hospital order (Tbs) and the functioning of the mental health service in the Netherlands, Conference 'Research in Forensic Psychiatry', Regensburg, Germany, (15 juli 2006). Viding, E., Blair, R. J. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7‐year‐olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 46, 592-597, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00393. Walter, J. (1999). Anti-Gewalttraining im Jugendstrafvollzug – Tummelplatz für 'crime fighter'? [Anti-aggression training in youth detention – play area for crime fighter] Zeitschrift für Strafe und Vollzug 1999, p 23. Walter, J., (2009). Jugendstrafvollzug in Deutschland: Recht, Ausgestaltung, Probleme, [Youth detention in Germany: right, design and problems], http://archiv.dvjj.de/download.php?id=1057.

101

Westland, J.C., (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. 9, 476-487. Wibbelink, C., Hoeve, M., Stams, G.J.J.M., & Oort, F.J. (2015). Mental health disorder and juvenile recidivism: A three-level meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication. Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 913-934. DOI: 10.1177/0013164413495237. Zimbardo, P.G., (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators; In A.G. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil, (pp21-50), New York: Guilford Press.

102

APPENDIX 1

Table. SEM Results Estimates from Mplus

Estimate S.E. Z

two tailed P-Value

Open living group climate BY

support .950 .073 13.030 .000

growth .570 .070 8.120 .000

atmosphere .567 .070 8.125 .000

repression -.346 .080 -4.340 .000

CU-traits BY

callous .809 .089 9.116 .000

uncaring .501 .083 6.018 .000

unemotional .366 .085 4.296 .000

CU-traits ON

open living group climate -.018 .108 -.170 .865 Open living group climate ON

age .032 .084 .381 .703

ethnicity .055 .084 .658 .511

type of offence .057 .084 .677 .498

CU-traits ON

age -.179 .094 -1.897 .058

ethnicity .091 .092 .984 .325

type of offence .043 .093 .467 .641

Reactive aggression ON

open living group climate -.103 .086 -1.190 .234

age .016 .077 1.130 .259

ethnicity .087 .077 1.130 .259

type of offence -.019 .078 -.242 .809

repression .196 .056 3.477 .001

103

Estimate S.E. Z

two tailed P-Value

Proactive aggression ON age -.103 .079 -1.305 .192

ethnicity .031 .079 .384 .701

type of offence -.014 .080 -.179 .858

Callousness ON

repression .236 .068 3.464 .001

Uncaring ON

atmosphere -.166 .069 -2.407 .016

Reactive aggression WITH

CU-traits .537 .081 6.629 .000

Proactive aggression WITH

CU-traits .542 .085 6.406 .000

reactive aggression .745 .036 20.483 .000

Unemotional WITH

uncaring .216 .086 2.513 .012

104

APPENDIX 2

Table. Post-Hoc Analysis, T-test of Present Results German PGCI versus Dutch PGCI

Germany (N=156)

The Netherlands (N=47)

M SD M SD t d

Support 2.84 0.81 3.43 0.95 -4.16** -.70

Growth 3.41 0.90 3.20 0.94 1.39 .23

Repression 3.39 0.71 3.29 0.68 0.85 .14

Atmosphere 3.03 0.65 3.33 0.83 -2.55* -.43

*p < .05, **p < .001

Note: Matched for gender and age

105

FEELINGS OF OTHERS DON’T IMPRESS

ME MUCH! THE EFFECTS OF LIVING GROUP CLIMATE ON EMPATHIC BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENT MALE OFFENDERS

Evelyn Heynen, Peer van der Helm, Maaike Cima, Geert-Jan Stams & Andries Korebrits

Submitted

106

ABSTRACT

The present study is a German replication of a study originally performed in the

Netherlands regarding the association between a positive living group climate and

self-reported empathy in incarcerated adolescent male offenders (N = 49). A

structural equation model was fitted to the data and showed a relation between a

positive living group climate and increased empathy after 6 months. The

discussion focusses on group dynamics in youth prisons. The present results open

the way to further research into the importance of group processes in residential

youth care. A positive living group climate could turn out to be an important

factor contributing to the effectiveness of secure institutional treatment.

107

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important developmental tasks of adolescents is to become a

person who can empathize with others, that is, someone who has the capacity to

‘understand and share another's emotional state and context’ (Cohen & Strayer,

1996). Empathy is considered to be the evolutionary mechanism behind altruism,

prosocial behavior, human civilization, and subsequently desistance from violence

(De Waal, 2008; Pinker, 2011). Whereas high levels of empathy are associated

with prosocial behavior (Eisenberg, Spinard, & Sadovsky, 2006), lack of empathy is

associated with antisocial behavior, including aggression, delinquency (Jolliffe &

Farrington 2004; Van Langen, Wissink, Van Vugt, Van der Stouwe, & Stams, 2014)

and criminal offense recidivism (Van Vugt et al., 2011).

There is growing empirical evidence showing that the social environment

has a major impact on both antisocial behavior (Miller, 2004) and prosocial

functioning (Van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2014). Also, juvenile

offenders change their behavior in response to the social environment, that is,

perceived environmental demands and pressures (e.g., Schubert, Mulvey,

Loughran, & Losoya, 2012; Steinberg, 2009; Van der Helm & Stams, 2012). A

positive living group climate in terms of support, growth, positive atmosphere and

low repression has shown to be a positive indicator of more empathic behavior. In

a prison environment, repression is related to perceptions of strictness and

control, unfair and haphazard rules, and a lack of flexibility by group workers. Low

repression is thought to be a necessary condition for creating a positive learning

environment in residential youth care (Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan,

2011). ‘Support’ means that group workers are responsive to the specific

developmental needs of the juveniles, involving juveniles in a therapeutic and

empathic relationship, which may challenge their egocentric, emotional and

cognitive schemes and models empathic responding. Growth pertains to the

institutional investment in creating a positive learning environment for the

juveniles, including participation and role-taking opportunities, thus facilitating

108

socio-emotional development, coping with social problem situations and

development of empathy (Eltink, Van der Helm, Wissink, & Stams, 2015; Heynen,

Van der Helm, Wissink, Stams, & Moonen, 2015). Group atmosphere pertains to

the way inmates treat and trust each other and experience feelings of safety (Van

der Helm et al., 2011). While a negative group atmosphere is thought to increase

competition, stress, conflict and self-interest, a positive group atmosphere may

foster other-directed positive attitudes, including empathy. Living group climate in

youth correctional facilities can be considered as open and supportive if

repression is low, support and growth are high and group atmosphere is positive.

In the Netherlands, juvenile delinquents receive structured clinical

treatment during detention (Hoogsteder, Van Horn, Stams, Wissink, & Hendriks

2014), whereas in the German system the primary goal of incarceration of

delinquent juveniles is education (Bundesministerium der Justiz, 2007). As the

present study was carried out in a German youth prison, it seems reasonable to

suggest that the relation between living group climate and empathy might be

affected by differences in the juvenile prison system between Germany and the

Netherlands. Recent research comparing outcomes of living group climate

research in Germany and the Netherlands showed significantly lower levels of

support and group atmosphere in German juvenile justice institutions (Heynen,

Behrens, & Van der Helm, 2015). Additionally, the population of German youth

offenders proved to be somewhat older compared to the Dutch population

(Heynen et al., 2015b).

In line with the study of Fabes and Eisenberg (1998) who found age

differences in children’s and adolescents’ prosocial behavior in their meta-

analysis, Eisenberg, Cumberland, Guthrie, Murphy and Shepard (2005) found

increases in empathic reasoning from age 17-18 to age 21-22 in a sample of (Euro-

American) girls. Although it is not clear whether these findings can be generalized

to the sample of incarcerated delinquent boys in a German youth prison, it seems

important to take age differences into account when examining the relation

between living group climate and empathy, in particular because age might also

109

affect the perception of living group climate in incarcerated juvenile delinquents

(Van der Helm et al., 2011).

Notably, Van der Helm, Stams, Van der Stel, Van Langen and Van der Laan

(2012) were the first to show in their cross-sectional study that an open and

supportive (rehabilitative) living group climate was associated with higher levels

of empathy in a small group of juvenile delinquents in a Dutch youth prison. The

present study is a replication of this study on living group climate and empathy in

a German youth prison. Replication is considered to be extremely important,

because it is one of the most stringent tests of scientific knowledge, in particular

because it should be ruled out in the first place that research findings are sample-

specific. Moreover, replications are important from the perspective of examining

generalizability of study findings. Notably, a recent study of the open science

collaboration group (2015) showed that only 39% of the replication studies

succeeded to replicate original results. Therefore, the present replication study

examines the relation between a rehabilitative living group climate and empathy

in detained juvenile delinquents six months after placement in a German youth

prison, accounting for age of the juveniles. It is hypothesized that a positive and

open living group climate is associated with more empathy over a period of 6

months.

METHOD

Participants

The present study was conducted in a German youth prison. A sample of 49

adolescent male prisoners was selected from the extant prison population in

January 2013, based on their accessibility and a minimum stay of 3 months in the

institution. The participants resided in living groups of 15-20 inmates. Participants

were aged between 18 and 23 years (M =20.45; SD=1.43). Most respondents had

a German nationality (75%), 7% were Turkish and 18% had other nationalities.

110

Education levels were generally low: 25% had not completed any education, and

50% had completed the lowest level of vocational education. The main reasons

for detention were ‘inflicting personal injury’ (57%), theft (50%), violence (32%),

and possession or dealing of drugs (18%; different answers were possible).

Procedure

The present study had two measurements. The second measurement (T2) was

conducted 6 months after the first. Participants completed the Prison Group

Climate Instrument (PGCI; Van der Helm et al, 2011) during the first measurement

wave and the Basic Empathy Scale (BES; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) after 6 month.

After ethical approval had been obtained from the institutional review board of

the University of Applied Sciences Leiden, all adolescents voluntarily agreed to

participate in this study, signed an informed consent declaration, and were told

that their answers would be treated confidentially and anonymously, and would

be accessed only by the researchers.

Instruments

BASIC EMPATHY SCALE (BES)

The BES was developed by Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) and contains two

empathy components: cognitive and affective empathy. Affective empathy is the

capacity to experience the emotions of another (Bryant 1982) and cognitive

empathy is the capacity to comprehend the emotions of another (Hogan, 1969).

The original BES consists of 20 items, based on the four human basic emotions:

anger, fear, sadness and joy (Eckman, 2004). The questionnaire consists of 20

questions ranging on a 5-point-likert scale from 1 = I don´t agree to 5 = I fully

agree. An example of an item that measures cognitive empathy is ‘I can see when

my friends are afraid’, and an item measuring affective empathy is ‘When I am

with friends who are afraid, I feel afraid too’. The BES showed considerable

convergent, divergent and construct validity in the validation study by Jolliffe and

111

Farrington (2004). In the present study, the validated German version of the BES

was used (Heynen Van der Helm, Stams & Korebrits, 2015d). The German scale

has shown to be a valid and reliable instrument also for the use in incarcerated

adolescents with sufficient reliabilities for cognitive (α = .78) and affective (α =

.71) empathy (Heynen et al, 2015d). In the present study reliabilities were

adequate for cognitive (α = .71) and affective (α = .67) empathy.

PRISON GROUP CLIMATE INSTRUMENT (PGCI) .

The PGCI (Van der Helm et al., 2011) consists of 36 questions ranging on a five-

point-Likert scale from 1= don´t agree to 5= fully agree. Each question belongs to

only one of the four aspects of living group climate: support, growth, atmosphere

and repression. The scale for ´support´ assesses the professional behavior of

group workers and describes the juvenile’s experience of support by staff. The

´growth´ scale assesses learning perceptions, hope for the future and giving

meaning to the prison stay. The ´repression´ scale assesses strictness of rules and

the control prisoners experience during their imprisonment. Finally, the

´atmosphere´ scale assesses group atmosphere related to prisoners’ own feelings

of safety and trust (Heynen, Van der Helm, Stams, & Korebrits, 2014; Van der

Helm et al., 2011). The scale has shown to be valid and reliable (Van der Helm et

al., 2011). In the present study the German version of the PGCI was used (Heynen

et al., 2014). Reliability coefficients of the German questionnaire were good for

‘support’ (α = .85) and ‘growth’ (α = .85) and sufficient for ‘repression’ (α = .67)

and ‘atmosphere’ (α = .66) (Heynen et al., 2014). Cronbach’s alpha’s for the

present study were also good for growth (α =.86) and support (α = .84) and

sufficient for repression (α = .61) and atmosphere (α = .63).

Statistical Analysis

The first section of the results presents the preliminary analyses. Pearson’s

correlation analyses were conducted in SPSS 21.0 to examine associations

between the different aspects of living group climate and empathy. Subsequently,

112

structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted in Mplus (version 6.11) to test

a model (ML) with direct paths between the latent variables living group climate

(support, growth, repression, and atmosphere), and empathy (cognitive and

affective), accounting for age. Both the fit-indices (NFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA4) and

the model Chi-Square statistic, also designated as the generalized likelihood ratio,

were used to evaluate model fit (Kline, 2005). The following cut-off values are

indicative for a close model fit: CFI > .90, TLI > .95 and RMSEA < .06, whereas a

non-significant Chi-Square indicates exact model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline,

2005).

RESULTS

Preliminary Analysis

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the four dimensions of

living group climate and cognitive and affective empathy as well as the

correlations among these variables. Significant and positive correlations were

found between support and affective empathy (r = .299, p = .018) and between

atmosphere and affective empathy (r = .333, p = .010). A significant negative

correlation was found between repression and cognitive empathy (r = -.318, p =

.013). There were also some significant correlations between the subscales of the

questionnaires. For the PGCI there were significant correlations between support

and growth (r = .328, p = .011), support and repression (r = -.394, p = .003),

support and atmosphere (r = .487, p = .000), and between atmosphere and

growth (r = .345, p = .008). For the BES there was a significant correlation between

affective and cognitive empathy (r = .679, p = .000).

4 CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), NFI (Normed Fit Index) and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) are indices of goodness of fit that are independent of sample size. Models that fit well score favourably on these fit-indices. For further references see Arbuckle (2007).

113

Table 1 descriptive statistics (M & SD) and correlations between age, PGCI and BES

M

SD

Age

support growth repression atmosphere cognitive empathy

age 20.45 1.43 1

support 2.84 .71 -.121 1

growth 3.43 .89 -.077 .328* 1

repression 3.34 .61 -.030 -.394***

-.089 1

atmosphere 3.12 .50 -.126 .487***

.345***

-.210 1

cognitive empathy

2.83 .58 .008 .233 -.197 -.318* .192 1

affective empathy

2.94 .55 -.055 .299* -.072 -.200 .333

** .679

***

Structural Equation Modeling

To investigate relations between living group climate at T1 and empathy at T2, a

structural equation model was fitted to the data (N=49), accounting for age. The

model showed a good fit to the data: χ2 (12) = 13.941, p = .057, CFI = .966, TLI =

.944 and RMSEA = .041. A diagram of the resulting model is presented in Figure 1

(dashed lines represent non-significant paths, whereas solid lines represent

significant paths). It can be derived from Figure 1 that there is a significant

relation between a positive living group climate at T1 and empathy at T2 (β = .393,

p = .025).

114

Figure 1. Structural equation model between open living group climate and empathy

DISCUSSION

In 2010 Marshall and Burton called for more research on group processes in

offender treatment. The present study adds to the limited body of empirical

research examining group processes in youth prison, and is a replication of Van

der Helm’s (2012) Dutch study on the relation between an open and rehabilitative

living group climate and empathy in detained juvenile delinquents in Germany.

Results showed that a positive living group climate in terms of low repression and

high support from staff, opportunities for growth and a positive group

atmosphere was related to more empathy in incarcerated juvenile delinquents

after six months, which concurs with results from Van der Helm’s (2012) initial

study on living group climate and empathy.

0.963

0.706 0.626

-0.436 0.38 0.815

0.393

-0.147 0.006

Age

Empathy

Support

Living group climate

Growth Atmospher

e Repressio

n Cognitive Affective

115

Our findings are also in line with recent studies showing an open and

rehabilitative living group climate (including fairness, respect, humanity and

supportive relationships with staff) to be positively associated with active coping

and treatment motivation (Van der Helm, Beunk, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2014),

reactions to social problem situations (Eltink et al., 2015), personality

development (Van der Helm, Stams, Van Genabeek, & Van der Laan, 2012b), and

negatively associated with mental health problems (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager,

Eichelsheim, Van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2014), aggressive incidents during

detention (Ros, Van der Helm, Wissink, Stams, & Schaftenaar, 2013), self-reported

aggression (Van der Helm et al., 2012), prison misconduct (Beijersbergen,

Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, Van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2015) and criminal offense

recidivism (Schubert et al., 2012).

Research on group dynamics in secure forensic settings pointed to the key

role group workers play in establishing an open living group climate and providing

effective treatment (De Swart, 2011; Liebling, 2004; Ros et al., 2013; Souverein,

Van der Helm, & Stams, 2013). Although more research is needed, several

methods or interventions to improve living group climate quality have shown

promising results. For instance, measuring living group climate regularly, providing

group workers and incarcerated adolescents feedback about the outcomes, and

subsequently discussing these outcomes can result in gradual improvements of

living group climate (Van der Helm, Van Miert, Nagtegaal, Stams, & Beld, 2015). In

the same vein, feedback to staff based on results from work climate research can

improve team functioning and subsequently living group climate because of

parallel processes, that is, a prosocial team climate and respectful leadership can

model a similar living group climate (Van der Helm & Van Raemsdonck, 2015).

Equip (Gibbs, Potter, & Goldstein, 1995) is intended to encourage youth to think

and act responsibly by means of a peer-helping approach, making individuals feel

responsible for each other and actually help each other (Nas, Brugman, & Koops,

2005). The effectiveness of Equip was demonstrated in a meta-analysis conducted

by Van Stam et al. (2014). Non-violent resistance training for prison staff has

shown promising results, but does not focus on relationships among the inmates

116

(Omer, 2004). A training called 'TOP' PM (Top group worker) was developed and

implemented in two Dutch prisons and seems promising, because it makes group

workers aware of their influence on living group climate, accounting for group

dynamics (Van der Helm, Boekee, & Seib, 2011b). In a Dutch forensic residential

institution a de-escalation officer was appointed, who mediates in conflicts

between staff and patients and among patients themselves, which positively

affected living group climate (Jansen et al., 2014). Finally, in order to have a

positive impact on empathy development, living group climate interventions

should create a positive learning environment for the juveniles, in particular

providing opportunities to practice adequate reactions to social problem

situations (Eltink et al., 2015), which have been shown to be related to empathy

(Heynen, et al, 2015a).

Although the present results are promising, there are some limitations of

this study that need to be acknowledged. First, only self-report measures were

used to assess both empathy and living group climate, which constitutes a risk for

biased results due to socially desirable answer tendencies of the participants, and

may inflate correlations due to common-method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Second, the sample consisted only of male prisoners,

which limits generalizability. Future research should also focus on female

delinquents because of the differences in empathic responses by males and

females (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004). Third, the present study was conducted in a

small sample, which did not allow for multi-level analysis to account for statistical

dependency (inmates are nested within living groups). Results should be

replicated in a larger prospective longitudinal study with at least three

measurement waves in order to facilitate the examination of transactional

processes and contextual effects by means of multi-level analyses. Ideally, self-

reports should be combined with staff ratings, independent observations of living

group climate, registered incidents and prison misconduct (Ros et al., 2012). A

final limitation is related to the fact that we did not control for empathy during the

first measurement wave and not for living group climate during the second

measurement wave, which sets limits to the causal interpretation of our study

117

findings because individual stability of both empathy and perceptions of living

group climate have not been taken into account when examining the relation

between living group climate and empathy over a 6-month period.

The present results have to be interpreted with great caution. Only an

experimental replication of this study with an intervention targeting living group

climate warrants causal conclusions about the influence of living group climate on

the development of empathy during detention. Current results show that there is

an association between living group climate and empathy. Notably, it is plausible

to suggest that empathy is influenced by perception of the social environment

(i.e., living group climate), while in turn perception of the social environment is

affected by one’s role-taking capacity, including empathy. Future research should

therefore examine reciprocal effects between living group climate and empathy.

The present study is one of the first quantitative studies investigating the

relation between living group climate and empathy within a sample of

incarcerated juvenile offenders in a youth correctional facility over a 6-moths

period. Results showed a positive living group climate to be associated with

empathy. The present results pave the way to further research into the

importance of group processes in residential juvenile justice facilities. The present

study and previous studies indicate that a positive living group climate may be a

major factor in the effectiveness of secure institutional treatment, and could result

in a range of positive outcomes.

118

REFERENCES Arbuckle, J.L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS. Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct a longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behaviour. 42, 196-218. DOI. 10.1177/0093854814550710. Beijersbergen, K.A., Dirkzwager, A.J.E., Eichelsheim, V.I., Van der Laan, P.H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2014). Procedural justice and prisoners mental health problems: A longitudinal study. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 24, 100-112. DOI 10.1002/cbm.1881. Bryant, B.K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development. 53, 413-425.DOI 10.2307/1128984. Bundesministerium der Justiz et al., (2007). Freiheitsentzug. Die Empfehlung des Europarates – Europaische Strafvollzugsgrundsatze 2006, [Deprivation of Liberty. Reccomendations of the European Council] Monchengladbach. Cohen, D. & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disorder and comparison youth. Developmental psychology. 32, 988-998. DOI.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.988. De Swart, J., (2011). De professionele jeugdzorgwerker [the professional youth care worker]. Doctoral dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. De Waal, F. B. M. (2008). “Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy.” Annual Review of Psychology. 59, 279-300. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625. Eisenberg, N., Spinard, T., & Sadovsky, A. (2006). “Empathy-related responding in children,” in Handbook of Moral Development,eds M. Killen and J. Smetana (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers), 517–549. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Shepard, S. A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 15, 235-260. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532- 7795.2005.00095. Eltink, E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I.B., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2015). The relation between living group climate and reactions to social problem situations in detained adolescents. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 14, 101- 109. DOI. 10.1080/14999013.2015.1033110 . Fabes, R. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1998). Meta-analyses of age and sex differences in children’s and adolescents’ prosocial behavior. Handbook of Child Psychology, 3. Gibbs, J.C., Potter, G.B., & Goldstein, A.P. (1995). The EQUIP program: Teaching youth to think and act responsibly through a peer-helping approach, Research Press.

119

Heynen, E.J.E., Behrens, E., & Van der Helm, G.H.P. (2015). Evaluation der Gruppenklima Forschung in Deutschland und den Niederlanden auf der Grundlage eines Vergleichs der verschiedenen Behandlungsmöglichkeiten in den jeweiligen Jugendstrafvollzugssystemen. [Evaluation of living group climate research in Germany and the Netherlands based on the different treatment possibilities]. Manuscript submitted for publication. Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Cima, M.J., Stams, G.J.J.M, & Korebrits, A.M. (2015) The relation between aggression, CU-traits and living group climate in delinquent boys in youth detention. Manuscript submitted for publication. Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P, Stams, G.J.J.M., & Korebrits A.M. (2014). Measuring group climate in a German youth prison – A german validation of the prison group climate instrument (PGCI). Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. 14, 45- 54. DOI.10.1080/15228932.2013.868176 . Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Stams, G.J.J.M, & Korebrits, A.M. (2015). Measuring empathy in a German youth prison – a validation of the German version of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES) in a sample of incarcerated juvenile offenders. Manuscript submitted for publication. Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P, Wissink, I.B., Stams, G.J.J.M., & Moonen, X.M.H. (2015). I don’t care about what you want - The relation between juvenile delinquents’ Responses to social problem situations and empathy in secure juvenile institutions. Journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology. Hogan, R.D. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 33, 307-316. DOI.org/10.1037/h0027580. Hoogsteder, L.M., Van Horn, J.E., Stams, G.J.J.M., Wissink, I.B., & Hendriks, J. (in press). The relationship between the level of program integrity and pre- and post-test changes of responsive-aggression regulation therapy (Re-ART) outpatient: a pilot study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X14554828 . Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling. 6, 1–55. DOI:10.1080/10705519909540118. Jansen, L., Miert, V. S. L., Roest., J. J., Dekker, A. L., Van der Helm. G. H. P., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2014). Onderzoeksrapport het leefklimaat van Inforsa in 2013 (living group climate at Inforsa 2013, internal report). Leiden: Hogeschool Leiden. Jolliffe, D. & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 9, 441–476. DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001. Jolliffe, D. & Farrington D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence. 29, 589–611. DOI:10.1016.

120

Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Liebling, A. (2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality and prison life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Nas, C. N., Brugman, D., & Koops, W. (2005). Effects of the EQUIP programme on the moral judgement, cognitive distortions, and social skills of juvenile delinquents. Psychology, Crime & Law. 11, 421-434. DOI.10.1080/10683160500255703. Omer, H. (2004) Nonviolent resistance. A new approach to violent and self-destructive children. Cambridge University Press. New York. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 (6251), aac4716. Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: The decline of violence in history and its causes. Penguin UK. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88,: 879– 903.DOI:10.1037/0021- 9010.88.5.879. Ros, N., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I., Schaftenaar, P., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2013). Institutional climate and aggression in a secure psychiatric setting. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 24, 713-727. DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2013.848460. Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Loughran, T.A., & Losoya, S.H. (2012). Perceptions of Institutional Experience and Community Outcomes for Serious Adolescent Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 39: 71-93. DOI: 10.1177/0093854811426710. Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review in Clinical Psychology. 5, 47-73. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153603 Souverein F., Van der Helm G.H.P., & Stams G.J.J.M, (2013). `Nothing works` in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review. 35, 1941-1945. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.010. Van der Helm, G.H.P., Boekee, I., & Seib, S. (2011b). Handleiding training Top PM [ training manual Top PM]. Leiden: Hogeschool Leiden. Van der Helm, G.H.P., & Stams, G.J.J. M. (2012). Conflict and coping by clients and group workers in secure residential facilities. In: Oei, K. & Groenhuizen, M. Progression in Forensic Psychiatry: About Boundaries, 553-564. Amsterdam: Kluwer. Van der Helm, G.H.P., Stams, G.J.J.M., & Van der Laan, P. (2011). Measuring group climate in prison. The Prison Journal. 91, 158-176. DOI: 10.1177/0032885511403595. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M. , Van der Stel, J. C., Van Langen, M. A. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2012). Group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated

121

boys. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 56, 1149–1160. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11421649. Van der Helm, G.H.P, Stams, G.J.J.M, Van Genabeek, M., & Van der Laan, P.H. (2012b). Group climate, personality, and self-reported aggression in incarcerated male youth. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 23, 23-39. DOI:10.1080/14789949.2011.633615. Van der Helm, L. Beunk, G.J. Stams & P. Van der Laan (2014). The relation between detention length, living group climate, coping, and treatment motivation among juvenile delinquents in a youth correctional facility. The Prison Journal. 94, 260- 275. DOI:10.1177/0032885514524884. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Miert, V. S. L., Nagtegaal, J., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Beld, M. H. M. (2015). Rapportage justitiële jeugdinrichtingen 2014, een onderzoek naar het leef- , leer- en werkklimaat binnen de justitiële jeugdinrichtingen.[Report juvenile justice institutions 2014, research about living group climate, learning climate and working climate in juvenile justice institutions] Leiden: Hogeschool Leiden. Van der Helm, G.H.P., & Van Raemsdock, K. (in press) Stabilizing and improving living group climate in a secure facility for adolescents with a mild intellectual disability. In: Didden, R. & Moonen, X (2015 in press). Handboek LVB en psychopathologie [Handbook MID and Psychopathology]. Van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (2014). Prosocial development and situational morality, neurobiological, parental and contextual factors, in pathways to peace: The transformative power of children and families. The MIT Press, DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027984.003.0010. Van Langen, M.A.M., Wissink, I.B. Van Vugt, E.S., Van der Stouwe, T., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: a meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 179-189. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003 Van Stam, M.A., Van der Schuur, W.A., Tserkezis, S., Van Vugt, E.S., Asscher, J.J., Gibbs, J.C., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2014). The effectiveness of Equip on sociomoral development and recidivism reduction: A meta-analytic study. Children and Youth Services Review. 38, 260-275. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.002. Van Vugt, E.S., Gibbs, J.C., Stams, G.J.J.M., Bijleveld, C., Van der Laan, P.H., & Hendriks, J. (2011). Moral development and recidivism: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 55, 1234-1250. DOI 10.1177/0306624X11396441.

122

123

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND EPILOGUE

‘NO GUTS NO GAINS'

124

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present dissertation comprises five studies examining the relation between

living group climate quality and empathy, aggression, callous and unemotional

(CU)-traits and responses to social problem situations in juvenile delinquents

residing in German and Dutch juvenile justice facilities.

As living group climate was the main concept of this dissertation and there

was no instrument available to assess living group climate in Germany, the Prison

Group Climate Instrument (PGCI; Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011) was

translated and validated for the German context (chapter 2). Confirmatory factor

analysis of the original four factor model, with support, growth, repression and

atmosphere as reliable dimensions, showed a good fit to the data, indicating

construct validity and reliability of the German PGCI. Preliminary support was

found for convergent validity. Internal consistency reliabilities were sufficient.

´Support´ and ´growth´ loaded highest on the ´overall group climate´ scale. This is

in line with the findings of the Dutch validation study, showing that ´support´ and

´growth´ are the most prominent indicators of living group climate in prison (Van

der Helm et al., 2011). Support by group workers and their responsivity to the

personal needs of the inmates can facilitate successful rehabilitation during

detention (Souverein, Van der Helm, & Stams, 2013). In future research, the

German version of the PGCI can be used to assess living group climate in judicial

and forensic psychiatric residential institutions in Germany. Investigation of living

group climate on a regular basis can help to improve safety and treatment

outcomes of juvenile offenders.

In chapter 3 the validity and reliability of the German version of the Basic

Empathy Scale (BES) was investigated in a youth prison sample. As previous

research with the BES in the Netherlands, Italy or China was conducted in a non-

clinical or mixed (clinical and non-clinical population) sample, the present study

was one of the first within a group of incarcerated juvenile offenders. The study

provided insight into the empathic faculties of young prison inmates by

125

investigating cognitive and affective empathy. A confirmatory factor analysis with

two reliable factors (cognitive and affective empathy) showed a good fit to the

data with a reduced 12-item model. Concurrent validity of the BES was

demonstrated in correlations between cognitive empathy and callous-

unemotional traits. This is in line with a meta-analysis demonstrating that juvenile

delinquents with psychopathic traits show a lack of moral cognition (Stams et al.,

2006). A significant correlation between affective empathy and CU-traits was also

expected (Dadds et al., 2009; Pechorro et al., 2015; Munoz, Qualter, & Padget,

2011), but could not be confirmed, possibly because juvenile delinquents tend to

hide their emotions for fear of being considered as weak by their peers (Van der

Helm et al., 2012). Finally, partial evidence was found for concurrent validity of

the German version of the BES, namely, for cognitive empathy only. The results of

this study were promising, but a replication study is needed to test convergent,

divergent and predictive validity as well as test-retest reliability of the German

BES. The present validation study was conducted in a diverse sample (education,

ethical background and type of offense) of male incarcerated juvenile offenders,

whereas most validation studies of the BES have been conducted in more

homogeneous samples of non-delinquent youth. Although only 12 items of the

original 20-item version were retained, the adapted BES could still be considered

a promising instrument to investigate two dimensions of empathy (affective and

cognitive) in young detained German offenders, in particular because these 12

items seem to adequately represent both affective and cognitive empathy.

Chapter 4 examined the relation between juveniles’ responses to social

problem situations and cognitive and affective empathy in a group of detained

juvenile offenders in Dutch secure juvenile institutions. Results provided

preliminary evidence of associations between problematic responses to social

problem situations and empathy. Inadequate coping with competition was

negatively related to cognitive empathy, and problems with receiving or giving

help were negatively related to affective empathy. Difficulties in accepting

authority were negatively related to both affective and cognitive empathy. The

relation between social disadvantage and cognitive empathy was mediated by

126

inadequate coping with competition, while the relation between social

disadvantage and affective empathy was mediated by problems with accepting

authority. There was also a trend, showing that accepting authority mediated the

relation between receiving/giving help and cognitive empathy. It appears that the

degree to which incarcerated adolescents accept authority provides the key to

understanding the relation between responses to social problem behavior and

empathy. The central role of ‘authority’ indicates that group workers could

influence adolescents’ empathy development by being either unresponsive or

responsive to the developmental needs of the juvenile delinquents. As social

problem situations lie at the heart of inappropriate and aggressive reactions

(Van der Helm et al., 2012b), results of this study open the way to further

research into the effectiveness of group interventions with incarcerated

adolescents, and possibilities of empathy development with subsequent

recidivism reduction (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Van Langen, Wissink, Van Vugt,

Van der Strouwe, & Stams, 2014).

Chapter 5 of this dissertation focused on the associations between living

group climate, (reactive and proactive) aggression and CU-traits (callousness,

unemotional and uncaring). We conducted structural equation modeling to

examine possible associations between living group climate, reactive and

proactive aggression and CU-traits. Results showed that the perception of a

repressive living group climate was associated with more reactive aggression and

callousness. These findings are consistent with the deprivation hypothesis,

indicating that a repressive climate is related to more antisocial behavior within

prison (Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996). Furthermore, there was a negative

association between atmosphere and uncaring. The present results were in line

with previous research showing the distinctiveness of reactive aggressive behavior

in response to perceived adverse environmental circumstances, including

repression, and proactive aggressive behavior, which is instrumental and

anticipates reward (Card & Little, 2006; Kempes, Matthys, De Vries, & Van

Engeland, 2005; Polman, Orobio de Castro, Koops, Van Boxtel, & Merk, 2007;

Raine et al., 2006). The present findings, however, were not in line with previous

127

research conducted in the Netherlands, where repression proved to be unrelated

to aggression. Whereas in the Netherlands juvenile delinquents receive structured

clinical treatment during detention in order to reduce the risk of criminal offense

recidivism (Hoogsteder et al., 2014), in German youth prison the focus is on

education. It is thus plausible to suggest that the relation between living group

climate and aggression might be affected by differences in the juvenile prison

systems between Germany and the Netherlands.

Until today, there is still a lack of research on the influence of living group

climate on offender treatment (Listwan, 2013; Marshall & Burton, 2010; Schubert,

Mulvey, Loughran, & Losoya, 2012). Chapter 6 adds to the limited body of

empirical research examining the effects of living group climate quality on

(cognitive and affective) empathy during incarceration, replicating the study by

Van der Helm, Stams, Van der Stel, Van Langen and Van der Laan (2012) in the

Netherlands on the relation between living group climate and empathy in

detained juvenile delinquents in Germany. A structural equation model was fitted

to the data. Results showed a relation between a positive living group climate in

terms of low repression and high support from staff, opportunities for growth, a

positive group atmosphere, and increased levels of empathy after six months of

prison stay, which concurs with results from Van der Helm et al.’s (2012) initial

study on living group climate and empathy. Although the results have to be

interpreted with great caution, results point to the key role group workers play in

establishing an open living group climate and providing effective treatment,

indicating that a positive living group climate may be a major factor in the

effectiveness of secure institutional treatment and could result in a range of

positive outcomes (De Swart, 2011; Liebling, 2004; Ros et al., 2013; Souverein, Van

der Helm, & Stams, 2013).

Some further remarks

The validation study of the German version of the PGCI confirms the cross-cultural

validity of the four main concepts of the PGCI (support, growth, repression and

128

atmosphere), while the validation study of the German version of the BES

confirmed the cross-cultural validity of affective and cognitive empathy. At the

same time, different factor structures of both the PGCI (Heynen, Van der Helm,

Stams, & Korebrits, 2014; Van der Helm et al., 2011) and BES (Heynen, Van der

Helm, Stams, & Korebrits, 2015; Pechorro et al., 2015; Van Langen, Wissink,

Stams, Asscher, & Hoeve, 2015) in various countries indicate that these

assessment instruments need further development in order to meet the criterion

of measurement invariance.

In 2010 Marshall and Burton called for more research on group processes

in offender treatment. The results of the studies described in chapter 5 and 6 add

to the limited body of research on these group processes, and show the

importance of an open and therapeutic living group climate and low repression

for the reduction of aggressive behavior and CU-traits and the development of

empathy. Results of the study described in chapter 4 particularly highlight the

important role of staff-adolescent relationship quality for empathy development,

which concurs with results from meta-analyses examining the relation between

therapeutic alliance and treatment outcomes (Martin, Garske, & Davis, 2000;

McLeod, 2011).

Research on group dynamics in secure forensic settings point to the key

role of the social environment and the role group workers and staff play in

establishing an open living group climate to provide effective treatment (De Swart

et. al, 2011; Liebling, 2004; Ros et al., 2013; Souverein et al., 2013). Research

shows that especially those inmates who face long sentences are becoming more

depressive and loose hope for the future (Van der Helm, Beunk, Stams, & Van der

Laan, 2014). This diminishes contact with group workers and the ‘long wait inside’

also fosters more feelings of hopelessness and less perceptions of growth. Also

many inmates may fear their release date, a changed world outside where there

are no opportunities for them except for a life of crime (Edwards & Mottarella,

2015; Petersilia, 2003), which emphasizes the need for effective aftercare (James,

Stams, Asscher, Van der Laan, & De Roo, 2013).

129

Providing an open and positive living group climate should be a main

requirement for group workers and prison staff in all juvenile justice facilities.

Living group climate should therefore be regularly monitored, and improved if

needed, as the Dutch Justice and Security Department has announced in 2013

(Van der Helm, Van Tol, & Stams, 2013). In all Dutch juvenile justice facilities,

living group climate is monitored on a regular basis to provide group workers and

incarcerated adolescents feedback. Results and possibilities for change were

discussed and resulted in gradual improvements of living group climate (Van der

Helm, Van Miert, Nagtegaal, Stams, & Beld, 2015). Additionally, working climate

was assessed in different Dutch juvenile justice facilities (Van der Helm et al.,

2014). Group workers received feedback about team functioning, leadership, and

motivation in their team. While giving combined feedback about living group

climate and working climate regularly, institutional climate can improve, but

robust research is still sparse. It is thus important to keep on working on the

improvement of group workers’ understanding of a positive living group climate.

Although results are promising, there still is a lack of experimental and

longitudinal research. Future studies should focus on the development of more

specific evidence based interventions to improve living group climate in juvenile

justice facilities (Marshall & Burton, 2010; Weisz et al., 2013). These experiments

possibly require some measures that deviate from former (19th century) punitive

approaches, which assume that locking up will stimulate remorse, reconsidering

punitive ways of treating young criminals (Dadds & Salmon, 2003; Logan & Gaes,

2003; Parke, 1969; Singer, 1970). Societal courage is needed to apply evidence-

based treatment in the face of public concerns and demands for punishment and

revenge (De Valk et al., 2015) and to continue in the steps of previous prison

reformers, like Howard, Gladstone or Patterson, who in their time tried to

introduce a rehabilitative prison climate. New concepts of ‘community prisons’ or

‘half way houses’ may constitute promising alternatives, but still need to be

examined in robust experimental research.

130

Limitations

The results of the studies that make up this dissertation were based on adolescent

self-report only. It can therefore not be excluded that social desirable answer

tendencies affected the results. Moreover, shared method variance may have

increased the magnitude of associations between living group climate, responses

to social problem situations, empathy, aggression and CU-traits. Future studies

should therefore use a mixed method approach by combining different sources of

information, such as behavioral observations, staff ratings and registered

aggression incidents.

Another limitation pertains to the cross-sectional nature of the studies

performed in chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5. Only chapter 6 describes results of a study

with data obtained on two measurement occasions. In future research, a

longitudinal study with multiple measurements may show whether juveniles’

perception of living group climate during detention predicts adaptation outside

prison. It would also be interesting to investigate the effects of the environment

outside prison on the maintenance of positive outcomes of residential treatment.

A longitudinal study with at least three measurement waves allows for the

examination of transactional processes between living group climate and

individual behavior of detained juvenile delinquents.

Finally, the studies presented in this dissertation only provide

correlational evidence for the effects of living group climate on juveniles’ social

development, which sets limits to the causal interpretation of the results.

Causality can only be inferred through the use of an experimental design,

targeting living group climate by means of an intervention. However, to our

knowledge, there are no experimental studies investigating the effects of living

group climate on actual behavior. In addition, there seem to be no studies

examining living group climate as a moderator of treatment effects in residential

youth care institutions.

131

To conclude, although this dissertation and previous studies indicate that

living group climate may play an important role in residential treatment of juvenile

offenders, robust scientific evidence is still lacking. Notably, the meta-analysis by

De Swart et al. (2011) and several (quantitative) reviews by Andrews and Bonta

(2010) and others (e.g., Lipsey, 2009) suggest that successful rehabilitation of

justice-involved adolescents can only be achieved through evidence-based

treatment of dynamic risk factors and strengthening protective factors. From this

perspective, it would be particularly interesting to examine whether or not an

open and therapeutic living group climate constitutes a necessary condition for

effective residential treatment, and to examine the degree to which repression

and coercion undermine the effects of evidence-based treatment (De Valk et al.,

2015; Lipsey, 2009; Souverein et al., 2013).

132

EPILOGUE ‘NO GUTS NO GAINS’

Research results of this dissertation could be seen as the basis for future

experimental research on the effects of living group climate on rehabilitation of

juvenile offenders. Moving away from traditional 18th century opinion about

crime, punishment and retribution to empirically supported prison reform from

the perspective of children’s rights requires courage to change the system and

experiment with alternative approaches [“GUTS”]. Without that there will be no

“GAINS” or progress, that is, successful rehabilitation of young prison inmates and

a safer, more humane and moral society (Shermer, 2015).

At the end of a horse riding session a rider will always loosen the reins to

reward the horse for its good cooperation. At the end of a detention, group

workers in prison have also to loosen the reins to let youngsters go out.

Unknowingly whether they will use the skills they have learned during detention

and often wondering how long it will take to see them back, because recidivism

remains high (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006). This high recidivism not only indicates

the urgent need for evidence based treatment to ‘turn the tide’, but also the need

to learn more about the conditions under which evidence-treatment can work.

133

REFERENCES Dadds, M.R., & Salmon, K. (2003). Punishment insensitivity and parenting: temperament and learning as interacting risks for antisocial behavior. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 6, 69-86. DOI 10.1023/A:1023762009877. De Swart, J., Van den Broek, H., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., Van der Laan, P. H.,

Holbrink, G., & Van der Helm, G. H. P. (2011). The effectiveness of institutional

youth care. Children and Youth Services Review. 34, 1818–1824. DOI:

10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.05.015.

De Valk, S., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Beld, M., Schaftenaar, P., Kuiper, C., & Stams, G. J.

(2015). Does punishment in secure residential youth care work? An overview of

the evidence. Journal of Children's Services. 10, 3-16. DOI10.1108/JCS-11-2014-

0048.

Edwards, E.R., & Mottarella, K. (in press). Perceptions of the Previously Convicted: The

Influence of Conviction Type and Therapy Participation. International Journal of

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.

Eltink, E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I.B. & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2015). The relation

between living group climate and reactions to social problem situations in

detained adolescents. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 14, 101-

109. DOI. 10.1080/14999013.2015.1033110.

Harer M.D., & Steffensmeier, D.J., (1996). Race and prison violence. Criminology, 34, 323-

355, DOI:10.1111/j-1745-9125.1996.tb012.10.x.

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Cima, M.J., Stams, G.J.J.M, & Korebrits, A.M.

(submitted for publication, a). The relation between aggression, CU-traits and

living group climate in delinquent boys in youth detention.

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Cima, M.J., Stams, G.J.J.M, & Korebrits, A.M.

(submitted for publication, b). Feelings of others, don’t impress me much –The

effects of living group climate on empathy in adolescent male offenders.

Heynen, E.J.E., Behrens, E., & Van der Helm, G.H.P., (submitted for publication). Evaluation

der Gruppenklima Forschung in Deutschland und den Niederlanden auf der

Grundlage eines Vergleichs der verschiedenen Behandlungsmöglichkeiten in den

jeweiligen Jugendstrafvollzugssystemen. [Evaluation of living group climate

research in Germany and the Netherlands based on the different treatment

134

possibilities].

Heynen E.J.E., van der Helm, G.H.P, Stams G.J.J.M, Korebrits A.M., (2014). Measuring

group climate in German youth prison - A German validation of the `Prison Group

Climate Instrument´ (PGCI), Journal of forensic psychology practice, 14, 45-54,

DOI:10.1080/15228932.2013.868176.

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Stams, G.J.J.M, & Korebrits, A.M. (submitted for

publication) MeasuringEmpathy in a German Youth Prison – A validation of the

German version of the `Basic Empathy Scale´ (BES) in a sample of incarcerated

juvenile offenders.

Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The dangers of detention: The impact of incarcerating

youth in detention and other secure facilities (p. 9). Washington, DC: Justice Policy

Institute.

James, C., Stams, G.J.J.M., Asscher, J.J., Van der Laan, P.H., & De Roo, A.C. (2013).

Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult

offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 263-274.

Jolliffe, D. & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and

meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 9, 441–476, DOI:10.1016/

j.avb.2003.03.001.

Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). Introduction: The effects of imprisonment revisited. In A.

Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 1-32). Cullompton,

UK: Willan.

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with

juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders. 4, 124–147.

DOI: 10.1080/15564880802612573.

Listwan, S. J. (2013). Introduction to Juvenile Justice. Bridgepoint Publishing.

Logan, G. & Gaes, G. (1993). Meta-analysis and the rehabilitation of punishment, Justice

Quarterly. 10, 245-263.

Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender

treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15. 141–149.

DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.008.

Martin, D., Garske, J., & Davis, M. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with

outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 68, 438–450. McLeod, B. D. (2011) Relation of the alliance with outcomes in youth psychotherapy: A

135

meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 603–616.

Parke, R. D. (1969). Effectiveness of punishment as an interaction of intensity, timing,

agent nurturance, and cognitive structuring. Child Development, 213-235.

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford

University Press.

Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Loughran, T.A., & Losoya, S.H., (2012). Perceptions of

Institutional Experience and Community Outcomes for Serious Adolescent

Offenders, Criminal Justice and Behavior. 39, 71-93, DOI:

10.1177/0093854811426710.

Singer, B.F., Psychological Studies of Punishment, 58 Cal. L. Rev. 405 (1970). Retrieved 15

november 2013 at:

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol58/iss2/3.

Souverein F., Van der Helm G.H.P & Stams G.J.J.M, (2013). `Nothing works` in secure

residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review. 35, 1941-1945.

DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.010.

Stams, G. J., Brugman, D., Deković, M., van Rosmalen, L., van der Laan, P., & Gibbs, J. C.

(2006). The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: a meta-analysis. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology. 34, 692-708, DOI:10,1007/s10802-006-9056-5.

Van der Helm, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Measuring group climate

in prison. The Prison Journal. 91, 158–176. DOI: 10.1177/0032885511403595

Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M. , Van der Stel, J. C., Van Langen, M. A. M., & Van

der Laan, P. H. (2012). Group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated

boys. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 56,

1149–1160. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11421649.

Van der Helm, G.H.P, Stams, G.J.J.M, Van Genabeek, M., & Van der Laan, P.H. (2012b).

Group climate, personality, and self-reported aggression in incarcerated male

youth. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 23, 23-39.

DOI:10.1080/14789949.2011.633615.

Van der Helm, G. H. P., Wissink, I. B., De Jongh, T., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2012c). Measuring

treatment motivation in secure juvenile facilities. International Journal of

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 57, 996-1008.

DOI:0306624X12443798.

Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Tol, N., Stams, G. J. J. M. (2013). De invloed van het

orthopedagogisch klimaat in de residentiële justitiële jeugdzorg:

136

recidivevermindering door opvoeding, behandeling en scholing. Een

wetenschappelijke onderbouwing. [The influences of living group climate in

residential youth care: decreasing recidivism by care, cure and schooling. A

scientific approach], National advice report Dutch ministry of Justice.

Van der Helm, L. Beunk, G.J. Stams & P. Van der Laan (2014). The relation between

detention length, living group climate, coping, and treatment motivation among

juvenile delinquents in a youth correctional facility. The Prison Journal. 94, 260-

275. DOIi:10.1177/0032885514524884.

Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Miert, V. S. L., Nagtegaal, J., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Beld, M. H. M.

(2015). Rapportage justitiële jeugdinrichtingen 2014, een onderzoek naar het leef-

, leer- en werkklimaat binnen de justitiële jeugdinrichtingen. [Report juvenile

justice institutions 2014, research about living group climate, learning climate and

working climate in juvenile justice institutions] Leiden: Hogeschool Leiden.

Van der Helm, G.H.P & Van Raemsdock, K. (in press) Stabilizing and improving living group

climate in a secure facility for adolescents with a mild intellectual disability. In:

Didden, R. & Moonen, X (2015 in press). Handboek LVB en psychopathologie

[Handbook MID and Psychopathology].

Van der Helm, G.H.P, Beunk, L. , Stams, G.J.J.M & van der Laan, P.H. (2014). The relation

between detention length, living group climate, coping and treatment motivation

among juvenile delinquents in a youth correctional facility. The Prison Journal. 94,

260-275. DOI: 10.1177/0032885514524884.

Van Langen, M., Wissink, I. B., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., & Hoeve, M. (2015). A

validation study of the Dutch translation of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES).

Manuscript Submitted for Publication.

Van Langen, M.A.M., Wissink, I.B., Van Vugt, E.S., Van der Stouwe, T., & Stams, G.J.J.M.

(2014). The relation between empathy and offending: a meta-analysis. Aggression

and Violent Behavior. 19, 179-189, DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003.

Ward, T., Melser, J., & Yates, P. M. (2007). Reconstructing the risk need responsivity

model: a theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggression and Violent Behavior.

12, 208-228, DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2006.07.001.

137

SUMMARY

138

One of the main goals of imprisonment of juvenile offenders between 12-24

years, not solely in the Netherlands and Germany, is treatment and rehabilitation

into the social world (Bruning et. al., 2011; Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009;

Harvey, 2005; Liebling & Maruna, p. 18, 2005; Wolthuis & Vandenbroeke, 2009).

Youth detention is living with strict rules and regulations and can negatively affect

juvenile’s behavior (Köhler, 2004). Today, there is abundant knowledge on the

effects of individual treatment of juvenile offenders (Garrido & Morales, 2007;

Lipsey, 2009), but in particular, the influences of the ‘social-together’ on the

development and behavior of inmates needs further examination (Marshall &

Burton, 2010). A positive living group climate in residential youth care can be the

foundation of successful treatment and rehabilitation (Van der Helm, Stams, Van

der Stel, Van Langen, & Van der Laan, 2012; Van der Helm, Van Tol, & Stams,

2013).

But how can a positive living group climate be defined? Already in 1953, the

World Health Organization stated that “climate is the single most important factor

in the efficacy of treatment” (p. 17) administered to psychiatric patients. Today’s

living group climate research is based on the following definition of social climate:

“the material, social, and emotional conditions of a given unit and the interaction

between such factors” (Moos, 1989). The social climate is thus defined as a

multifactorial construct based on different mechanisms that describe how social

relationships in a group are experienced by the persons living and working in this

group.

The PGCI questionnaire is central for the investigation of living group

climate research in the present dissertation. Four factors characterize living group

climate: support, growth, repression and atmosphere (Van der Helm et al., 2011).

The scale for support assesses the support prisoners perceive from staff. The

growth scale measures juvenile’s developmental possibilities and hope for the

future. The repression scale evaluates the perceived repression, strictness of rules

and control, lack of fairness and flexibility in the living group. Finally, the group

atmosphere scale assesses the degree to which the physical and social

environment can foster feelings of safety and trust among the inmates (Van der

139

Helm et al., 2011). An open living group climate is defined by high levels of

support, ample opportunities for growth, minimal repression and a clean, safe

and structured environment, with clear rules and a daily routine in which inmates

and workers trust and respect each other (Van der Helm et al., 2011). The findings

of the present dissertation are based on research conducted in German and Dutch

juvenile justice institutions.

As living group climate was the main concept of this dissertation and there

was no instrument available to assess living group climate in Germany, the Prison

Group Climate Instrument (PGCI; Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011) was

translated and validated for the German context (chapter 2). Confirmatory factor

analysis of the original four factor model, with support, growth, repression and

atmosphere as reliable dimensions, showed a good fit to the data, indicating

construct validity and reliability of the German PGCI. In future research, the

German version of the PGCI can be used to assess living group climate in judicial

and forensic institutions in Germany. Investigation of living group climate on a

regular basis can help to improve safety and treatment outcomes of juvenile

offenders.

In chapter 3 the validity and reliability of the German version of the Basic

Empathy Scale (BES) was investigated in a youth prison sample. A confirmatory

factor analysis with two reliable factors (cognitive and affective empathy) showed

a good fit to the data with a reduced 12-item model. Concurrent validity of the

BES was demonstrated in correlations between cognitive empathy and callous-

unemotional traits. The results of this study were promising, but a replication

study is needed to test convergent, divergent and predictive validity as well as

test-retest reliability of the German BES.

Chapter 4 examined the relation between juveniles’ responses to social

problem situations and cognitive and affective empathy in a group of detained

juvenile offenders in Dutch secure juvenile institutions. Results provided

preliminary evidence of associations between problematic responses to social

problem situations and empathy. Inadequate coping with competition was

negatively related to cognitive empathy, and problems with receiving or giving

140

help were negatively related to affective empathy. Difficulties in accepting

authority were negatively related to both affective and cognitive empathy. The

relation between social disadvantage and cognitive empathy was mediated by

inadequate coping with competition, while the relation between social

disadvantage and affective empathy was mediated by problems with accepting

authority. Results of this study open the way to further research into the

effectiveness of group interventions with incarcerated adolescents.

Chapter 5 of this dissertation focused on the associations between living

group climate, aggression and CU-traits. Results of the structural equation model

showed that the perception of a repressive living group climate was associated

with more reactive aggression and callousness. Furthermore, there was a negative

association between atmosphere and uncaring. The present findings suggest that

the relation between living group climate and aggression might be affected by

differences in the juvenile prison systems between Germany and the Netherlands.

To date, there is still a lack of research on the influence of living group

climate on offender treatment (Listwan, 2013; Marshall & Burton, 2010; Schubert,

Mulvey, Loughran, & Losoya, 2012). Chapter 6 adds to the limited body of

empirical research examining the effects of living group climate quality on

empathy during incarceration. A structural equation model was fitted to the data.

Results showed a relation between a positive living group climate in terms of low

repression and high support from staff, opportunities for growth, a positive group

atmosphere and increased levels of empathy after six months of prison stay.

Although the results have to be interpreted with great caution, results point to the

key role group workers play in establishing an open living group climate and

providing effective treatment.

Research on group dynamics in secure forensic settings point to the key

role of the social environment and the role group workers and staff play in

establishing an open living group climate to provide effective treatment (De Swart

et al, 2011; Liebling, 2004; Listwan, 2013; Ros et al., 2013; Souverein et al., 2013).

Providing an open and positive living group climate should be a main requirement

for group workers and prison staff in all juvenile justice facilities. Living group

141

climate should therefore be regularly monitored, and improved if needed, as the

Dutch Justice and Security Department has announced in 2013 (Van der Helm,

Van Tol, & Stams, 2013). In all Dutch juvenile justice facilities, living group climate

is monitored on a regular basis to provide group workers and incarcerated

adolescents feedback. Results and possibilities for change were discussed and

resulted in gradual improvements of living group climate (Van der Helm, Van

Miert, Nagtegaal, Stams, & Beld, 2015). Additionally, working climate was

assessed in different Dutch juvenile justice facilities (Van der Helm et al., 2014).

Group workers received feedback about team functioning, leadership, and

motivation in their team. While giving combined feedback about living group

climate and working climate regularly, institutional climate can improve, but

robust research is still sparse. It is thus important to keep on working on the

improvement of group workers’ understanding of a positive living group climate.

Without “GUTS” like the improvement of living group climate, there will be no

“GAINS” or progress, in terms of a positive social development and recidivism

reduction in juvenile offenders

142

REFERENCES

Bruning, M. R., De Jong, M. P., Liefaard, T., Schuyt, P. M., Doek, J. E., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2011). Wegwijs in het jeugdsanctierecht [Find your way in youth sanction law]. Wolf Legal Publishers. De Swart, J., (2011). De professionele jeugdzorgwerker [the professional youth care worker]. Doctoral dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R.E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 8, 991–998. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469- 7610.2008.02057.x. Harvey, J. (2005). Young men in prison: Surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton, UK: Willan. Köhler, D. (2004). Psychische Störungen bei jungen Straftätern. [psychological disorders in young juveniles]. Hamburg, Germany: J. Kovac. Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). Introduction: The effects of imprisonment revisited. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 1-32). Cullompton, UK: Willan. Listwan, S. J. (2013). Introduction to Juvenile Justice. Bridgepoint Publishing. Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15. 141–149. Moos, R. H. (1989). Ward Atmosphere Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Ros, N., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I., Schaftenaar, P., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2013). Institutional climate and aggression in a secure psychiatric setting. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 24, 713-727. DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2013.848460. Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Loughran, T.A., & Losoya, S.H., (2012). Perceptions of Institutional Experience and Community Outcomes for Serious Adolescent Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavio. 39, 71-93, DOI: 10.1177/0093854811426710. Souverein F., Van der Helm G.H.P & Stams G.J.J.M, (2013). `Nothing works` in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review. 35, 1941-1945. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.010. Van der Helm, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Measuring group climate in prison. The Prison Journal. 91, 158–176.. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Miert, V. S. L., Nagtegaal, J., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Beld, M. H. M. (2015). Rapportage justitiële jeugdinrichtingen 2014, een onderzoek naar het leef, leer- en werkklimaat binnen de justitiëlejeugdinrichtingen. [Report juvenile justice institutions 2014, research about living group climate, learning climate and

143

working climate in juvenile justice institutions] Leiden: Hogeschool Leiden. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M. , Van der Stel, J. C., Van Langen, M. A. M., & Van der Laan, P. H., (2012). Group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated boys. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 56, 1149–1160. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11421649. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Tol, N., Stams, G. J. J. M. (2013). De invloed van het orthopedagogisch klimaat in de residentiële justitiële jeugdzorg: een wetenschappelijke onderbouwing. [The influences of living group climate in residential youth care: decreasing recidivism by care, cure and schooling. A scientific approach], National advice report Dutch ministry of Justice.Leiden Wolthuis, A., & Vandenbroucke, M. (2009). Schade herstellen tijdens jeugddetentie. Een evaluatieonderzoek naar herstelgericht werken in Forensisch Centrum Teylingereind. [Recovering damage during youth detention, an evaluation study to investigate recovery focussed work inthe forensic centre of Teylingereind]. Research Report Verwey Jonker Instituut. World Health Organization. (1953). Expert committee on mental health: 3rd report. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

144

145

NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING

146

In Nederland en Duitsland worden jongeren tussen de 12 en 24 jaar gesloten

geplaatst omdat ze verdacht worden van een ernstig misdrijf (voorarrest) of een

gevangenisstraf hebben gekregen. Jeugddetentie betekent opsluiten van

jongeren. Het doel van detentie in Nederland en vele andere Europese landen is

de preventie van recidive en het bevorderen van rehabilitatie om na verloop van

de detentie een leven zonder delinquentie en straf te kunnen leiden (Bruning et.

al., 2011; Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009; Harvey, 2005; Liebling & Maruna, p. 18,

2005; Wolthuis & Vandenbroeke, 2009). Jeugddetentie betekent ook een leven

met strikte regels en richtlijnen, met vaak negatieve effecten op het gedrag van

de gedetineerden (Köhler, 2004). Tot op heden zijn de gevolgen van opsluiting en

de daaruit resulterende consequenties voor de persoonlijke ontwikkeling van

gedetineerde jongeren ontoereikend onderzocht (Liebling & Maruna, 2005;

Marshall & Burton, 2010; Schubert et al, 2012; Van der Helm, Stams & Van der

Laan, 2011). Recent onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat een positieve sociale

omgeving, oftewel een positief leefklimaat, ertoe kan leiden dat gedetineerde

jongeren zich positief kunnen ontwikkelen (Van der Helm, Stams, Van der Stel,

Van Langen, & Van der Laan, 2012; Van der Helm, Van Tol, & Stams, 2013).

Maar wat is een goed leefklimaat? Reeds in 1953 heeft de

Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WHO) gesteld dat het klimaat de belangrijkste

factor is in de effectiviteit van de behandeling van psychiatrische patiënten (WHO,

1953, p. 17). Het huidige Leefklimaatonderzoek is gebaseerd op de volgende

definitie van een sociaal klimaat: “de materiele, sociale en emotionele

omstandigheden van een omgeving en de interactie tussen deze factoren” (Moos,

1989). Het sociale klimaat dient te worden beschouwd als een multifactorieel

construct gebaseerd op de verschillende mechanismen die essentieel zijn voor de

sociale relaties in een groep. In het geval van jeugddetentie leven gedetineerde

jongeren in groepen van 8-30 jongeren samen (afhankelijk van het land),

gesuperviseerd en begeleid door groepsleiders. Binnen dergelijke leefgroepen

moeten de jongeren zich aanpassen aan geldende regels en normen, wat vaak tot

conflicten kan leiden. Hieronder wordt de term leefklimaat en de daaraan

verbonden concepten kort uitgelegd.

147

De PGCI vragenlijst staat centraal voor het meten van leefklimaat in dit

proefschrift en wordt gekenmerkt door vier factoren: ondersteuning, groei,

repressie en atmosfeer. Ondersteuning staat voor professionele hulp die

medewerkers aan jongeren kunnen bieden en de responsiviteit van de

medewerkers in de bejegening van de jongeren. Groei omschrijft het sociaal en

educatief leren (weer naar school gaan) en de persoonlijke ontwikkeling. Ook

staat groei voor een positieve kijk op de eigen toekomst. Repressie gaat over hoe

strikt en streng jongeren de regels ervaren en de mate van flexibiliteit. Hoe

beleven de jongeren de mate van controle en wordt er eerlijk omgegaan met de

geldende regels en sancties? Atmosfeer gaat over hoe de jongeren de fysieke en

sociale sfeer binnen de leefgroep ervaren. Dit aspect beschrijft of de jongeren zich

veilig voelen en of zij voldoende tot rust kunnen komen binnen de groep waarin

zij verblijven. Hierbij is het ook van belang dat de woongroep opgeruimd en

schoon is en dat frisse lucht en daglicht voldoende ter beschikking staan (Van der

Helm et al., 2011).

Het leefklimaat kan ‘open’ en responsief zijn of ‘gesloten’ en repressief. Een

positief en open leefklimaat wordt gekenmerkt door positieve ondersteuning,

voldoende mogelijkheden tot groei en een positieve atmosfeer in de groep.

Tevens moet de repressie laag en het evenwicht tussen flexibiliteit en controle

van groepsleiders goed zijn. Een gesloten leefklimaat wordt gekenmerkt door

weinig ondersteuning en beperkte mogelijkheden tot groei. De atmosfeer wordt

als negatief en onveilig ervaren en de regels zijn streng en oneerlijk (Van der Helm

et al., 2011).

Het huidige proefschrift omvat 5 studies die de relatie tussen een als

positief ervaren leefklimaat en de sociale ontwikkeling van jeugdige

gedetineerden onderzoeken. Hierbij gaat het vooral om het sociale functioneren,

het verbeteren van empathie, minder geweten- en gevoelloosheid en agressie en

het beter kunnen omgaan met sociale probleemsituaties binnen detentie. Alle

studies in dit proefschrift zijn gebaseerd op onderzoek dat is uitgevoerd in

Duitsland en Nederland.

Tot 2014 bestond geen meetinstrument voor de Duitse jeugddetentie om

148

het leefklimaat binnen de leefgroepen te inventariseren. Om een instrument te

ontwikkelen werd het bestaande Nederlandstalige Prison Group Climate

Instrument (PGCI) naar het Duits vertaald en werd een validatiestudie uitgevoerd

die beschreven wordt in Hoofdstuk 2. Een confirmatieve factoranalyse van het

oorspronkelijke model met de vier factoren ondersteuning, groei, repressie en

sfeer leverde een positief resultaat op. Er is voldoende bewijs gevonden dat het

vertaalde meetinstrument valide en betrouwbaar is. De Duitse versie van de PGCI

kan worden gebruikt om het leefklimaat in Duitse instellingen voor (forensische)

jeugdzorg en jeugddetentie in kaart te brengen en te verbeteren. Resultaten uit

onderzoek met de PGCI kunnen bijdragen aan de verbetering van het klimaat, de

veiligheid van jongeren en medewerkers, het behandelresultaat en de

rehabilitatie van gedetineerde jongeren.

Empathie is een belangrijke sociale ontwikkelingsopgave voor jongeren. In

hoofdstuk 3 wordt de Duitse vertaling van de Basic Empathy Scale (BES)

gevalideerd voor jeugdige delinquenten. Eerdere valideringstudies van de BES

werden vooral uitgevoerd bij jongeren uit de algemene bevolking. Het huidige

onderzoek is een van de weinige onderzoeken binnen een groep jeugdige

delinquenten, die verblijven in detentie. Deze studie biedt inzicht in de processen

van cognitieve en affectieve empathie bij gedetineerde jongeren. Een

confirmatieve factoranalyse ondersteunde de validiteit van een gereduceerde

vragenlijst met 12 vragen, die samen betrouwbaar “cognitieve en affectieve

empathie“ kunnen meten. Resultaten kunnen verder helpen bij het onderzoek

naar werkzame bestanddelen in de rehabilitatie van jeugdige gedetineerden.

In Hoofdstuk 4 wordt de relatie tussen ongepaste reacties op sociale

probleemsituaties en (cognitieve en affectieve) empathie onderzocht. De studie

werd uitgevoerd binnen een groep gedetineerde jongeren in Nederland. De

resultaten laten zien dat problemen in de omgang met competitie negatief

gerelateerd waren aan cognitieve empathie en problemen met het krijgen en

geven van hulp met affectieve empathie. Problemen in het accepteren van

autoriteit waren negatief gerelateerd aan cognitieve en affectieve empathie. De

relatie tussen sociaal in het nadeel zijn en cognitieve empathie werd gemedieerd

149

door inadequate omgang met competitie, terwijl de relatie tussen sociaal in het

nadeel zijn en affectieve empathie gemedieerd werd door problemen met het

accepteren van autoriteit. De resultaten uit dit onderzoek kunnen in de

toekomst worden gebruikt om de effectiviteit van groepsinterventies in

jeugddetentie te verbeteren.

In hoofdstuk 5 ligt de focus op de samenhang tussen leefklimaat,

reactieve en proactieve agressie en geweten- en gevoelloze trekken, genoemd

‘Callous en Unemotional-traits’ (CU-traits). CU-traits zijn een veel voorkomend

probleem bij delinquente jongeren en gaan vaak gepaard met een hoge mate van

agressie. In dit hoofdstuk werd een lineair-structureel model getoetst met

associaties tussen leefklimaat, reactieve en proactieve agressie en CU-traits.

Resultaten laten zien dat een hoge mate van repressie in verband staat met meer

reactieve agressie en meer CU-trekken en een negatieve atmosfeer ook

geassocieerd kan worden met meer CU-traits.

Hoofdstuk 6 focust op de effecten van leefklimaat op de ontwikkeling van

empathie tijdens detentie. Een lineair-structureel model laat zien dat er een

relatie bestaat tussen een positief leefklimaat en verhoogde empathie na 6

maanden detentie bij gedetineerde jongeren. De gerapporteerde resultaten in

deze hoofdstukken onderstrepen het belang van een positief leefklimaat als basis

voor positieve gedragsveranderingen bij delinquente jongeren (hoofdstuk 7).

Geconcludeerd kan worden dat er geïnvesteerd moet worden in een

positief en open leefklimaat en een goede relatie met de jongeren om zo hun

sociaal gedrag te bevorderen (De Swart et. al, 2011; Liebling, 2004; Listwan, 2013;

Ros et al., 2013; Souverein et al., 2013). Dit is met name de taak van de

groepsleiders die werken met jongeren in de leefgroep. Door een responsieve en

open houding zijn zij in staat een positieve balans te vinden tussen flexibiliteit en

controle en kunnen op deze manier zorgdragen voor een positiever klimaat.

Daarom is het belangrijk om na te denken over een structurele verbetering van

het leefklimaat. In 2013 hebben de gezamenlijke directeuren van de Justitiële

Jeugdinrichtingen in Nederland een goed leefklimaat (naast psychiatrische zorg)

als een van de belangrijkste onderdelen van hun visie gemaakt (Van der Helm, van

150

Tol, & Stams, 2013). In een 4-jarig programma wordt in alle instellingen meerdere

malen het leefklimaat gemeten en de resultaten actief teruggekoppeld aan

medewerkers en jongeren (Van der Helm, Van Miert, Nagtegaal, Stams, & Beld,

2015). Additioneel is in enkele Nederlandse instellingen het medewerkersklimaat

gemeten (Van der Helm et al., 2015). Groepsmedewerkers ontvangen feedback

over het team functioneren, leiding en motivatie binnen het team. Door het

regelmatige geven van feedback van de resultaten van het leefklimaat en

medewerkersklimaat kan het leefklimaat binnen de instelling positief veranderen.

Toch is er nog maar weinig robuust onderzoek naar werkzame factoren gedaan.

Het is daarom van groot belang om te blijven investeren in een positief

leefklimaat. Dit vereist moed om het oude denken in termen van straf en

vernedering om te buigen naar ondersteuning en behandeling. Zonder positieve

inzet (“GUTS”), zoals het bevorderen van het leefklimaat, adequate behandeling

en het creëren van ontwikkelingskansen, is er weinig kans op succes (“GAINS”),

zoals een positieve sociale ontwikkeling en recidivevermindering van de

gedetineerde jongeren.

151

REFERENCES

Bruning, M. R., De Jong, M. P., Liefaard, T., Schuyt, P. M., Doek, J. E., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2011). Wegwijs in het jeugdsanctierecht [Find your way in youth sanction law]. Wolf Legal Publishers. De Swart, J., (2011). De professionele jeugdzorgwerker [the professional youth care worker]. Doctoral dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R.E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 8, 991–998. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469- 7610.2008.02057.x. Harvey, J. (2005). Young men in prison: Surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton: Willan. Köhler, D. (2004). Psychische Störungen bei jungen Straftätern. [psychological disorders in young juveniles]. Hamburg, Germany: J. Kovac. Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). Introduction: The effects of imprisonment revisited. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 1-32). Cullompton, UK: Willan. Listwan, S. J. (2013). Introduction to Juvenile Justice. Bridgepoint Publishing. Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15. 141–149. Moos, R. H. (1989). Ward Atmosphere Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Ros, N., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I., Schaftenaar, P., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2013). Institutional climate and aggression in a secure psychiatric setting. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 24, 713-727. DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2013.848460. Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Loughran, T.A., & Losoya, S.H., (2012). Perceptions of Institutional Experience and Community Outcomes for Serious Adolescent Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavio. 39, 71-93, DOI: 10.1177/0093854811426710. Souverein F., Van der Helm G.H.P & Stams G.J.J.M, (2013). `Nothing works` in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review. 35, 1941-1945. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.010. Van der Helm, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Measuring group climate in prison. The Prison Journal. 91, 158–176.. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Miert, V. S. L., Nagtegaal, J., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Beld, M. H. M. (2015). Rapportage justitiële jeugdinrichtingen 2014, een onderzoek naar het leef, leer- en werkklimaat binnen de justitiëlejeugdinrichtingen.[Report juvenile

152

justice institutions 2014, research about living group climate, learning climate and working climate in juvenile justice institutions] Leiden: Hogeschool Leiden. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M. , Van der Stel, J. C., Van Langen, M. A. M., & Van der Laan, P. H., (2012). Group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated boys. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 56, 1149–1160. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11421649. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Tol, N., Stams, G. J. J. M. (2013). De invloed van het orthopedagogisch klimaat in de residentiële justitiële jeugdzorg: een wetenschappelijke onderbouwing. [the influences of living group climate in residential youth care: decreasing recidivism by care, cure and schooling. A scientific approach], National advice report Dutch ministry of Justice. Wolthuis, A., & Vandenbroucke, M. (2009). Schade herstellen tijdens jeugddetentie. Een evaluatieonderzoek naar herstelgericht werken in Forensisch Centrum Teylingereind. [Recovering damage during youth detention, an evaluation study to investigate recovery focussed work inthe forensic centre of Teylingereind]. Research Report Verwey Jonker Instituut. World Health Organization. (1953). Expert committee on mental health: 3rd report. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

153

DEUTSCHE ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

154

In Deutschland und den Niederlanden verbleiben Jugendliche zwischen 12 und 24

Jahren die eine Straftat begangen haben und hierfür bestraft wurden im

Jugendstrafvollzug. Dies bedeutet, eingeschlossen sein, aber auch, beschützt

werden vor sich selbst und vor anderen. Im Vordergrund des Jugendstrafvollzuges

steht immer der Erziehungsgedanke. Ziel ist es, den Jugendlichen zu

rehabilitieren, zu behandeln, Rückfall zu vermeiden und auf ein straffreies Leben

nach der Haft vorzubereiten. Das Leben im Jugendstrafvollzug bedeutet immer

auch ein Leben mit strengen Regeln, die den Umgang miteinander und das

Verhalten des Einzelnen maßgeblich beeinflussen (Köhler, 2004). Bis heute sind

jedoch die Folgen einer Inhaftierung auf die psychosoziale Entwicklung des

Jugendlichen nur unzureichend untersucht (Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Marshall &

Burton, 2010; Schubert et al, 2012; Van der Helm, Stams & Van der Laan, 2011).

Studien haben gezeigt, dass eine positive soziale Umgebung bzw. ein positives

Gruppenklima dazu führen kann, dass die Jugendlichen sich im Strafvollzug auch

positiv entwickeln können (Van der Helm, Stams, Van der Stel, Van Langen, & Van

der Laan, 2012; Van der Helm, Van Tol, & Stams, 2013).

Aber was macht ein solches positives Gruppenklima aus? Bereits 1953 hat

die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) beschrieben, dass das Klima in der

effizienten Behandlung von psychiatrischen Patienten der wichtigste Faktor ist

(WHO, 1953, p. 17). Die heutige Forschung des Gruppenklimas beruht auf der

Definition des sozialen Klimas von Moos (1989): “Die materielle, soziale und

emotionale Voraussetzung einer Abteilung und die Interaktion zwischen diesen

Faktoren”. Diese Definition beschreibt das soziale Klima als ein multifaktorielles

Konstrukt, basierend auf verschiedenen Mechanismen, die beschreiben, wie die

Gruppe von den Menschen, die in dieser Gruppe leben und interagieren, abhängig

sind. Das Gruppenklima beschreibt den Umstand, in dem Menschen zusammen

leben müssen. Innerhalb des Jugendstrafvollzuges leben je nach Land und Art der

Strafe ca. 8-30 Jugendliche in einer sogenannten Wohngruppe unter ständiger

Supervision und Beobachtung von Gruppenmitarbeitern/Justizvollzugsbeamten.

In dieser Gruppe müssen die jungen Gefangenen die geltenden Regeln und

Normen der Gruppe, in der sie leben, einhalten. Im Folgenden werden der Begriff

155

„Gruppenklima“ und die diesem zugrundeliegenden Konzepte erlautert.

Das Gruppenklima wird in vier Faktoren unterteilt: Unterstützung,

Wachstum, Repression und Atmosphäre. Unterstützung umschreibt sowohl die

Professionalität der Mitarbeiter im Umgang mit den Jugendlichen als auch die

durch die Jugendlichen erfahrene Unterstützung seitens der Mitarbeiter.

Wachstum umschreibt die Möglichkeiten des Lernens (wieder zur Schule gehen)

und die Möglichkeiten der persönlichen Weiterentwicklung. Wachstumschancen

stehen auch für einen positiven Blick in die Zukunft und das Gefühl, dass die

Inhaftierung einen sinnvollen Beitrag für ein positives und straffreies Leben leisten

kann. Repression beschreibt, wie strikt und streng die Jugendlichen die geltenden

Regeln in der Gruppe erfahren. Es umschreibt ebenfalls das Maß an Kontrolle

sowie den Umgang mit Regeln und Sanktionen innerhalb der Gruppe. Atmosphäre

beschreibt, wie die Jugendlichen die physische und soziale Atmosphäre in Ihrer

Wohngruppe erfahren. Dieser Faktor beschreibt, ob die Jugendlichen in Ihrer

Wohngruppe ausreichend zur Ruhe kommen können und ob sie sich in Ihrer

Wohngruppe sicher und geborgen fühlen. Zusätzlich steht der Faktor Atmosphäre

für die Sauberkeit und Ordnung in der Wohngruppe (Van der Helm et al, 2011).

Das Klima in einer Gruppe kann ‘offen’ und responsiv oder ‘geschlossen’

und repressiv sein. Ein positives und offenes Klima kennzeichnet sich durch

positive Unterstützung, ausreichende Möglichkeiten zur persönlichen und

schulischen Weiterentwicklung, einer positiven Atmosphäre und einem gesunden

Gleichgewicht zwischen Flexibilität und Kontrolle seitens der Mitarbeiter. Ein

geschlossenes Klima wird durch geringe Unterstützung, wenig

Wachstumsmöglichkeiten, eine negative Atmosphäre und einen strikten, strengen

und unfairen Umgang mit Regeln und Kontrollen gekennzeichnet (Van der Helm et

al, 2011).

In dieser Dissertation werden fünf verschiedene Studien aufgeführt, die

den Bezug zwischen einem positiven Gruppenklima und positiven

Verhaltensänderungen bei Jugendlichen Strafgefangenen diskutieren. Hierbei

geht es in erster Linie um das pro-soziale Verhalten der Jugendlichen im Sinne von

Empathie, kaltblütigem Verhalten (CU-traits), Aggressivität und dem Umgang mit

156

sozialen Problemsituationen. Alle Studien dieser Dissertation beruhen auf

Forschungen im Niederländischen und Deutschen Jugendstrafvollzug.

Bis vor kurzem gab es für den deutschen Jugendstrafvollzug kein

Instrument, um das Gruppenklima in den Wohngruppen zu erheben. Um ein

solches Instrument bereitzustellen, wurde das Niederländische Prison Group

Climate Instrument (PGCI) in die deutsche Sprache übersetzt und validiert. Diese

Validierungsstudie wird in Kapitel 2 beschrieben. Eine konfirmatorische

Faktorenanalyse des Models mit den vier Faktoren Unterstützung, Wachstum,

Repression und Atmosphäre gelangte zu einem positiven Ergebnis. Das in die

deutsche Sprache übersetzte Instrument wurde für valide und verlässlich

befunden. Es wird in der nun vorliegenden deutschen Version bereits in einigen

Jugendstrafvollzugsanstalten eingesetzt, um das Gruppenklima zu erheben.

Ergebnisse der Forschung mit dem PGCI können dazu beitragen, dass sowohl die

Sicherheit als auch die Ergebnisse der Behandlung und Rehabilitation im

Jugendstrafvollzug verbessert werden.

In Kapitel 3 wird die deutsche Version des Basic Empathy Scale (BES)

erstmalig in einer klinischen Population forensischer Jugendlicher in Deutschland

validiert. Frühere Empathie-Studien wurden weitestgehend bei normalen, nicht

Gefangenen Jugendlichen durchgeführt. Die heutige Studie gibt einen ersten

Einblick in die Prozesse der kognitiven und affektiven Empathie bei Jugendlichen

Strafgefangenen. Eine konfirmatorische Faktorenanalyse mit den beiden Faktoren

kognitive und affektive Empathie hat zu einem reduzierten Model mit 12 Fragen

geführt. Dieser reduzierte deutschsprachige Fragebogen ist valide und verlässlich.

In Kapitel 4 wird der Zusammenhang zwischen inadäquaten Reaktionen

auf soziale Problemsituationen und Empathie untersucht. Diese Studie wurde in

einer Gruppe von niederländischen Jugendstrafgefangenen durchgeführt. Die

Ergebnisse zeigen, dass es einen negativen Zusammenhang zwischen dem

Umgang mit Konkurrenz und kognitiver Empathie sowie zwischen Problemen im

Geben und Empfangen von Hilfe und affektiver Empathie gibt. Probleme rund

um das Akzeptieren von Autorität stehen in einem negativen Zusammenhang

mit sowohl kognitiver als auch affektiver Empathie. Der Zusammenhang

157

zwischen sozialer Benachteiligung und kognitiver Empathie wurde durch

Probleme im Umgang mit dem Akzeptieren von Autorität beeinflusst. Die

Ergebnisse dieser Studie können zukünftig genutzt werden, um die Effektivität

von Gruppeninterventionen im Jugendstrafvollzug zu verbessern.

In Kapitel 5 liegt der Fokus auf dem Zusammenhang zwischen einem

positiven Gruppenklima, Aggressivität sowie kaltblütigem und emotionslosem

Verhalten, auch genannt Callous and Unemotional-traits (CU-traits). CU-traits

sind ein großes Problem im Jugendstrafvollzug und gehen oft mit einem hohen

Maß an Aggressionen einher. In diesem Kapitel wird mit Hilfe eines

Strukturgleichungsmodels der Zusammenhang zwischen einem positiven

Gruppenklima, Aggressivität und CU-traits verdeutlicht. Die Ergebnisse zeigen

einen positiven Zusammenhang zwischen einem positiven Gruppenklima, weniger

Aggressivität und weniger CU-traits.

Kapitel 6 behandelt den Effekt eines positiven Gruppenklimas auf die

Entwicklung von Empathie während der Inhaftierung. Ein

Strukturgleichungsmodel zeigt, dass ein positives Gruppenklima nach sechs

Monaten in Gefangenschaft im Zusammenhang mit verbesserter Empathie steht.

Die aktuellen Ergebnisse bestätigen die Bedeutung eines positiven Gruppenklimas

mit guten Wachstumschancen, Unterstützung, einer positiven Atmosphäre und

wenig Repression als Basis für positive Verhaltensänderungen bei Jugendlichen

Strafgefangenen.

Die Ergebnisse dieser 5 Kapitel unterstreichen die Wichtigkeit eines

positiven Gruppenklimas, um positive Verhaltensänderungen im

Jugendstrafvollzug schaffen zu können. Kapitel 7 diskutiert die Ergebnisse der

einzelnen Studien.

Konkludierend weisen die Ergebnisse dieser Dissertation darauf hin, dass

innerhalb des Jugendstrafvollzug investiert werden muss, um ein positives und

offenes Gruppenklima durch pro-soziales Verhalten der Jugendlichen fördern und

ihnen eine bessere Chance für Ihre Zukunft bieten zu können (Listwan, 2013). Die

schwierigste Aufgabe hierbei haben die Mitarbeiter in den Wohngruppen. Durch

eine responsive und offene Haltung den Jugendlichen gegenüber können

158

Mitarbeiter eine gesunde Balance an Flexibilität und Kontrolle erlangen und somit

zu einem positiveren Gruppenklima beitragen. Deshalb ist es wichtig, über

strukturelle Verbesserungen des Gruppenklimas im Jugendstrafvollzug

nachzudenken. In 2013 haben die Anstaltsleiter aller Niederländischen

Jugendstrafvollzugseinrichtungen ein positives Gruppenklima (neben

psychiatrischer Betreuung) zu einem der wichtigsten Faktoren im

Jugendstrafvollzug benannt (Van der Helm, Van Tol, & Stams, 2013). In einem 4-

jährigen Programm wird in allen Jugendstrafvollzugseinrichtungen regelmäßig das

Gruppenklima erhoben und werden die Ergebnisse aktiv mit Jugendlichen und

Mitarbeitern besprochen (Van der Helm, Van Miert, Nagtegaal, Stams, & Beld,

2015). Zusätzlich wurde in einigen Anstalten auch das Mitarbeiterklima erhoben

(Van der Helm et al., 2015). Mitarbeiter in den Gruppen empfangen Feedback

über das Teamfunktionieren sowie zur Führung und Motivation im Team. Durch

dieses regelmäßige Feedback kann sich das Klima innerhalb der Anstalt positiv

verändern. Dennoch gibt es bis heute nur wenige Studien, welche die Effektivität

dieser Faktoren untersuchen. Darum ist es von größter Wichtigkeit, weiterhin in

ein positives Gruppenklima zu investieren. Hierzu braucht man Mut, um das “alte

Denken” rundum Strafe und Unterdrückung zu verandern in Richtung

„Unterstützung“ und „Behandlung“.

Ohne den positiven Einsatz von Mitarbeitern im Jugendstrafvollzug

(„GUTS“) sowie einem positiven Gruppenklima, einer adäquaten Behandlung der

Jugendlichen sowie der Schaffung positiver Entwicklungschancen gibt es nur

wenig Aussicht auf Erfolg („GAINS“), welcher sich durch ein positives und soziales

Verhalten und verminderte Rückfallquoten bei jugendlichen Strafgefangenen

kennzeichnet.

159

REFERENCES Bruning, M. R., De Jong, M. P., Liefaard, T., Schuyt, P. M., Doek, J. E., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2011). Wegwijs in het jeugdsanctierecht [Find your way in youth sanction law]. Wolf Legal Publishers. De Swart, J., (2011). De professionele jeugdzorgwerker [the professional youth care worker]. Doctoral dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R.E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 8, 991–998. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469- 7610.2008.02057.x. Harvey, J. (2005). Young men in prison: Surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton: Willan. Köhler, D. (2004). Psychische Störungen bei jungen Straftätern. [psychological disorders in young juveniles]. Hamburg, Germany: J. Kovac. Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). Introduction: The effects of imprisonment revisited. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 1-32). Cullompton, UK: Willan. Listwan, S. J. (2013). Introduction to Juvenile Justice. Bridgepoint Publishing. Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15. 141–149. Moos, R. H. (1989). Ward Atmosphere Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Ros, N., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I., Schaftenaar, P., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2013). Institutional climate and aggression in a secure psychiatric setting. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 24, 713-727. DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2013.848460. Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Loughran, T.A., & Losoya, S.H., (2012). Perceptions of Institutional Experience and Community Outcomes for Serious Adolescent Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavio. 39, 71-93, DOI: 10.1177/0093854811426710. Souverein F., Van der Helm G.H.P & Stams G.J.J.M, (2013). `Nothing works` in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review. 35, 1941-1945. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.010. Van der Helm, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Measuring group climate in prison. The Prison Journal. 91, 158–176.. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Miert, V. S. L., Nagtegaal, J., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Beld, M. H. M. (2015). Rapportage justitiële jeugdinrichtingen 2014, een onderzoek naar het leef, leer- en werkklimaat binnen de justitiëlejeugdinrichtingen.[Report juvenile

160

justice institutions 2014, research about living group climate, learning climate and working climate in juvenile justice institutions] Leiden: Hogeschool Leiden. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M. , Van der Stel, J. C., Van Langen, M. A. M., & Van der Laan, P. H., (2012). Group climate and empathy in a sample of incarcerated boys. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 56, 1149–1160. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11421649. Van der Helm, G. H. P., Van Tol, N., Stams, G. J. J. M. (2013). De invloed van het orthopedagogisch klimaat in de residentiële justitiële jeugdzorg: een wetenschappelijke onderbouwing. [the influences of living group climate in residential youth care: decreasing recidivism by care, cure and schooling. A scientific approach], National advice report Dutch ministry of Justice. Wolthuis, A., & Vandenbroucke, M. (2009). Schade herstellen tijdens jeugddetentie. Een evaluatieonderzoek naar herstelgericht werken in Forensisch Centrum Teylingereind. [Recovering damage during youth detention, an evaluation study to investigate recovery focussed work inthe forensic centre of Teylingereind]. Research Report Verwey Jonker Instituut. World Health Organization. (1953). Expert committee on mental health: 3rd report. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

161

DANKWOORD

162

Aan het begin van dit boek staat de Theorie van Lombroso en de geboren

crimineel. Hoe zat dat ook al weer…? Zijn er dan ook mensen die sociaal geboren

worden? Laten we even alle empirische bewijzen hiervoor achterwege. Want het

maakt ook niet uit, of de mensen die mij geholpen hebben dit stuk mogelijk te

maken, sociaal geboren werden of de sociale vaardigheden waarover zij

beschikken pas later hebben aangeleerd. Zonder de sociale vaardigheden van vele

mensen die mij ondersteund hebben om dit mogelijk te maken was ik nooit tot

hier gekomen!

Ten eerste wil ik mijn promotoren bedanken: Geert-Jan, Andries, Peer en Maaike,

voor alle steun die ik van jullie heb mogen ervaren, en alles wat jullie voor mij

mogelijk gemaakt hebben!

Bedankt aan alle instanties die me gedurende dit project ondersteund en

gefaciliteerd hebben:

Danke an den Kriminologische Dienst des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen sowie den

Jugend-Justizvollzugsanstalten Heinsberg und Iserlohn für die Unterstützung bei

der Datenerhebung.

Directie, medewerkers en jongeren van Stichting Jeugdzorg St. Joseph, het

Keerpunt en Icarus voor de mogelijkheid mijn data te mogen verzamelen.

De directies van Mondriaan Kind en Jeugd, de Vakgroep Clinical Psychological

Science van de Universiteit Maastricht en de Vakgroep KenVak van Hogeschool

Zuyd. Een bijzondere dank aan alle leuke collega’s die altijd een luisterend oor

voor me hebben gehad.

Danke an alle meine Freunde, dass Ihr trotz eines erheblichen Mangels an

sozialem Kontaktvermögen in den letzten Jahren heute noch immer meine

Freunde seid!

163

Bedankt aan alle Pennymeisjes die geduldig naar mijn lange verhalen hebben

geluisterd en er steeds weer in geslaagd zijn mij tot gezamenlijke ontspanning te

paard te motiveren.

Een Bijzonder woord van Dank gaat uit naar mijn twee Paranymphen, Fritzi en

Paul. Fritzi, samen delen wij het lot de enige in de vriendengroep te zijn die het in

het hoofd hebben gehaald, om steeds te streven naar hoger, en de vrije tijd te

offeren voor een studie. Paul, toen wij elkaar op dag 1 van ons studentenleven

onder de tafel tegen de voeten aan schopten wisten we nog niet welk

waardevolle vriendschap hieruit zou ontstaan. Ik ben blij dat jullie mijn vrienden

zijn!

Ein besonderes Dankeschön gilt meiner Familie und ganz besonders meinen

Eltern, die mir immer die Chance gegeben haben, das zu tun, was ich wollte. Ihr

habt mich auch in schwierigen Zeiten immer wieder ermutigt, weiter zu machen!

Danke, dass Ihr immer für mich da seid!!! Ihr seid die beste Familie, die man sich

wünschen kann!

Liebe Marlene, zu sehen wie du wächst und fröhlich bist, macht mich zu einer sehr

stolzen Patentante!

Lieber André, von allen Menschen die mich während dieses Projektes begleitet

haben, bist Du derjenige der am meisten darunter zu leiden hatte! Zusätzlich zur

Promotion an einem gemeinsamen Zuhause zu bauen, hat die Situation selten

einfacher gemacht. Während der gesamten Zeit warst du immer an meiner Seite,

hast stundenlang meine Geschichten von der Arbeit angehört, mit mir Erfolge

gefeiert, Tränen getrocknet und Träume verwirklicht. Zusammen haben wir zwei

wundervolle Projekte erschaffen! Es ist schön, dass es dich gibt!

164

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Evelyn Heynen was born on October 10th, 1983 in Sittard, the Netherlands. In

2003 she graduated secondary school in Germany (Bischhöfliches Gymnasium St.

Ursula, Geilenkirchen). From September 2003 until June 2004 she studies Arts

therapy at Zuyd Hogeschool in Sittard. In 2004 she started studying health

sciences at Maastricht University, specialization Movement Sciences and Mental

Health sciences. In 2009 she completed her Master in Human Movement Sciences

at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. From June 2009 until January 2011 she

worked as account manager at Clinical Trial Center Maastricht. From January 2011

she worked as clinical trial coordinator at the Department of Child-and Youth

Psychiatry at Maastricht University Medical Center and started her PhD in

September 2012 at this division. Later she performed her work and PhD at the

Child and Youth Division of Mondriaan, Heerlen. While still working on her PhD

she started working as a lecturer at the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life

Sciences Maastricht University in January 2015 and as a scientist at the Faculty of

Health Care at Zuyd Hogeschool Heerlen where she is currently working.

165

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

Heynen, E.J.E. Van der Helm, G.H.P. Stams, G.J.J.M Korebrits, A.M., (2014)

Measuring group climate in A German youth Prison - A German validation

of the `Prison Group Climate Instrument´ (PGCI), Journal forensic

psychiatry and psychology. 14, 45-54.

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Stams, G.J.J.M, Korebrits, A.M. ,(2015),

Anwendungsmöglichkeiten des deutschen ´Prison Group Climate

Instrument´ (PGCI) zur Erfassung des Gruppenklimas in (Jugend)

Strafanstalten, Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform. 3,

224-231.

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Behrens, E., Korebrits, A.M., (2015), Das

Gruppenklima im Deutschen Jugendstrafvollzug, Ein Sachstandsbericht zur

aktuellen Prison Group Climate Forschung in Nordrhein Westfalen,

Bewährungshilfe - Soziales, Strafrecht, Kriminalpolitik. 4, 410-421.

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Dolmans, B. (2015) het kan ook anders,

Nieuwe inzichten in de omgang met jongeren binnen een open groep van

een JeugdzorgPlus Instelling op basis van resultaten van het

leefklimaatonderzoek, Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogie. 54, 434-440.

Deen, M., Heynen, E.J.E., Schouten, B.A.M., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Korebrits, A.M.,

(2014), Games [4Therapy] project: Lets talk!, (2014). In: Schouten,

Fedtke, Schijven, Vosmeer, Gekker (2014), Games for health 2014, ISBN:

978-3-658-07140-0 (Print) 978-3-658-07141-7 (Online)

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Wissink, I.B., Stams, G.J.J.M, Moonen,

X.M.H., (2015), -I don’t care about what you want!-The Relation

between Juvenile Delinquents’ Responses to Social Problem Situations

and Empathy in Secure Juvenile Institutions. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence 12. 1-15. DOI 10.1177/0886260515618212

166

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Cima, M.J., Stams, G.J.J.M, Korebrits, A.M.

(resubmission after revision), The relation between living group climate,

aggression and callous unemotional traits in delinquent boys in

detention. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Stams, G.J.J.M, Korebrits, A.M., (submitted

for publication), Measuring Empathy in a German Youth Prison – A

validation of the German version of the `Basic Empathy Scale´ (BES) in a

sample of incarcerated juvenile offenders.

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Cima, M.J., Stams, G.J.J.M, Korebrits, A.M.,

(submitted for publication), - Feelings of others, don’t impress me much -

The effects of living group climate on empathy in adolescent male

offenders.

Heynen, E.J.E., Behrens, E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., (Submitted for publication),

Evaluation der Gruppenklima Forschung in Deutschland und den

Niederlanden auf der Grundlage eines Vergleichs der verschiedenen

Behandlungsmöglichkeiten in den jeweiligen

Jugendstrafvollzugssystemen.

167

ATTENDED CONFERENCES

All conferences were attended with abstract and/or presentation:

Heynen, E.J.E., Van Miert, V., Van der Helm, G.H.P. Living group climate and

psychopathology, XIII Annual Conference of the International Association

of Forensic Mental Health Services (IAFMHS) Maastricht, 2013

Heynen, E.J.E., Nagtegaal, J., de Jongh, T., Eltink, E., Van der Helm, G.H.P.,

Interventions of the living group climate of secure residential youth care,

4th conference of the European Association for forensic child and

adolescent Psychiatry, Psychology and other involved professionals

(EFCAP), Youth, Risk and Mental health: Multiple Roads to Recovery,

Living group climate and psychopathology, Manchester, 2014.

Heynen, E.J.E., & Korebrits, A.M., The relationship between prison climate and

psychopathology in German Prisons, XIV Annual Conference of the

International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services (IAFMHS).

Trauma, violence and recovery: risk and resilience across the lifespan.

June 19th – 22th, 2014. Toronto Sheraton Centre.

Heynen, E.J.E., Deen, M., Games for externalizing problem behavior,

Games4Health Europe, 28 October 2014, Utrecht.

Heynen, E.J.E. & Van der Helm, G.H.P. (2014), Living group climate in residential

youth care, together for a better future. Fachtagung des Kriminologischen

Dienstes zum Thema Motivierung im Übergangsmanagement [ Motivation

during rehabilitation care] Düsseldorf, 3 November 2014:

Heynen, E.J.E., Ten Brummelaar, M., Give Juveniles a voice, Van nieuwe kennis

praktijk maken [from new knowledge to practice], Congres Efcap, ForCA

and AWFZJ, 20 November 2014, Geertekerk, Utrecht

168

Heynen, E., Vaessen, S., Van Amelsvoort, T., Problems around transitional Care in

the Netherlands, European conference on youth mental health, from

continuity of psychopathology to continuity of care, STraMeHS 2014,

Venice

Nagtegaal, J., Heynen, E., de Jongh, T., Eltink, E., Van Miert, V., Working together

on the living group climate in the correctional juvenile detention centers,

Forensic Care Festival 2015, Utrecht: Fabrique. 27 January 2015.

Heynen, E.J.E., Van der Helm, G.H.P., Korebrits A.M., Living group climate in youth

detention, new possibilities for motivation and treatment, Masterclass,

Protecting young suspects in interrogations, 15 January 2015, Plot, Genk

169

AFFILIATIONS OF CO-AUTHORS

ANDRIES KOREBRITS

Helios Park Clinics Leipzig, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Universität Leipzig,

Klinik für Kinder und Jugendpsychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik,

Germany

GEERT-JAN STAMS

Department of Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam,

The Netherlands

INGE WISSINK

Department of Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam,

The Netherlands

MAAIKE CIMA

Department of Developmental Psychopathology, Radboud University Nijmegen,

The Netherlands

PEER VAN DER HELM

School of Social Studies, Department of residential Youth Care, Professional

University of Leiden, The Netherlands

Department of Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam,

The Netherlands

XAVIER MOONEN

Department of Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam,

The Netherlands