Journal of Psychology and Christianity

2008, Vol. 27, No, 2, 159-1(>7

Copyright 2008 Christian Association for Psychological Studies

ISSN 0733-4273

A Pilot Study of a Faith-BasedRestorative Justice Intervention for

Christian and Non-Christian OffendersMarilyn Peterson Armour Liliane Cambraia Windsor JemelAguilar Crystal Taub

The University of Texas at Austin

As prison populations continue to rise, faith-based and restorative justice programs show protnise ininfluencing offenders' internal motivations and external behaviors. Using a one-group, pretest-posttestdesign, this pilot study found significant change in offenders' (n=102) moral motivations (empathy, per-spective taking, forgiveness, proneness to forgive, daily spiritual experiences, and relationships with oth-ers) after their self-selected participation in a 14-week faith-based program that draws from the principlesof restorative justice. Hierarchical regression models were used to examine the impact of reported sub-scription to Christianity on pretests and score changes. At pre-test, Christian participants (n = 66) weremore likely to forgive than non-Christian participants (n = 33) who conversely were more likely to see theperspectives of others, Christian offenders had significantly higher change scores on perspective takingand empathie concern than non-Christian participants. Findings have implications for the use of faith-based programs and victim-centered curriculums to change offenders' moral motivations and for matchingfaith-based Christian programs with Christian participants.

Restorative justice and faith-based programsare receiving increased attention as innovativeways to help change offenders' internal motiva-tions as well as external behaviors (RockefellerInstitute of Government, 2007), The purpose ofthe present pilot study is to examine change inoffenders' pro-social responses after participa-tion in an in-prison faith-based program thatdraws from the principles of restorative justice.

Programs in PrisonsIn-prison faith-based programs aim to facilitate

character transformation through the develop-ment of religious practice and/or moral orienta-tion. Restorative justice programs aim to repairthe harm caused by a criminal act by holditigoffenders directly accountable to the people theyhave violated and working to restore the emo-tional and material losses of victims (Zehr, 2002),

Some programs combine faith-based andrestorative justice philosophies and processes.Sycamore Tree is a six-session restorative justicecomponent of the residential InnerChange pro-gram that rests on Christian principles and usesbiblical narratives, in conjunction with narrativesfrom unrelated or "surrogate" victims and offend-ers to facilitate the healing dialogue between vic-tims and offenders. Paired sample i-tests on male

Send correspondence to Marilyn Armour, Ph,D,,School of Social Work, The University of Texas atAustin, 1925 San Jacinto Blvd, Austin, TX 78712, mar-mour@mail,utexas,edu

in = 2024) and female in = l66) offenders fromsix types of penal institutions shows a significantincrease in empathy (Feasey, Williams, & Clark,2005), Bridges to Life (BTL) is a non-residential,free-standing, faith-based, in-prison restorativejustice program that also brings together unrelat-ed or "surrogate" victims and offenders (Armour,Sage, Rubin, & Windsor, 2005), To date, l6,3% ofpost-release prison and jail BTL participants havebeen reincarcerated (J, Sage, personal communi-cation, August 31, 2007), which is low comparedto the two-year rate of 19,2% for the prisonoffender population only (Legislative BudgetBoard, 2005).

Moral Motivations and EmotionsThese faith-based restorative justice programs

may contribute to the development or strength-ening of moral emotions because of their poten-tial to be motivational forces that inspire anindividual to "do good," while inhibiting behav-iors that have negative consequences (KroU &Egan, 2004; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007),When an individual commits an offense against amoral convention, feelings such as shame, guilt,and pride are examples of the immediate, inter-nalized feedback an individual receives relevantto his or her behavior. Because moral emotionsand cognition are malleable factors (Tangney etal,, 2007), they provide a target for pro-socialintervention.

Restorative justice, in particular, worksbetween the interface of moral emotions and

159

160 A PILOT STUDY OF A FAITH-BASED RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

behavior by actively discouraging an individualfrom feeling shame about himself or herself, andinstead encouraging the more pro-social feelingof guilt. Feeling empathy in response to anoth-er's distress fosters the development of guilt(Leith & Baumeister, 1998) and is the linkbetween guilt and low aggression (Stuewig,Tangney, Heigel, & Harty, 2008). Similarly, thepositive correlations shown between religiousattitudes and emotional sensitivity, cognitive per-spective taking, altruism, and self motivationsuggest that faith-based interventions may alsoelicit guilt and empathy (Paek, 2006; Watson,Hood, & Morris, 1984; Weibe & Fleck 1980).Moreover, it is the empathie understanding ofthe suffering caused by one's own actions thatcan lead to the desire for forgiveness and rela-tional repair (Sandage, Worthington, Hight, &Berry, 2000).

Although the relationship between moralemotions and faith-based and restorative justiceinterventions appears obvious, little has beendone, as yet, to examine change in the develop-ment of offenders' moral emotions and theirtreatment of others as moral motivations for last-ing behavioral changes. Studies are needed todemonstrate that restorative justice interventionscan positively affect dispositional empathy anddispositional forgivingness. Indeed, the firsthypothesis of the present study is that suchchanges are capable of being produced by arestorative justice intervention.

In particular, we will use a pre-test/post-testdesign to determine the effectiveness of a Chris-tian-consistent adaptation of Bridges to Lifecalled Restoring Peace, for Christians and non-Christians. Worthington and Sandage (2001)reviewed data on matching religiously tailoredinterventions to religious orientation of partici-pants. They found modest support for theproposition that religious tailoring improved effi-cacy. After reviewing the evidence a panel ofscholars evaluated the religious matchinghypothesis as "promising" (see Norcross, 2002)."Promising" was the level of evidential supportsecond to "empirically supported," which wasgranted to only two relationship factors—empa-thy and working alliance. However, the religiousmatching hypothesis has not been explicitly test-ed in restorative justice interventions. This testevaluates the second hypothesis of the presentstudy—that Christians will change more in dis-positional empathy and dispositional forgiving-ness than will non-Christians as a result of

participating in this Christian-consistent interven-tion, and that this effect will maintain even ifreligious commitment and intensity of spirituallife are statistically controlled.

We anticipate support for this hypothesisbecause the treatment is belief and value-consis-tent for Christians (Worthington, 1988). However,our pre-test/post-test design does not allow anunambiguous test of reason for any differences.

Description of tbe InterventionRestoring Peace is a manualized, faith-based,

14-week, in-prison program that draws from theprinciples of restorative justice to help offendersget to know the impact of their actions andunderstand a process for building peace withinthemselves, with God, and with others. It uses abook. Restoring Peace: Using Lessons FromPrison to Mend Broken Relationships (Blackard &Sage, 2005), and a study guide (Blackard & Sage,2006) as well as in-person or videotaped storiesfrom unrelated or "surrogate" crime victims tosensitize offenders to the consequences of theircrimes. Flyers posted in the correctional facilityare used to recruit 20-50 participants who meetwith two community volunteer facilitators pergroup of ten offenders. Volunteers include victimadvocates, psychotherapists, church leaders, andothers. They complete two projects as traineebefore co-facilitating their first small group.

Session 1 consists of an orientation to the pro-gram. Offenders receive a copy of the book andstudy guide. Sessions 2 through 13 follow a uni-form format. Prior to each session, offenders areexpected to read assigned chapters in the bookand Bible verses related to the weekly topic. Atthe session, offenders first hear from a victim-impact panel or view a video. This is followedby offenders' questions and/or discussion. Thenoffenders break out into their assigned smallweekly groups for telling their own stories, dis-cussion of study questions related to the weeklytopic (e.g., responsibility and repentance), andverbal sharing of written answers to journalassignments.

Sessions 2 to 5 set the tone for sharing byfocusing on expectations, fears and concernsabout being in the program, crime and conflict,faith and getting in touch with one's spirituality,and the power of telling one's personal story. Thenext eight sessions focus directly on moral con-cerns. Session 6 addresses responsibility with anemphasis on participant's justifications for theiroffense of record. Session 7 covers accountability

ARMOUR, WINDSOR, AGUILAR, AND TAUB 161

and focuses on humility as self-respect, the issueof free choice, and being accountable to familymembers. Session 8 considers confession and asksoffenders to consider making confession to selfand to God, dealing with those they have hurt.Session 8 also covers the relationship betweenconfession and change. Session 9 focuses onrepentance, which is defined as a "radical anddeliberate turning or returning to God that resultsin moral and ethical change and action" (Blackard& Sage, 2005, p. 43). Session 10 explores forgive-ness including God's forgiveness, self-forgiveness,the forgiveness of others, and the healing experi-enced in forgiving someone or being forgiven.Session 11 centers on reconciliation with self,God, family and others. Session 12 is Restitutionor the making of amends for wrong or injurydone. Session 13 is a retrospective of participants'experience in the program, called the journey.Session 14 involves graduation. At graduation,offenders remain in a large group and volunteerto take turns coming to the front of the room toshare their personal changes and feelings aboutgoing through the Restoring Peace program.Offenders receive certificates of completion andappreciation followed by refreshments at theclose of the graduation.

Method

ParticipantsParticipants included 102 male offenders from

two prisons and one state jail in Texas who vol-unteered to participate in Restoring Peace pro-grams offered between 2004 and 2005 and tocomplete study questionnaires. Facilities housedan average of 940 male offenders. Participants'mean age was 40 years old. Participants reflectedthe racial/ethriic composition in the Texas Depart-ment of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) offender popula-tion (Beard, Johnson, & Kemp, 2003). They were36% White, 38% Black, 21% Latino, 1% Asian, 2%Native American, and 2% other Nearly 63% grad-uated from high school or its equivalent. Offenseof record was as follows: 9% aggravated assault;3% murder; 23% other violent crimes; 28% drugoffenses; 14% burglary, theft, and shoplifting; 2%white collar crime (e.g., forgery, credit cardcrimes); 5% DUI/DWI; 1% DUI/DWI manslaugh-ter; 4% other non-violent offense; and 11% multi-ple non-violent offenses. In summary, 36% ofoffenders were incarcerated for violent crimes and64% of offenders were incarcerated for non-vio-lent crimes. The majority of participants reported

being Christian in = 66; 63%). Nearly one-third ofparticipants reported other religions (w = 31; 30%)including Jewish, Muslim, humanist, Wiccan,Native American, believing in God, and havingmore than 1 religion. Few participants reportedhaving no religion (2%), or not being sure (3%).Most participants reported having medium to highintensity of spiritual life (86%) and commitment totheir religion (83%).

DesignThis study employed a one-group, pretest-

posttest design (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Sucha design can determine only whether changeoccurs but cannot identify what may havecaused those changes.

MeasuresDemographics. A Demographic Question-

naire (DQ) developed for this study measuredoffender demographics. Participants reportedtheir age, race/ethnicity, education, religion,intensity of their spiritual life, and strength ofcommitment to their religion.

Empathy. Empathy was measured by theInterpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983).The IRI is a 28-item self-report instrument mea-suring cognitive and emotional aspects of traitempathy. The study used two of the four 7-itemsubscales: (a) perspective-taking (PT; ability toadopt the perspectives of other people) and (b)empathie concern (FC; feelings of warmth andcompassion for others). Each self-referencedstatement is rated on a five-point Likert-typescale ranging from 0 = does not describe me wellto 4.= does describe me well. Estimated internalconsistencies of the four IRI subscales rangefrom .71 to .77. Christopher, Owens, and Stecker(1993) found reliability estimates for the PT sub-scale of .76 and the EC subscale of .73.

Propensity to forgive. Propensity to forgivewas measured by the Trait Forgivingness Scale(TFS; Berry, Worthington, Parrott, O'Connor, &Wade, 2005). The TFS consists of 10 items aimedat assessing a respondent's self-appraisal of hisor her proneness to forgive interpersonal trans-gressions. Each question is rated on a five-pointLikert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 =Strongly Agree'). Cronbach's alpha coefficientwas adequate at .74. The TFS has good test-retest reliability at .78. The scale has been vali-dated using correlations with such variables astrait anger, trait empathy, and dispositional rumi-nation. Scale norms were established by genderand ethnicity.

162 A PILOT STUDY OF A FAITH-BASED RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Retigiosity/Spirituatity. Religiosity/spirituali-ty was measured by the Daily Spiritual Experi-ences (DSE; Fetzer Institute, 1999), The DSE is al6-item scale that measures the individual's per-ceptions of the transcendent in daily life and theperception of interaction with, or involvementof, the transcendent in life. Estimated internalconsistency is high (>,90), The first fourteenquestions are rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 =Never or almost never to 6 = Many times a day).The last two questions are rated on a 4-pointLikert scale (1 = Not at all close lo 4 = As close aspossible). The DSE was developed as part of theFetzer Multidimensional Measurement of Reli-giousness and Spirituality (MMRS), A recentexamination of the MMRS found it appropriatefor ethnically diverse groups (Neff, 2006),

Forgiveness. Forgiveness of self and othersand by God was measured by the Forgiveness-Long Form (MMRS; Fetzer Institute, 1999), TheForgiveness-Long form is a 10-item subscale ofthe MMRS, Each question is rated on a 4-pointLikert scale that ranges from 1 = Always oralmost always to 4 = Never. Cronbach's alphacoefficient is ,66, For this scale lower scoresmean higher forgiveness.

Relationship with Others. Relationship withothers was measured by the Christian Inventoryof Spirituality (CIS) (Shorkey, Windsor, &Spence, in preparation): The CIS is a new mea-sure and the first religious measure developedon a substance use disorders population, i,e,people in treatment and recovery. RelationshipWith Others is a l4-item subscale that measuresthe quality of respondent's relationship with oth-ers from a Christian perspective. Questions areanswered using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Not ataillo 4 = Completely). Cronbach's alpha =,91,

Recidivism. Recidivism refers to reincarcerationin a Texas correctional facility. It is measuredthrough data collected and monitored by theTexas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ),With the assistance of the Victim Services Divi-sion of TDCJ, BTL is tracking all offenders afterthey are released from prison. Data on graduatesof the Restoring Peace program are availablethrough December 2006,

ProcedureData cotlection. Program staff collected data

at the beginning of the first session of the pro-gram and after the last session. Offenders wereassigned a code number to ensure confidentialityand collation of pre- and posttests, Pre-tests for

those who dropped out, refused to complete theposttest, or were not present on the last day ofthe program, i,e,, transferred to another unit,were excluded from the study.

Data analysis. Data were entered into SPSS,and missing data analysis was conducted toexclude participants that did not complete theposttest and/or had too many missing values, Atotal of 129 offenders completed at least onequestionnaire. Twenty-seven participants wereexcluded because they were missing a pre-test(9 participants) or a posttest (18 participants).Thus a total of 102 participants were included.Missing data analysis indicated that missing val-ues were randomly distributed, and all variableshad fewer than 50% missing values. All 102 par-ticipants were included, therefore, in the analy-sis. Random missing values were provided bysubstituting the mean score of each item andscale scores were calculated. Two analyses wereconducted to test our two hypotheses, (a) Pairedsample i-tests examined significant differencesbetween offenders' responses to six brief ques-tionnaires before and after participation in theRestoring Peace program, (b) Hierarchicalregression analyses examined the impact of sub-scription to Christianity (dummy coded) onscales pre-test and test change scores after con-trolling for strength of religious commitment andintensity of spiritual life.

Results

Hypothesis 1: The Intervention ProducedChanges

The means and standard deviations for all sixvariables are reported in Table 1 for the full sam-ple and for the Christian and non-Christian sub-samples separately. Results of overall sampleshow significant changes (alpha = ,05) in themean scores of all measures in the expecteddirection. Specifically, a series of paired samplest-test analyses indicated that after participating inthe Restoring Peace program (a) participants'ability to adopt the perspectives of other peopleincreased; (b) participants' feelings of warmthand compassion for others increased; (c) partici-pants were more prone to forgive; (d) partici-pants were more aware of the transcendent intheir daily lives; (e) participants were more for-giving toward themselves, others, and God; and(0 participants improved the quality of their rela-tionships with others.

ARMOUR, WINDSOR, AGUILAR, AND TAUB l63

Table 1T-Tests and Mean Scores

Variable^

IRI-P

IRI-EC

TFS

DES

MMRS-F3

CIS

PretestMean(SD)

24.86(4.75)

26.99(4.28)

33.28(5.14)

65.66(15.09)

21.41(2.79)

57.86(6.53)

Note^. Christian and

Full Sample

(N=102)

PosttestMean(SD)

25.94(4.77)

28.56(5.03)

34.22(5.46)

70.02(14.24)

20.69(3.16)

59.99(6.13)

Non-Christianquestion about religion.Notc^. IRI-P

ences; CIS

PValue(ES)

.013*(-.23)

.001**(-.34)

.045*(-.18)

.000**(-.30)

.000**(.12)

.000**(-.34)

PretestMean(SD)

23.76(4.40)

26.50(4.13)

33.35(5.33)

64.57(13.73)

21.00(2.96)

57.26(5.85)

Christians

(N=66)

PosttestMean(SD)

26.11(4.86)

28.96(4.65)

33.89(5.22)

70.43(13.52)

20.10(2.99)

60.17(5.57)

participants do not add up to 102

= IRI-Perspective; IRI-EC = IRI Empathie Concern; TFS == Relationship With Others.

Not^. Lower scores•p<áO5"p <áOOl

mean higher forgiveness

PValue(ES)

.000**(-.51)

.000**(-.56)

.234(-.10)

.000**(-.43)

.017*(.30)

.000**(-.51)

because 3

Non-Christians

PretestMean(SD)

27.00(4.68)

27.88(4.31)

33.21(5.05)

68.74(17.42)

22.21(2.28)

59.51(5.35)

respondents

Trait Forgiveness Scale;

(N=33)^

PosttestMean(SD)

26.09(4.50)

28.36(5.28)

34.91(6.02)

70.45(15.68)

21.58(3.10)

60.09(2.28)

PValue(ES)

.170(.20)

.279(-.10)

.019*(-.30)

.142(-.10)

.113(.23)

.270(-.14)

did not answer the

DES = Daily Experi-

Results for the Christian sample show signifi-cant positive change in (a) participants' ability toadopt the perspectives of other people increased;(b) participants' feelings of warmth and compas-sion for others increased; (c) part icipants 'increased awareness of the transcendent in theirdaily lives; (d) participants' improved quality oftheir relationships with others; and (e) partici-pants' increased forgivingness toward themselves,others, and God. There were no significantchanges in their likeliness to forgive. Interesting-ly, results of non-Christian sample only showedsignificant change in the expected direction ontheir likeliness to forgive (see Table 1).

Hypothesis 2: Religious Matching ImprovesDispositional Empathy and Forgivingness

Since Restoring Peace is a Christian program, itis important to determine whether it has a differ-ent impact on Christian and non-Christianoffenders. Moreover, because other religionswere represented in the sample, it is important

to ensure that potential differences are not beingcaused by offender's strength of commitment toreligion or the intensity of their spiritual life.Hierarchical regression models were conducted,therefore, to examine the impact of participants'reported subscription to Christianity on initialvalues of each of the six variables and on thepre-test to post-test change scores for each ofthe six variables.

Results showed significant differences in twoscales for initial values: (a) Pre-test on the per-spective-taking dimension of empathy; and (b)Pre-test on the Fetzer forgiveness scale. BothChristian and non-Christian participants scoredsimilarly on all other initial measures. Specifical-ly, at pre-test Christian participants demonstratedsignificantly less ability to take the perspectives.Moreover, Christian participants forgave them-selves and others significantly more and believedGod forgave them significantly more than didnon-Christian participants (see Table 2).

164 A PILOT STUDY OF A FAITH-BASED RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Table 2Pre-Test Hierarchical Regression Models (Subscription to Christianity)^

Variables

Control Variables

Strength of

religious

commitment

Intensity of

spiritual life

Predictor Variable

Religion

Pre-test IRI Perspective Taking

If-

.101

.187*

ß (S.E:) t

.152 (.605) 1.005

.185 (.623) 1.223

-.298 (.957) -3.142

•p < .05"p< .01

Afeie'.For IRI Perspective taking, lfi= .187; for Set A, A Ä 2 = . I O I (/;zer forgiveness, /P =.O6O; for Set A, A i ? = .060 {p =.043); for Set= Christian, 1 = non-Christian.Note^: Lower scores mean higher forgiveness.

Pre-Test Fetzer Forgiveness^

If ß (S.E.)

.018

.192 (.372)

-.098 (.382)

• .060*

-.209 (.604)

=.007); for Set B, A / ? = .086 (p =B, A / ? = .042 ip =.043). Religion

t

1.213

-.617

-2.047

.002). For Fet-is coded as 0

Analysis of change scores showed significantdifferences in two scales: (a) the perspective tak-ing dimension of the empathy scale and (b) theempathie concern dimension of the empathyscale. Both Christian and non-Christian partici-pants scored similarly on change scores of allother scales. Specifically, Christian participantswere significantly more likely to increase, theirability to take the perspectives of other peopleand display feelings of warmth and compassionfor others than were non-Christian participants(see Table 3). ' '

Reincarceration DataStatistics kept by TDCJ through December 31,

2006, show that 74 of the Restoring Peace partic-ipants have been released for an average of 15months with a range of 12 to 20 months. Fourhave been reincarcerated for new crimes, one ofwhich was a violent crime. The one-year recidi-vism rate for the TDCJ general prison populationis 7.2% (Legislative Budget Board, 2005) com-pared to 5.4% for the released participants.

Discussion

The findings from this pilot study show that theRestoring Peace intervention seems to changeoffenders' moral motivations. Other variables maybe impacting this change as well. Moreover, the

voluntary nature of participation in restorativejustice programs creates the possibility that posi-tive findings are the result of a selection bias(Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). Clearly offend-ers in this study saw themselves as religiouslyand spiritually engaged, which suggests that thisgroup could be expected to respond well andmay not have recidivated in the first 20 monthspost release regardless of participation in Restor-ing Peace. Arguably, the positive findings mightalso suggest that Restoring Peace is a good matchfor religiously and spiritually engaged offendersbecause the curriculum is ego syntonic (Wor-thington & Sandage, 2001).

Indeed, Christian participants showed signifi-cant i-test differences on five of the question-naires while non-Christian participants onlyshowed significant t-test differences on one mea-sure. This suggests that Christian offenders mayrespond more fully to the intervention than non-Christians. The only measure that did not showsignificant i-test differences was the likeliness toforgive. This could be explained by Christianoffenders higher likeliness to forgive at pre-test.Alternately, the intervention may increase non-Christian offenders' likeliness to forgive.

Religious subscription relative to the strength ofcommitment to religion or intensity of spirituallife did not influence the findings on initial values

ARMOUR, WINDSOR, AGUILAR, AND TAUB l65

Table 3Score Change Hierarchical Regression Models (Subscription to Christianity)

Score Change IRI Perspective Taking

Variables /?

Control Variables .33

Strength of

religious

commitment

Intensity of

spiritual life

Predictor Variable .131*

Religion

" p < .01

Note: For IRI Perspective taking, Ifi

ß (S.E.)

-.207 (.630)

.035 (.649)

.318 (.995)

t

-1.313-

.221

3.228 .

= .131; for Set A, A/P=.O33 (p =.209)For Empathy, ¡fi =.106; for Set A, A / ? = .050 (p =.092)0 = Christian, 1 = non-Christian.

; for Set B, Al? =

Score

/?2

.050

.106*

, for Set B= .056 (p =

Change IRI Empathy

ß (S.E.) t

-.lid (.658) -1.767

.346 (.677) 2.212

.240 (1.06) 2.404

A Ä 2 = .098 ( P = .002)..018). Religion is coded as

or change scores for four of the six question-naires. At pre-test, however, Christian offenderswere significantly less able to take the perspec-tives of others and forgave themselves and otherssignificantly more than non Christians. Regressionanalysis of change scores revealed that Christianoffenders were significantly more likely toincrease their ability to take the perspectives ofother people and display feelings of warmth andcompassion for others than were non-Christians.Because non-Christians start the intervention withhigher perspective taking, they might not beexpected to change as much on this variable. Theintervention may be particularly potent in its abil-ity to affect change in empathy for Christianoffenders as demonstrated by the large effect sizefor perspective-taking (-.51) and empathie con-cern (-.56).

Although Restoring Peace was designed as anin-prison intervention, early reports suggest thatRestoring Peace might contribute to the reduc-tion of post-release offender criminal behavior.The direction of the findings indicates thatRestoring Peace may have the potential tocounter some of the negative effects of prisonenvironments on offenders as well. Specifically,studies show that inmate subculture or "pris-onization" facilitates moral disengagement whichmakes it easier to remove one's humanity fromconduct and maintains involvement in bullying

behavior (South & Wood, 2006). Indeed, it maybe the ease of moral disengagement fromoffenders' own moral standards rather than thedevelopment of moral reasoning that dictatesbehavior. Restoring Peace may counter this pro-clivity to morally disengage and contributeinstead to building a mutual foundation for morepositive interaction particularly if it is offered tomore offenders from the same facility.

The findings indicate that change in moralmotivations may be an important area to mea-sure in both faith-based and secular restorativejustice programs particularly if post-interventionrecidivism rates remain low. Studies, for exam-ple, show positive correlation between empathieresponsiveness and proneness to guilt, which isa more prosocial response than shame (Tangeny,Wagner, & Gramzow, 1992). Although forgive-ness is not a goal of restorative justice dialogue(Armour & Umbreit, 2005), the furtherance ofoffender forgiveness and forgivingness maycounter a moral mandate to seek vengeance(McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, Johnson, 2001).

Limitations

Limitations of this study include lack of a con-trol group and the probability of a self-selectionbias. Offenders who agreed to participate in theprogram, therefore, may already have been

166 A PILOT STUDY OF A FAITH-BASED RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

primed for change. Indeed, self-selection bias isan inherent weakness in restorative justice inter-ventions because of the field's requirement forvoluntary participation and the difficulty, there-fore, in truly randomly assigning participants totreatment and control conditions (Latimer, Dow-den, & Muse, 2005). Without a control group, nocausal relationship can be drawn between moralmotivations and lasting behavioral changes andresults cannot be generalized to offenders whomight volunteer for a Restoring Peace program.Offenders may also have reported socially desir-able answers.

Future Research

Future research could be improved by strate-gies to minimize some of the limitations in thisstudy. Peer ratings could be used as an alterna-tive to self reports prone to social desirability.Selection bias based on demographics alonemight be ascertained through comparison demo-graphics for the entire prison population at thefacility during data collection. Selection biasmight be controlled for in the analysis by mea-suring participants' motivation prior to programparticipation and comparing highly, moderatelyand unmotivated restorative justice participantswith participants in a control group (Latimer,Dowden, & Muse, 2005).

Further developments include an experimen-tal or quasi-experimental design using a waitlist of offenders from the same facility to estab-lish causal mechanisms. If the results are signifi-cant, then future studies might delineate whichaspects of the intervention contribute to Chris-tian offender's increased empathy and whichaspects contribute to non Christian offender'sincreased proneness to forgive. An importantresearch question is to determine whether secu-lar in-prison restorative justice programs pro-vide the same or better results for Christianparticipants than faith-based programs or multifaith programs.

References

Armour, M. P., Sage, J., Rubin, A., & Windsor, L.(2005). Bridges to Life: Evaluation of an in-prisonrestorative justice intervention. Medicine & Law, 24,831-851.

Armour, M. P., & Umbreit, M. (2003). The paradox offorgiveness in restorative justice. In E. L. Worthington,Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 491-503), NewYork: Brunner-Routledge.

Beard, J., Johnson, M., & Kemp, J. (2003). Propos-al to reduce recidivism rates in Texas: A positionpaper. Houston, TX: Earl Carl Institute for Legal andSocial Policy, Inc., Thurgood Marshall School ofLaw. Retrieved January 13, 2008 from http://www.earl-carl.org/forms/RecidivismPositionPaper-PDF.pdf

Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Parrott, L., Ill,O'Connor, L. E., & Wade, N. G. (2005). Forgivingness,vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journal ofPersonality, 73, 183-226.

Blackard, K., & Sage, J. (2006). Restoring peace:Using lessons from prison to mend broken relationships.Victoria, B.C.: Traford.

Blackard, K., & Sage, J. (2005). Restoring peace: Pro-ject coordinator/facilitator guide. Houston, TX: Bridgesto Life.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (,1966). Experimen-tal and quasi-experimental designs for research. Skok-ie, IL: Rand McNally.

Christopher, F. S., Owens L. A., & Stecker H. L.(1993). Exploring the darkside of courtship: A test of amodel of male premarital sexual aggression. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 55, 469-479.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differencesin empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.

Feasey, S., Williams, P., & Clarke, R. (2005). An eval-uation of the prison fellowship Sycamore Tree Pro-gramme: Based on a statistical analysis of Crime Pics //data. Sheffield Hallam University: Research Centre forCommunity Justice.

Fetzer Institute (1999). Multidimensional measure-ment of religiousness/spirituality for use in healthresearch. A Report of the Fetzer Institute/ NationalInstitute on Aging Working Group. Kalamazoo, ML

Kroll J., & Egan E. (2004). Psychiatry, moral worry,and moral emotions. Journal of Psychiatric Practice,10, 352-360.

Latimer, J., Dowden, C, & Muise, D. (2005). Theeffectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. Prison Journal, 85, 127-145.

Legislative Budget Board. (2005). Statewide criminaljustice recidivism and revocation rates. RetrievedAugust 17, 2007 from http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Pub-Safety_CrimJustice/3_Reports/Recidivism_Report_2005.pdf.

Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy,shame, guilt and narratives of interpersonal conflicts:Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking.Journal of Personality, 66, 1-37.

McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., &Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: Relationships withforgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601-610.

Neff, J. A. (2006). Exploring the dimensionality of"religiosity" and "spirituality" in the Fetzer multidimen-sional measure. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli-gion, 45, 449-459.

ARMOUR, WINDSOR, AGUILAR, AND TAUB I 6 7

Norcross, J. C. (Ed.). (2002). Psychotherapy relation-ships that work: Therapists relational contributions toeffective psychotherapy. New York: Oxford tJniversityPress.

Paek, E. (2006). Religiosity and perceived emotionalintelligence among Christians. Personality and Individ-ual Differences, 41, 479-490.

Rockefeller Institute of Government. (2007). Paitb-based programs in prisons. The Roundtable on religion& social welfare policy. Retrieved August 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/resources/fbprison_programs.cfm.

Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hight, T. L., &Berry, J. W. (2000). Seeking forgiveness: Theoreticalcontext and an initial empirical study. Journal of Psy-chology and Theology 2S(1), 21-35.

Shorkey, C, Windsor, L. C, & Spence, R. (2008). TheChristian Inventory of Spirituality. Unpublishedmanuscript. tJniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

South, C. R., & Wood, J. (2006). Bullying in prisons:The importance of perceived social status, prisoniza-tlon and moral disengagement. Aggressive Behavior,32, 490-501.

Stuewig j , , Tangney J. P., Heigel C , & Harty L.(2008). Re-examining the reiationship between shame,guilt, and aggression. Llnpublished manuscript. GeorgeMason University, Fairfax, VA.

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007).Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annuai Review ofPsychology 38, 345-372.

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., & Gramzow, R. (1992).Proneness to shame, proneness to guilt, and psy-chopathology. journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101,468-478.

Watson, P. J., Hood, R. W., Jr., & Morris, R. J. (1984).Religious orientation, humanistic values, and narcis-sism. Review of Religious Research, 25, 257-264.

Weibe, K. F., & Fleck, J. R. (1980). Personality corre-lates of intrinsic, extrinsic, and nonreligious orienta-tion. Journal of Psychology, 105, 181-187.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1988). tjnderstanding the val-ues of religious clients: A model and its application tocounseling. Journal of Counseling Psycbology, 35, 166-174.

Worthington, E. L, Jr , & Sandage, SJ. (2001). Reli-gion and spirituality. Psychotherapy, 38, Ali-Al?,.

Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice.Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

AuthorsMarilyn Peterson Armour, Ph.D. received her doctoral

degree in Social Work at the University of Minnesota. Sheis now an associate professor of social work in Tbe Scboolof Social Work at The University of Texas. She studiesrestorative justice, survivors of homicide victims, andmeaning-making,

Liliane Cambraia Windsor, LMSW is a doctoral candi-date at the School of Social Work at the University ofTexas at Austin and an Investigator at tbe NationalDevelopment & Researcb Institutes, Inc. Sbe studies sub-stance abuse and dependence, poverty, violence, andoppression among urban minority populations.

Jemel P. Aguilar received his doctoral degree in SocialWork at the University of Minnesota. He is an assistantprofessor in the School of Social Work at Tbe Universityof Texas at Austin. His research interests include crimeand delinquency as well as gender and sexuality insocial work.

Crystal Taub is a graduate student in the School ofSocial Work at the University of Texas School of SocialWork. Her research interests include restorative justiceand community trauma.