Does engaging with serious offenders change students’ attitude and empathy toward offenders? A...

For Peer Review O

nly

Does engaging with serious offenders change students’ attitude and empathy toward offenders? A thematic analysis

Journal: Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology

Manuscript ID: RJFP-2013-0061.R1

Manuscript Type: Regular Article

Keywords: offenders, prejudice, empathy, engagement, carceral tour, HMP Grendon

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rjfp Email: [email protected]

Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology

For Peer Review O

nly

Does engaging with serious offenders change students’ attitude and empathy

toward offenders? A thematic analysis

The challenge of tackling reoffending behaviour is one that been the focus of

much political, social and academic interest (Grierson, 2013a). Causal and

correlational factors that can help explain recidivism include psychiatric and

psychological disorder(s), environmental and social support, and disability status to

name but a few. However, we hone in on one social issue that is faced by all

offenders and ex-offenders and which has been determined to play a substantial role

in reoffending behaviour – discrimination.

The largest survey of prisoners undertaken in Britain, Cleary, Ames,

Kostdintcheva and Muller (2012) has identified that reconviction rates for prisoners

released from custodial sentences are higher in those who experience discrimination

than those who do not. Discrimination is the behavioural element of the attitude of

prejudice, and is defined as any action aimed to “. . . limit or restrict access to

privileges or resources” (Stratton & Hayes, 1999, p. 79). Prejudice is defined as

“…the holding of derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the expression of

negative affect …towards members of a group on account of their membership of

that group” (Brown, 2006, p. 8). Indeed, Cleary et al. (2012) identified that 40% of

adults and 37% of juveniles who reported experiencing unemployment and

homelessness were also those who were reconvicted within a year of their release

(Offender Management and Sentencing Analytical Services; OMSAS, 2012).

Importantly, the three key factors that predicted a return to criminality were i) having

a job, ii) having a permanent residence, and iii) having the funds to support oneself

(Bell, 2010).

Evidence demonstrates that 75% of convicted prisoners have a history of

long-term unemployment prior to their incarceration (Metcalf, Anderon & Rolfe, 2001;

Atkinson, Bellis & Marangozov, 2010). Moreover, despite parliamentary strategies

aimed to increase inclusion in society for ex-offenders, such as the “Adults Facing

Chronic Exclusion” pilots, long-term social exclusion remains typical and in turn is a

precursor to reoffending (Cleary et al., 2012). Chronic social exclusion, defined as “a

[prolonged] perceived risk of deficit in belongingness” (Stillman, Baumeister,

Lambert, Crescioni, DeWall, & Fincham, 2009), is shown to predict anti-social

behaviour (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, &

Stucke, 2001). Therefore, it is clear that identifying how inclusion might be

Page 1 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

encouraged, may in turn, identify how the problem of recidivism could be more

meaningfully addressed.

One factor that maintains social exclusion is stigmatisation. Stigmatisation

can be defined as identifying a socially discrediting attribution, behaviour or

reputation leading to social rejection (Goffman, 1963). However, research examining

the stigmatisation of sex offenders illustrates that the recognition and understanding

of stigmatisation toward one’s own group leads to low self-esteem, frustration and

resentment towards stigmatisers (Tewksbury, 2012). In turn, such stigmatisation may

serve to foster reoffending as a means of confronting the frustrations of social

exclusion (Tewksbury, 2012). Therefore, in order to reduce the potential harm to the

general public it is important to determine mechanisms that can lead to reduced

stigmatisation, prejudice, and discrimination toward criminal populations.

One key mechanism that is robustly demonstrated to decrease negativity

toward targets of prejudice and discrimination is empathy (e.g., Batson, Chang, Orr,

& Rowland, 2002; Boag & Carnelley, 2013; Gleichgerrcht & Young, 2013). Empathy

is a multi-faceted construct combining both cognitive (perspective taking) and

emotional (empathic concern) responses (Davis, 1983). Allport (1954) proposed that

people high in empathy are more tolerant of others, and the link between high

empathy and low prejudice has emerged as robust and stable (Bäckström &

Björkund, 2007; Pederson, Beven, Walker, & Griffiths, 2004). High cognitive

empathy relates to increased in-group favouritism (Finlay & Stephan, 2000) and

reduced outgroup prejudice (Batson et al., 1997). Esses and Dovidio (2002) posit

that one reason for this is that experiencing empathy-inducing outgroup interactions

increases the likelihood that outgroups are viewed positively (Esses & Dovidio,

2002).

This supposition is supported by the findings of Pederson et al. (2004) that

show that dispositionally low empathy (specifically low perspective taking) relates to

high self-reported prejudice toward indigenous Australians. Bäckström and Björkund

(2007) support the finding that dispositional empathy (perspective taking and

empathic concern) related to generalized prejudicial responding, defined as “the

tendency to dislike outgroup members no matter which particular group they belong

to” (p. 10). Bäckström and Björkund (2007) demonstrated that high dispositional

empathy negatively related to generalised prejudice. Additionally, there is evidence

that inducing empathy through perspective taking instructions acts to reduce

Page 2 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

negative evaluations of outgroup members (e.g., Batson et al., 1997; Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2001), reduce racism (Finlay & Stephan, 2000), and increase the likelihood

that an individual will actively be involved in programmes aimed at eliminating

violence towards gays and lesbians (Karacanta & Fitness, 2003).

However, there is only limited evidence that this mechanism may also be

involved in reducing prejudice toward criminal populations (Batson et al., 2002;

Batson, Lisher, Cook, & Sawyer, 2005; Boag & Wilson, 2013). In addition, although

research shows that experience with outgroups decreases prejudice toward them

(e.g., Crisp & Turner, 2010; Crisp & Turner, 2011), only one Boag and Wilson (2013)

(to our knowledge) actually examines the role of real (rather than imagined)

interaction with prisoners.

We argue that discrimination, based on ill-informed stereotypes and stigma,

may be a contributory factor (albeit amidst a complex interplay of social variables) in

disrupting pathways to social inclusion amongst ex-offenders. As such, we believe

insights into the role of empathy are crucial in beginning to unpick these issues. We

also argue that personal experience with offenders is one way that can facilitate

empathic growth (Boag & Wilson, 2013). Indeed, the importance of insider

perspectives and personal experience is also highlighted by convict criminologists

(e.g., Jones, Ross, Richards, & Murphy, 2009; Richards & Ross, 2002).

In criminological literature there has been recent debate about the value of “carceral

tours” (prison visits) in pedagogy and research. Piché and Wallby (2010), based on

their analysis of regulations and instructional materials for staff and visitors to a

number of Canadian prisons, proposed that the carceral tour could not justifiably be

used in either research or pedagogy as “…the tours’ objectification of prisoners

violates a central tenet of both research and teaching: that the dignity of individuals

should be respected” (p. 573). However, their argument appears to be more focused

on the lack of transparency of regulations set for prisoners’ behaviour to negatively

impact on the interpretation of results obtained on carceral tours, rather than the

impact of carceral tours per se. In contrast, based on first-hand accounts of students

attending a carceral tour in a UK prison, Wilson, Spina and Canaan (2011) argued

that despite Piché and Wallby’s proposition, the carceral tour served two important

functions: (i) pedagogical, and (ii) sociological. In addition, the prison used in Wilson

et al.’s research gives no behavioural restrictions to residents taking part in the

carceral tour.

Page 3 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Carceral environment

All participants attended a one day carceral tour at the only prison in Europe

that operates exclusively as a therapeutic community (Genders & Player, 1995;

Wilson, Spina, & Canaan, 2011). Of note, Shine and Newton (2000) described the

profile of prisoner receptions into the jail between 1995 and 2000 as “damaged,

disturbed and dangerous”. Three quarters of receptions into the prison during this

period were serving determinate sentences with an average sentence length just

less than eight years and a quarter was serving indeterminate (life) sentences with a

mean tariff of 12 years. This type of offending background has remained constant, so

that most of the residents located at HMP Grendon (as the prisoners are called) are

convicted of serious offences against the person. Overall almost half have a main

current offence of violence (20 per cent for murder and 28 per cent for other types of

violence), 28 per cent were convicted of robbery and 15 per cent for sexual offences

(Wilson et al., 2011).

Aims of the current research

Given the described paucity of literature examining the role of experience with

offenders on reduced prejudice, the first aim of this current paper is to examine

whether qualitative analysis of reflextive accounts of students who experienced a

day interacting with incarcerated prisoners will provide evidence that actual

experience with prisoners will increase empathy and reduce prejudice toward serious

offenders.The second aim of the current paper is to provide some understanding of

the importance of carceral tours in increasing tolerance toward offenders, which in

turn may reflect how prejudice can be reduced toward offenders on their release

from prison. Finally, we will consider the broader policy context of our findings with

regard to the Payment by Results agenda and the “Rehabilitation

Revolution”.METHOD

Participants

Prior to conducting this research full ethical approval was obtained. All eight

participants (4 male, 4 female) used in the current study were part of a larger group

(N = 87) of students who attended the carceral tour (N = 87) which involved

interacting with serious offenders, prison officers and the prison environment. All

were required to write a reflexive account (essay) of their experiences during the

carceral tour (approximately two weeks later) which became their summative

Page 4 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

assessment for their Applied Criminology module. After marking, eight essays were

randomly selected for deeper analysis. The selected essays reflected assessment

grades across the possible range of pass marks (1st, 2:1, 2:2, and 3rd class) to avoid

selection bias.

Procedure

During their time at the prison, participants were given a tour of the living

quarters of the prison, took part in a debate with and alongside the residents, ate

lunch together and were encouraged to openly and frankly interact with the

prisoners. In total the students were in the prison for approximately six hours. The

residents whom the students met were chosen to do so by their peers for therapeutic

reasons, which in turn meant that some had been at the prison for several years,

while others had just arrived at the jail. All participants were observed by the

researchers in conversation with prisoners. As part of their therapy all prisoners are

expected to be honest about and take responsibility for their crimes. On questioning,

all participants verbally reported that the prisoners that they engaged with had been

explicit about and reported feeling accountable for their crimesAll participants are

given a gender specific pseudonym and verbally debriefed at the end of the

semester.

ANALYSIS

The reflexive nature of the essays provided sufficient flexibility to allow us to

apply a qualitative method of analysis. Specifically, thematic analysis was used to

identify emergent topics within the qualitative data as a means of translating

meaning of individual experiences into quantitative data (Boyatzis, 1998). The

theoretical framework is based on the organization of key issues in data into themes

reflecting important relations to the research questions, which serve to frame key

topics that involve specific description rather than provide overall answers (Boyatzis,

1998). Within the thematic analysis methodology, essays were examined for the

recurrence of content indicative of (a) empathy and (b) prejudice and/or

discrimination. Moreover, the content of each essay was assessed to identify

whether any change in empathy and prejudice/discrimination emerged at three

temporal points: 1) prior to visit, 2) during the visit, and 3) after the visit. Analysis was

completed by the first author of this paper and an independent researcher

experienced in thematic analysis. Each researcher independently coded each essay

Page 5 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

and determined that the eight labels emerged; four indicative of empathy (lack of

concern for offenders, emotional detachment, and perspective taking), and four

indicative of prejudice (resentment toward offenders, negative stererotyping,

stereotype disconfirmation, change in attitude). Labels were assessed for inter-rater

reliability, and consensus across all essays was 97%, with high consistency (r = .84).

Empathy

Despite course content including a variety of theoretical and conceptual

explanations for criminality, when describing their thoughts prior to the carceral tour

all reflexive accounts included a distinct lack of concern for those who are

incarcerated. Moreover, it appears that even armed with information not generally

understood by the general population, that punishment was viewed as the natural

solution to criminal activity. In other words, a detachment of emotional concern for

those who offend, and an upholding of the view that criminality should be punished.

For example, one student commented that,

“…people who offend are emotionless, aggressive individuals, deserving of

harsh punishment.” [Sarah]

However, there was also a clear indication of some capacity for empathic

responding to the prisoners prior to meeting them. In particular, one participant wrote

about their thoughts as they were nearing the prison.

“I began to place myself in these men’s shoes and imagine how they would

feel being driven through such a beautiful area knowing that they were to be

contained within the contrasting prison grounds and surrounded by barbed wire.”

[Amy]

Importantly, it is possible to see how empathy appears to develop in the

reflexive essays. For example, by having the opportunity to interact with the prisoner

participants appeared to develop deeper insight into the individual crimes committed,

and even identified some level of perspective taking in their reflections.

“The next prisoner I spoke to was serving a 15 year sentence, he had been in

(prison name) for three years. I asked him why he was in prison, he replied that nine

years ago, a family argument had got out of hand, which resulted in him killing his

uncle. He seemed to hold back slightly compared to other prisoners I had spoken to,

although he told me he had killed a relative he did not go into much detail.” [Dan]

“What stuck out at me was the mug I was drinking from, one side had HMP

Grendon written on, and the other was a child’s picture with the word ‘dad’ painted

Page 6 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

on. This brought things into perspective for me and left me with a heavy sense of

sorrow within, as it made me realise and remember that no matter what crime these

men had committed, they still had families; wives, children, brothers and sisters. We

must remember that while the men in Grendon are serving lengthy prison sentences,

those loved ones on the outside are serving that sentence with them.” [Tom]

When describing their thoughts after the visit, reflections of participants

became more openly empathic, particularly along the dimension of perspective

taking.

“I found myself envisioning within these people (prisoners) a stark image of

what life is like for a very large number of people. This is not to suggest I was

manipulated into feeling overly sympathetic to them and therefore inclined to think

them ‘less’ guilty of awful crimes but rather their accounts spoke to me in a way that

demonstrated the various social challenges people face.” [Beccy]

Prejudice

As stated earlier, all of the participants have gained theoretical and

conceptual knowledge and understanding of offending behaviour. Despite this, all of

the reflections when describing thoughts prior to the carceral tour included negative

stereotyping of prisoners.

“… these men were ‘damaged, disturbed and dangerous’ individuals and 20%

of those were convicted for murder, I expected them to be intimidating and illiterate

with poor social skills and an aggressive nature.” [Kirsty]

In terms of stereotyping, when describing their thoughts prior to meeting the

prisoners more than half the participants made reference to the nature of the crimes

committed by the inmates they would encounter, in particular illustrating their

concerns about interacting with prisoners during the carceral tour

“I had much anticipation regarding the prisoners; this may be due to the fact

that I knew that they consisted of murderers, rapists, psychopaths and paedophiles. I

suppose I believed them to be somewhat rude, aggressive and ignorant” [Dan]

“Prior to the trip I had become well acquainted with the notion that the

prisoners were ‘highly disturbed’ and above average in terms of neuroticism,

criminality and addictiveness.” [Amy]

Moreover, prior to interacting with prisoners, participants appeared to express

some resentment toward the opportunities given to incarcerated offenders.

Page 7 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

“Offenders have gained an unfair advantage over those of us who abide by

the rules.” [Joe]

“…prisoners get free education and get three meals, whereas old people’s

homes get ‘meals on wheels’.” [Dan]

“I also had the chance to see inside a cell. The first thing I notices was the

television. I immediately thought of that frequently quoted “holiday-camp lifestyle”.

[Sarah]

Stereotyping by the participants did not appear to be limited to the prisoners,

but also related to how they viewed prison staff. However, the reflections all included

some shifting in cognitions on meeting both the prisoners and the prison staff.

“I expected the atmosphere of the prison to be tense and uninviting,

surrounded by negativity and disagreements. I assumed that there would be tension

among the prison officers and prisoners and that both would show a marked

tendency toward negative emotions. I perceived the prison officers would be

aggressive, cold and unemotional toward the prisoners and the nature of their

encounters would be hostile, insulting and dehumanising. However, this was a

mistaken conception on my behalf. From the observations that I witnessed there was

in fact an unexpected solidarity between the prisoners and prison officers, as all of

the members of staff I encountered were very approachable and had a pleasant, yet

still authoritarian approach toward the prisoners.”[Dan]

“Second hand information had left me assuming all prison officers would be

strict and unemotional and treat the inmates like animals; this was heavily

disconfirmed following various conversations and observing their actions together.”

[Joe]

Similarly, a shift of attitude appeared to be shaped by the prison environment

itself. In particular changes in how participants stereotyped expectations were not

met, and how the environment served as a positive influence on the prisoners.

“What instantly struck me were the two men cleaning a fish tank in the

communal corridor and it made me think that allowing them responsibility for living

things must be very therapeutic and satisfying for these men.” [Amy]

“The interior of the prison is what challenged my perceptions, or should I say

misperceptions of what it ‘hidden’ on the inside of those four barbed wired fences.”

[Jon]

Page 8 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

“The wing we visited also presented problems when comparing my

expectations to the reality that faced me. When we were let through locked doors

onto the wing, I was confronted by what I can only describe as a ‘mini community’,

people were hustling around the corridors, painting their own cell doors, using the

telephone and holding conversations with each other. I had expected to see cage

like cells, with big heavy locks and bolts across with all the men locked inside them.”

[Beccy]

Moreover, it emerged that interacting with prisoners appeared to be a factor in

changing stereotypes. Indeed, participants appeared to re-humanise a population

that suffers from dehumanisation at a societal level.

“I had much anticipation regarding the prisoners; this may be due to the fact

that I knew that they consisted of murderers, rapists, psychopaths and paedophiles. I

suppose I believed them to be somewhat rude, aggressive and ignorant. However to

my surprise the prisoners were the complete opposite to my initial expectations.”

[Dan]

“Initially, I felt intimidated and panicked at the thought of having to go over to

the canteen and speak directly with prisoners. When I eventually mustered up the

courage, I was astounded by how they were not the hardened, violent, destructive

individuals, immune from compassion I had originally thought. In fact they were quite

the opposite in terms of how polite, respectful and well-mannered they were. This on

its own challenged my viewpoint as it did not fit the stereotype of how I perceived

prisoners to be.” [Sarah]

“My idea of what a criminal ‘should’ look like was also challenged. As a result

of a (pre-visit) lecture detailing that these men were ‘damaged, disturbed and

dangerous’ individuals and that 20% of those were convicted for murder, I had

expected them to be intimidating and illiterate with poor social skills and an

aggressive nature, instead I was confronted with ‘average Joe’s’ who were clever

and able to hold civilised conversations – no different to any passing member of the

public on the street.” [Tom]

DISCUSSION

The results of the current study appear to support the finding of Boag and

Wilson (2013) that actual interactions with incarcerated prisoner’s leads to increased

empathy and reduced prejudice. Indeed, it appeared that prior to the prison visit

empathic responding was unapparent whilst prejudice was clear. Importantly, the

Page 9 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

opportunity to interact with prisoners and prison staff had a distinct influence on

changing the negative stereotypes that were held by the participants prior to their

visit. Moreover, although the change in attitude was primarily led by the interaction,

the prison environment also appeared to play some role. We also noted that there

were no key differences by gender, and the effects appear to be relative to the

individual experience itself.

This is in direct contrast to events after the visit when empathy (albeit

perspective taking) emerged as well as a redressing of prejudiced views. The

findings suggest that real interaction with incarcerated offenders has the potential to

increase individuals’ ability to not focus on the crime itself, but rather provide rational

and informed understanding of the rationale for offending behaviour. By

understanding the rationale for criminality, despite its extreme nature, participants

were able to cognitively understand individual prisoner behaviour.

The finding that participants appear to engage in more reflection indicative of

perspective taking in terms of empathy differs from that of Boag and Wilson (2013),

which demonstrate increased empathic concern. This is an interesting point to note

as there is little evidence of reflections relating to empathic concern in the essays

that were analysed. It may be that reflection on the experience does help people to

comprehend the reasoning for criminal behaviour (e.g., situational, environmental,

experiential, etc.), but this may not translate into an emotional response to the

offenders when expressing one’s own thoughts. However, there is no reason to

suggest that empathic concern cannot emerge, as research does identify that

perspective taking is the cornerstone of empathic responding, and indeed leads to

empathic concern (Batson et al., 2002). In addition, Malain (2013) identifies that

perspective taking decreases the reliance on stereotypes, and increases self-

focused cognitions as a benchmark from which judgements are made. Taken in

conjunction with our previous findings (Boag & Wilson, 2013) when data were

collected on the return journey from the carceral tour, our current findings may

indicate that the empathic changes from an emotional to cognitive mechanism over a

period of two weeks. Alternatively, it may be that the task of reflecting on personal

experiences (a cognitive process) led to more cognitively based empathy

superceding empathic concern. These possibilities warrant further research.

Therefore, in terms of our aim to observe whether consistency with the findings of

Boag and Wilson (2013) emerged we do observe that prejudice decreases and

Page 10 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

empathy increases after the carceral tour. However, the empathic mechanism

underlying this change may differ over time. Notwithstanding, we can broadly

conclude that engagement does have positive implications on developing

mechanisms linked to greater tolerance.

The qualitative nature of the current research adds important understanding to

our second aim. That is, to consider the value of carceral tours as a pedagogical

tool. It is evident that despite engaging with literature and theory within their

academic course, students maintain negative attitudes and a lack of concern for

offenders that is in-line with general society (Boag & Carnelley, 2012). However,

given that a degree in criminology has the potential to form the basis for a career

working with offending populations, it is paramount that we consider how increasing

tolerance toward offenders can be achieved. The findings suggest clearly that

carceral visits can be a valuable tool in providing additional skills that are arguably

needed in such a career. Moreover, as interacting with serious offenders appears to

redress negative stereotypes about offenders, there is scope for prejudice to be

reduced at a wider societal level. Clearly, we do not suggest that serious offenders

are glorified or alternatively put in a fishbowl for public scrutiny. Rather, we suggest

that realistic engagement with serious offenders who are rehabilitated sufficiently to

be considered for release should be encouraged..

This latter suggestion dovetails into the implications of our findings in a

political context. For example, one focus of the Payment by Results (PbR) agenda is

on improving rehabilitation for prisoners by developing integrative working relations

between services. However, with an increasing outsourcing of services (such as

probation) there is an increased likelihood that some service providers will have little

(if any) experience of engaging with serious offenders and negative attitudes can be

maintained. Moreover, within the Rehabilitation Revolution programme there is an

increase of short-term sentences followed by supported rehab for ex-offenders.

Again, the services are (as part of the PbR agenda) being outsourced to private

companies and volunteer organisations (Grierson, 2013). Given that the aim of these

initiatives is to reduce recidivism which can be impelled by social exclusion, and

given that private or volunteer organisations are not required to employ individuals

with a history of experience of offenders/offending behaviour, it is imperative that

effective training occurs to address negative attitudes and increase tolerance. With

this in mind, and given our findings it would be useful to offer employees (and the

Page 11 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

general public) opportunities to gain personal experience with offenders. This may

be via work-related integration schemes, community activity schemes (i.e.,

neighbourhood clean-ups), or public speaking with the opportunity to talk one-to-one

afterwards. Future research should test these propositions in terms of their efficacy.

Limitations

As with all research, this study is not without limitations. Constraining the

thematic analysis within the bounds of empathy and prejudice/discrimination has led

to findings that could be argued to be limited. However, we argue that the paucity in

literature examining the role of empathy in reducing prejudice toward convicted

offenders requires specific assessment of these two mechanisms. In turn, our

findings have the potential to support and extend quantitative literature at a

qualitative level. In addition, it could be argued that there may be strict behavioural

guidelines that influence the experiences that students have with prison staff and

prisoners in carceral tours and therefore lack validity (Piché & Wallby, 2010).

However, we can say with certaintly that the residents with whom the participants

engaged were not told to behave or respond to the student visitors in a particular

way. Rather, the residents were expected to act normally so any restrictions were

self-imposed. Thus, we argue that in this study Piché & Wallby’s, (2010) proposition

is less applicable. However, Piché and Wallby (2010) raise a valid point that we

believe should be empirically examined in future research.

In addition, our research only considered the reflections of final year

criminology students. In itself, this limits any findings to this target population only.

However, as we aimed to assess whether the quantitative findings we had previously

demonstrated could be supported qualitatively, and given that the participants had

previously been criminology students we used the same target population. Future

research should extend the research to community samples to gauge the impact that

the carceral tour might have on individuals with no prior academic understanding of

the carceral environment.

Conclusions

In summary, we examined the reflexive essays of eight students who had the

opportunity to gain first-hand experience of interacting with serious offenders, prison

officers and the prison environment. We specifically aimed to assess whether there

was any indication that the mechanisms of empathy and prejudice might be

activated, and subsequently change at different temporal points (before, during and

Page 12 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

after the carceral tour). Using thematic analysis we found that student reflections did

demonstrate some alterations in the empathic skill of perspective taking; but not

empathic concern. Importantly, this change in empathy appeared to be clearly linked

to the experiences of the students throughout the day. In addition, we found that the

reflections demonstrated a softening of negative attitude toward the serious

offenders and prison officers. Again, this change appeared to be directly linked to the

experiences of interacting with prisoners and staff during the carceral tour. Hence, in

line with our earlier quantitative findings, it would appear that the experience of

interaction with serious offenders and prison officers on a carceral tour may serve

wider application potential as a tool to increase tolerance toward offenders.

Page 13 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

References

Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Perseus Books.

Atkinson, J., Bellis, A., & Marangozov, R. (2010). Joints pilots baseline research.

DWP Research Report, 605. Leeds: CDS.

Bäckström, M., & Björkund, F. (2007). Structural modeling of generalized prejudice:

The role of social dominance, authoritarianism, and empathy. Journal of

Individual Differences, 28, 10-17. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.28.1.10

Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and

action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help

the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656–1666. doi:

10.1177/014616702 237647

Batson, C. D., Lisher, D. A., Cook, J., & Sawyer, S. (2005). Similarity and nurturance:

Two possible sources of empathy for strangers. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 27, 15-25. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp2701_2

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jone’s, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C.,

Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes:

Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the

group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105

Bell, I. (2010). Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis: Executive

summary. Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Retrieved from:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110201125714/http://www.justice

.gov.uk/publications/docs/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis-

exec-summary.pdf

Boag, E. M., & Carnelley, K. B. (2013). Attachment and prejudice: The mediating role

of empathy. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Boag, E. M., & Wilson, D. (2012). Does engaging with offenders reduce prejudice via

empathy? Manuscript accepted for publication.

Boyzatis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualiltative information: Thematic analysis and

code development. London: Sage Publications.

Brown, R. (2006). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Cleary, A., Ames, A., Kostadintcheva, K., & Muller, H. (2012). Surveying prisoner

crime reduction: Wave 2 (pre-release) samples 1 and 2 technical report.

Page 14 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Ministry of Justice Research Series 6/12. Retrieved from:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-

research/surveying-prisoner-crime-reduction-wave-2.pdf

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2010). Essential social psychology (2nd Edition).

London: Sage.

Crisp, R.J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social

and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137, pp.242-266. doi:

10.1037/a0021840

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a

multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,

113-126. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness

to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2,

1202–1214. doi:10.1177/01461672022812006

Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of

empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1720-

1737. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x

Genders, E., & Player, E. (1995). Grendon: A study of a therapeutic prison. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict

utilitarian moral judgment. PLoS ONE, 8,(4): e60418.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New

York: Simon & Schuster Inc.

Grierson, J. (2013a). Reoffending rate increases. The Independent. Available at

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri http://humboldt-

dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/2148/1520/malain_eric_d_Sp2013.pdf?

sequence=1me/reoffending-rate-increases-8475391.html

Grierson, J. (2013b). Rehabilitation revolution for prisoners after short jail terms. The

Independent. Available at www.independent.co.uk/news,

uk/politics/rehabilitation-revolution-for-prisoners-after-short-jail-terms-

8443504.html

Page 15 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Jones, R. S., Ross, J. I., Richards, S. C., & Murphy, D. S. (2009). The first dime: A

decade of convict criminology. The Prison Journal, 89, 151-171. doi:

10.1177/0032885509334744

Karacanta, A., & Fitness, J. (2003). Helping a gay and lesbian out-group: The roles

of empathy and guilt. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of the

Society of Australasian Social Psychologists, Sydney, New South Wales.

Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and

violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behaviour, 29,

202–214. doi: 10.1002/ab.10061

Malain, E. D. (2013). Perspective taking: Self-other overlap as a mediating process

in stereotypical behaviour predictions. Masters Thesis, Humboldt State

University, USA. Available at http://humboldt-

dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/2148/1520/malain_eric_d_Sp2013.pdf?

sequence=1

Metcalf, H., Anderson, T., & Rolfe, H. (2001). Barriers to employment for offenders

and ex-offenders. DWP Research Report, 155. Leeds: CDS.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias:

Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions

to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 97-115. doi:

10.1 037//0022-3514.81.1.97

Pederson, A., Beven, J., Walker, I., & Griffiths, B. (2004). Attitudes toward

indigenous- Australians: The role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community

and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 233-249. doi: 10.1002/casp.771

Richards, J. & Ross, S. (2002). Convict Criminology. Belmont: Wadsworth

Publishing.

Shine, J., & Newton, M. (2000). Damaged, disturbed and dangerous: A profile of

receptions to Grendon therapeutic prison. In J. Shine (Ed.) (2000). A

compilation of Grendon research. Gloucester: Leyhill Press.

Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Lambert, N. M., Crescioni, W. A., DeWall, N. C., &

Fincham, F. D. (2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning

following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,

686–694. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.007

Tewksbury, R. (2012). Stigmatisation of sex offenders. Deviant Behavior, 33, (8),

606-623. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2011.636690

Page 16 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join

them beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behaviour. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058–1069. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.81.6.1058

Wilson, D., Spina, R., & Canaan, J.E. (2011). In praise of the carceral tour: Learning

from the Grendon experience, Howard Journal, 50, 343–355.

Page 17 of 17



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Does engaging with serious offenders change students’ attitude and empathy toward offenders? A...

Documents

Transcript of Does engaging with serious offenders change students’ attitude and empathy toward offenders? A...