Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wamt20

Download by: [University of Texas Libraries], [Andres Ramirez] Date: 17 June 2016, At: 14:39

Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma

ISSN: 1092-6771 (Print) 1545-083X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wamt20

Self-Compassion and Predictors of Criminality

Richard M. Morley, Victoria A. Terranova, Shannon N. Cunningham & GulizKraft

To cite this article: Richard M. Morley, Victoria A. Terranova, Shannon N. Cunningham &Guliz Kraft (2016) Self-Compassion and Predictors of Criminality, Journal of Aggression,Maltreatment & Trauma, 25:5, 503-517, DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2015.1107170

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1107170

Published online: 30 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Self-Compassion and Predictors of CriminalityRichard M. Morley, Victoria A. Terranova, Shannon N. Cunningham,and Guliz Kraft

School of Criminal Justice, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA

ABSTRACTThe main focus of this article is to conduct an exploratory inves-tigation of self-compassion, a positive indicator of mental health,as a predictor of violence and criminality within a sample ofprisoners. Correlation and regression analyses were used toexplore the relationship that self-compassion has with self-con-trol, self-esteem, and social connectedness. Associations betweenself-compassion and the subscales of self-control were also exam-ined. Results from both correlational analysis and regressionindicate that self-compassion is correlated with all 3 variables.Correlations revealed that self-compassion was related to all 6subscales of self-control. Regression, however, revealed thatimpulsivity was the only predictor of self-compassion. Furtheranalysis revealed problems with multicollinearity. Implicationsand limitations of these results are discussed.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 11 August 2014Revised 30 March 2015Accepted 10 September2015

KEYWORDSCriminality; self-compassion;self-control; self-esteem;social connectedness

The United States dominates the world in the number of people it incarcerates(Kurian, 1997; Liptak, 2008; Walmsley, 2011), with more than 2,266,800, as of2010 (Glaze, 2011). Even if perpetrators of crime are arrested, convicted, andsent to prison, they usually return to society after they have served theirsentences. Understanding the characteristics of criminals has an extensiveutility for preparing effective corrective programs that help offenders integrateback into society. To achieve this goal, researchers have traditionally sought toidentify traits associated with risk. In the process of identifying risk factors,social scientists have linked criminality to self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi,1990), the ability to form social bonds (Sampson & Laub, 2009), and self-esteem (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Oser, 2006; Toch, 1969/1993). Inrecent years, however, some researchers have focused on positive psychologicalstates that improve risk outcomes (Woldgabreal, Day, & Ward, 2014). Onepossible construct that matches this criterion, called self-compassion, has beenconceptualized as a positive indicator of mental health (K. Neff, 2003). Despitethe scarcity of research investigating its relationship to criminality, thecurrent literature indicates that self-compassion shows promise as a negativecorrelation of violent criminality.

CONTACT Richard M. Morley Rm79@txstate.edu 12711 Esplanade, Austin, TX 78727, USA.

JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA2016, VOL. 25, NO. 5, 503–517http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1107170

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Self-control, social connectedness, and self-esteem as predictors ofcriminality

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) theorized that criminality is characterized bya lack of self-control. Self-control refers “to the extent to which they (people)are vulnerable to the temptations of the moment” (Gottfredson & Hirschi,1990, p. 87). Hirschi and Gottfredson (1995) stated that low self-controlis characterized by six elements. These factors include a lack of futureorientation, self-centeredness, proneness to anger, lack of diligence, anorientation toward physical activities as compared to mental activities, anda preference for risk taking (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1995). Although all ofthe aforementioned characteristics are, to a certain extent, related to thecrime, the chief feature related to the crime is impulsivity, the extent towhich someone can adequately evaluate consequences of his or her behavior(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 95).

To test Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) control theory, Grasmick, Title,Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) developed a 24-item scale, entitled the GrasmickSelf-Control scale, to empirically test the self-control construct, utilizingprincipal component analysis. Their study confirmed self-control as a“unidimensional trait” (Grasmick et al., 1993 p. 23). They also investigatedthe extent to which “low self-control” predicts “fraud” and “force.” The self-control variable was measured by the 24-item Grasmick Self-Control scale.The results indicated that when controlling for gender, age, and race, theindependent variables of low self-control, opportunity, and the product oflow self-control and the opportunity to engage in crime predicted fraud.

The Meneses and Akers (2011) study conducted with U.S. college studentsindicated that the following components of the self-control variable predictedmarijuana use: risk taking, physical activity, and simple tasks. As anticipatedby the theory, risk taking and simple tasks were positively correlated to thecommission of a crime. Unlike the prediction of the theory, physical activitywas negatively correlated with marijuana use in the U.S. college population.

Other studies (Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Netter, Hennig, Rohrmann,Wyhlidal, & Hain-Hermann, 1998) have focused on self-control’s associationwith anger and impulsivity. Specifically, these studies confirmed the negativecorrelation between self-control and aggression (Netter et al., 1998), lack ofthe ability to deter gratification (Nagin & Paternoster, 1993), and violentreoffending among violent criminals.

Sampson and Laub (1993) first appreciated social connectedness as acharacteristic of criminality when they found a negative relationship betweenthe ability to form social bonds and criminality. More precisely, Sampsonand Laub described in a 35-year follow-up of Glueck and Glueck’s (1950)study that life circumstances, like marriage and employment, played asignificant role in the desistance of crime. Following this study, other

504 R. M. MORLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

researchers have found similar results (Horney, Osgood, & Marshall, 1995;Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998). Moreover, the ability to form socialconnections has been demonstrated to reduce anger provoked by socialrejection (Tweng et al., 2007). Finally, Taylor, Loney, Bobadilla, Iacono,and McGue (2003) found that antisocial personality traits are negativelycorrelated with social connectedness. Specifically, they found that theantisocial and social detached subscales of the Minnesota TemperamentInventory were positively associated in 508 boys aged 16 to 18 years old.

Morris, Gerber, and Menard (2011) compared the effectiveness of twodifferent conceptualizations of self-control (SC), specifically self-controland social control/social bonding conceptualizations (SC/SB) in predictingoffending. Whereas SC was measured utilizing the Grasmick Self-Controlscale, the new measure, SC/SB, included the following measures of socialbonds: “spouse or partner, children, friends, career, involvement incommunity activities, and religiosity” (Morris et al., 2011, p. 589) andthe rating of the importance of these bonds. The results suggested thatboth SC and SC/SB were significantly related to the offending, althoughself-control produced slightly higher coefficients in most of the analysescompared to SC/SB.

In addition to self-control and social connectedness, research suggests thathigh self-esteem has a negative relationship with violent criminality(Anderson, 1994; Long, 1990; Oser, 2006; Toch, 1969/1993). Researchsupporting this relationship indicates that high self-esteem has a negativerelationship with aggression (Murphy, Stosny, & Morrel, 2005) and thenumber of violent offenses committed by violent criminals (Oser, 2006).Researchers also have revealed that the construct of narcissism moderatesthe relationship between self-esteem and violent criminality (Bushman &Baumeister, 1998; Papps & O’Carroll, 1998; Sullivan & Geaslin, 2001).The studies suggested that individuals with high self-esteem andnarcissism have a greater propensity toward violence compared to personswith low self-esteem or high self-esteem with low narcissism.

Self-compassion and its relationship to criminality

Self-compassion has been proposed as an alternative way to conceptualizehealthy self-attitudes (K. Neff, 2003). According to Neff, self-compassion iscomprised of three interrelated components, including self-kindness,mindfulness, and awareness of a common humanity. Research indicates thatself-compassion has a negative relationship with anger (Neff & Vonk, 2009),and a positive relationship with self-esteem, concern for others, and socialconnectedness (Murphy et al., 2005; K. Neff, 2003; Stosny, 1995). Stosny(1995) described self-compassion as being “incompatible with antisocialbehavior” (p. 82) and antagonistic to narcissism.

JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 505

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Even though there is a line of research that indicates the significance ofself-compassion development for preventing the commission of crimes,studies are highly limited in this field. Self-compassion, as compared toself-esteem, was shown to be a stronger negative predictor of personaldistress and shame, and a stronger positive predictor of social functioningin sex offenders (Lo, 2007). In addition to the aforementioned negativerelationship between violent criminality and self-compassion, positivetreatment effects were reported in interventions with self-compassioncontent with violent criminals. More specifically, treatment studies designedto increase self-compassion in violent criminals have been shown to decreasefuture violent behavior (Murphy et al., 2005; Stosny, 1995).

Another possible link to self-compassion and criminality relates to themindfulness component of self-compassion. Mindfulness is the practicewhereby people are nonjudgmentally and intentionally aware of their thoughtsand actions in the present moment (Grossman et al., 2003; Neff, 2003).Because mindfulness involves an intentional awareness of thoughts andactions, it is believed that mindfulness involves self-control (Bowlin & Baer,2012; Masicampo & Baumeister, 2007). Mindfulness is positivelyassociated with the practice of meditation (Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, &Walach, 2004). Likewise, K. Neff (2003) found that self-compassion scorescorrelate with years of training in meditation; the practice of meditation wasshown to have reduced the rate of rearrest followed by conviction by 43% in a15-year study at Folsom Prison (Rainforth, Alexander, & Cavanaugh, 2003).

Currently, research has not linked self-compassion to social connectednessand self-control among heterogeneous categories of criminals. Moreover,a very small amount of research investigated the connection between theself-compassion scale, social connectedness, and self-esteem among jailinmates.

The objective of this exploratory study is to investigate the relationshipbetween compassion and these three criminogenic traits among a criminalpopulation. One potential consideration of note that merits further investigationbeyond this study is the disproportional incarceration rates of some minoritygroups, as well as persons of a lower socioeconomic status (SES; Gordon,Bindrim, McNicholas, & Walden, 1988; Kramer & Steffensmeir, 1993;Mitchell, 2005). Due to such overrepresentation, it is important to considerthe influence of race and SES on the relationship that self-compassion haswith self-control, self-esteem, and social connectedness. Evidence indicatesthat self-compassion provides neuronal changes to areas associated with thesevariables (Desbordes et al., 2012; Engström & Söderfeldt, 2010; Klimecki,Leiberg, Lamm, & Singe, 2012; Longe et al., 2010). Specifically, the effect ofrace and SES are correlated, and the relationships these variables display withcrime are mediated by other variables such as exposure to violence (McNulty &Bellair, 2003; Neumayer, 2005). Research findings suggest that exposure to

506 R. M. MORLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

violence leads to abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and striatum(Hart & Rubia, 2012; McCrory, De Brito, & Viding, 2010; Yang & Raine, 2009),which are areas tied to impulse control, empathy, and goal formation. Exposureto violence can lead to the development of antisocial personality disorder, whichis characterized as low self-control, impaired ability to form social bonds, andproblematic self-esteem (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, 2013).Research has linked self-compassion to the same neurological structures(Desbordes et al., 2012; Engström & Söderfeldt, 2010; Klimecki et al., 2012;Longe et al., 2010). Because these variables are neurological, they shouldgeneralize across all groups.

Methods

Participants

Participants for this study included a convenience sample of 94 inmates,including 74 men and 20 women, between the ages 18 and 54 incarcerated ata county jail in a metropolitan area in the southwest United States. Thegroup was composed of 47% White non-Hispanic, 19% White Hispanic, 19%African American, and 6% other (consisting of multiracial, Asian, and NativeAmerican). These demographics are similar to the demographics of othercounty jails in the metropolitan areas in the region (Watson et al., 2004).

Procedure

Prior to recruiting any participants, this study underwent a full institutionalreview board review. The researcher was assured by the manager of specialprograms at the jail that all participants were allowed to refuse participation inthis study. A copy of each participant’s consent form was obtained.Participants were recruited through the special programs department at thejail. Researchers were given access to speak with inmates in their unit or priorto engagement in classes, and invite them to participate in this study.Interested participants were placed on a list and asked to report to roomsdesigned for education purposes. As indicated by the manager of specialprograms, several participants did not show up. The researchers providedwritten consent forms to the participants prior to providing any measures.Moreover, researchers allowed for participants to ask any questions concerningthe study prior to completing any measures and instructed them that theycould choose not to participate at any time. One participant chose not toparticipate after beginning the survey. This participant’s competed surveyswere shredded immediately. Once written consents were signed and given tothe researcher, the participants were presented a packet containing the instru-ments. The scales were presented in the following order: the demographics

JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 507

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

form, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the self-control measure, the socialconnectedness measure, and finally the self-compassion measure. This studypredicted that self-compassion would be correlated with all three variables.

Measures

A demographic form was included with the research measures. Thisdemographic form asked questions about age, race, and ethnicity.

Self-compassion scaleThe Self-Compassion scale is a 26-item self-report instrument scale that wasdeveloped by K. D. Neff (2003). It contains six subscales including threepositive scales and three negative scales. The positive subscales include thefollowing: Self-Kindness (e.g., I try to be loving toward myself when I’mfeeling emotional pain), Common Humanity (e.g., When I’m down and out,I remind myself that there are lots of other people in the world feeling likeI feel), and Mindfulness (e.g., When something upsets me, I try to keepmy emotions in balance). Further, it contains the following three negativesubscales: Self-Judgment (e.g., I’m disapproving and judgmental about myown flaws and inadequacies), Isolation (e.g., When I think about myinadequacies, it tends to make me feel more separate and cut off from therest of the world), and Overidentification (e.g., When I’m feeling down,I tend to obsess and fixate on everything that’s wrong). Negative items(self-judgment, isolation, and overidentification) are reverse scored prior tocompleting the total mean. Validation studies (K. D. Neff, 2003) havedemonstrated good internal consistency (.92) with subscales ranging from.75 to .81 and good test–retest reliability ranging from .80 to .88 acrosssubscales. This scale also has been shown to predict social functioningamong convicted sex offenders (Lo, 2007).

Social connectedness revisedSocial Connectedness Revised is a scale developed by Lee and Robbins(1995) to measure the emotional closeness that individuals reportbetween themselves and other people. The social connectedness scaleconsists of statements inversely related to social connectedness, such as“I feel so distant from others” and “I catch myself losing all sense ofconnectedness with society.” These statements are scored on a rating scaleranging from 1 (agree) to 6 (disagree). Higher scores reflect more socialconnectedness and belongingness. This scale was shown to have goodinternal reliability (.92; Lee & Robbins, 2001). This scale has been shownto predict criminal offending among female offenders (Taylor, Convery,& Barton, 2013)

508 R. M. MORLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Self-control scaleGrasmick et al.’s (1993) Self-Control scale has been the most widely usedmeasure of self-control in the literature (Gibson, 2005). This scale wasdesigned to measure the personality trait of self-control as defined byGottfredson and Hirschi (1990), who described a lack of self-control ashaving six components. These six components include impulsivity (e.g., Ioften act on the spur of the moment without thinking), a preference forsimple rather than complex tasks (e.g., I try to avoid projects I think aredifficult), risk-seeking behavior (e.g., I test myself now and then by doingsomething risky), a preference for physical activities over cerebral activities(e.g., I like to get out and do things more than I like to read or contemplateideas), self-centered orientation (e.g., I try to look after myself even if itmeans making things difficult for other people), and temper (e.g., I losemy temper pretty easy). This 24-item scale includes four items for eachcomponent. These items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0(never) to 4 (almost always). Seven of the items are reverse coded. Higherscores on this scale indicate a lower level of self-control; however, forclarification, we reversed the direction of measure. This scale was shown tohave high reliability (.87) for incarcerated men (Gibson, 2005). Moreover,this scale has been shown to predict criminal offending (Grasmick et al.,1993) and reoffending (Nagin & Paternoster, 1993).

Self-esteem scaleThe Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979) was used to measureglobal self-esteem. This scale is the most frequently cited self-report measureof self-esteem (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001). This self-report scaleconsists of 10 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include statements suchas, “On the whole I am satisfied with myself,” and “I feel I do not have muchto be proud of.” Items are scored and summed to compute a total self-esteemscore, with lower scores reflecting low self-esteem and higher scoresreflecting high self-esteem. According to research, convergent anddiscriminant validity have been found with self-ideal (.67), self-image (.83),and a psychiatrist’s rating (.56) (Rosenberg, 1979). This measure has beenshown to have good construct validity among sampled prisoners (Boduszek,Shevlin, Mallett, Hyland, & O’Kane, 2012).

Missing dataAll missing items were replaced with the participants’ subscale mean.If participants were missing more than half the subscale items, they werenot scored for that measure. Moreover, if participants circled two adjacentscores on the same item, the items were averaged.

JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 509

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Results

Correlations were conducted tomeasure the relationship among the inmates’ self-compassion, self-esteem, self-control, and social connectedness scores; regressionanalyses were conducted to measure the extent to which the participants’ self-control, self-esteem, and social connectedness scores are independently associatedwith self-compassion. Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics including means andstandard deviations, and Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients of thepsychological variables. In most cases the observed pattern of associations wasas predicted. Self-compassion displayed a significant positive relationship withself-esteem (R = .48, p < .05), social connectedness (R = .29, p < .05), and self-control (R = .30 p < .05). Self-esteem, additionally, appeared to be associated withself-control (R = –.17, p < .05) and social connectedness (R = .18, p < .05).Moreover, self-control was correlated with social connectedness (R = .25, p < .05).

In addition to Pearson’s correlation analysis, multiple regression analyses wereconducted to examine the extent to which participants’ self-compassion trait wasassociated with their self-control, self-esteem, and social connectedness. Table 3describes the unstandardized and standardized coefficients of this regressionmodel. Multiple regression model with all three predictors was revealed to besignificant, F(3.90) = 13, p < .05, adjusted R2 = .28. Both self-esteem, T = 4.6,p < .05, adjusted R2 = .23; and social connectedness were significantly positivelyassociated with self-compassion, T = 1.81, p < .05, adjusted R2 = .29. Likewise, lowself-control was a negative correlate of self-compassion, T = −2.04, p < .05,adjusted R2 = .28.

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Variables.M SD

Self-Compassion scale 85.78 17.04Social connectedness 81.66 23.28Self-control 49.34 11.72Self-esteem 21.59 4.96

Table 2. Correlation Coefficients Among Psychological Variables.Self-compassion Self-esteem Social connectedness Self-control

Self-compassion —Self-esteem .48** —Social connectedness .29* .18* —Self-control .30* .17* .25* —

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

Table 3. Regression Coefficients for Self-Compassion.Unstandardized Standardized

Social connectedness .12* .17*Self-control .27* .19*Self-esteem 1.43** .53**

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

510 R. M. MORLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Conditional on a significant correlation between self-compassion and self-control scores, Pearson’s R and multiple regression were conducted to see ifthere was an association between self-compassion scores and the subscalesof self-control. Table 4 describes the correlation coefficients between self-control subscales and self-compassion. As with the previous study,Bonferroni’s correction was applied. Self-compassion displayed significantnegative correlations with impulsivity (R = −.44, p < .05), temper(R = −.48, p < .05), risk-seeking (R = −.29, p < .05), and self-centeredness(R = −.28, p < .05). Neither simple task (R = −.2, p > .05) nor physicalactivities (R = −.1, p > .05) were revealed to be correlates of self-compassion.

The conditional multiple regression model revealed a significant regressionmodel, F(6.87), p < .05, adjusted R2 = .25. Out of the subscales, only impulsivitywas found to be a significant correlate of self-compassion, T = 2.8, p < .05. TheVariance Factor Inflation (VIF) values suggest that multicollinearity is a likelyfactor for the change in significance, demonstrated by risk seeking (VIF = 1.64),self-centeredness (VIF = 1.56), and temper (VIF = 1.57) (O’brien, 2007). Sobel’stest was conducted, employing impulsivity as a potential mediator for the self-compassion and the other correlated subscales. Impulsivity was not a mediatorfor temper (Z = −.61 p > .05), self-centeredness (Z = −.6, p > .05), or risk seeking(Z = −1.01, p > .05).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to explore the association between self-compassionand various risk factors associated with criminality, including self-control,social connectedness, and self-esteem among incarcerated participants.Accordingly, these findings identify associations between self-compassionand all three predictors. Moreover, these findings provide evidence ofconvergent validity for the use of self-compassion to evaluate inmates onthe grounds that participants’ self-compassion scores correlated with bothself-esteem and social connectedness. Overall, the findings support ourhypothesis that self-compassionate inmates tend to have more self-control,more social connectedness, and higher self-esteem.

Table 4. Self-Compassion and Subscales of Self-Control.Self-compassion

Impulsivity −.44**Preference for simple tasks −.21Risk seeking behavior −.29*Preference for physical activities −.10Self-centeredness −.28*Temper −.36**

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

JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 511

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

In terms of the magnitude of these associations, the results indicate thatself-compassion has a moderate correlation with self-control, social connect-edness, and strong relationship with self-esteem (Cohen, 1988). Interestingly,these factors displayed only a small correlation with each other (Cohen,1988). Although this is not a new finding when considering the associationof self-compassion to self-esteem and social connectedness (Murphy et al.,2005; K. Neff, 2003; Stosny, 1995), the novelty that this study providesconcerns the way these traits relate to population sampled. Previousstudies mostly sampled from university students. This study focused onprisoners, providing evidence of convergent validity for the implementationof the self-compassion scale for this population.

Concerning self-control and the impulsivity subscale, these results confirmthe hypotheses outlined earlier and tend to collaborate with other findingsregarding the potential of self-compassion to reduce impulsivity by overcomingthe unpleasantness of self-awareness (Adams & Leary, 2007; Heatherton &Baumeister, 1991; Webb & Forman, 2013). Specifically, Heatherton andBaumeister (1991) found that impulsivity stems from an unwillingness to beself-aware due to the unpleasantness of the experience of self-awareness.Evidence suggests that self-compassion empowers people to overcomethis unpleasantness, thereby reducing impulsivity among college students witheating disorders (Adams & Leary, 2007; Webb & Forman, 2013). Although it isbeyond the scope of this study to cross-validate these findings, the analysisconfirms that self-compassion is negatively correlated to impulsivity. Thereis a distinct potentiality that this correlation involves the unpleasantness ofself-awareness phenomena. Future studies will have to investigate the causalrelationship of these variables.

In addition to impulsivity, this study found that self-compassion wasnegatively associated with risk taking, self-centeredness, and tempersubscales. Self-compassionate people are more aware of their actions andare, therefore, likely to be more mindful of the long-term consequences ofrisky behavior. Such people tend to have a more balanced sense of selfand other, which contradicts self-centered perspectives (Stosny, 1995). Self-compassion has also been shown to be negatively correlated with state anger(Neff & Vonk, 2009), a construct similar to the temper.

Overall, the results of these analyses imply that self-compassion is relatedto predictors of criminality among inmates. Although these findings are verypreliminary, they demonstrate that self-compassion shows promise incriminological and forensic research. Future studies will need to investigatethe link between self-compassion and criminality further. Considering thecorrelative strength found between self-compassion and the predictors ofcriminality, an obvious direction could evaluate the causal link betweenself-compassion and the criminogenic traits discussed in this study.Although previous studies have found that therapeutically targeted increases

512 R. M. MORLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

in self-compassion can increase self-esteem among perpetrators of domesticviolence (Murphy et al., 2005), there has yet to be a study replicating thisfinding with other violent criminals. Likewise, evidence shows that increasingself-compassion magnifies social connectedness (Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick,2007) and decreases impulsivity (Adams & Leary, 2007; Web & Forman,2013) among noninmates, but there has yet to be a study cross-validatingthis finding among criminals. Considering also that this is the first studyinvestigating the relationship of K. Neff’s (2003) self-compassion scale andGrasmick’s (1993) self-control scale, more research is required exploring thecorrelation between these scales, as well as the role they conjointly play inviolence and criminality.

Limitations

There are several limitations that need to be addressed. First, thesefindings were based on self-reported information, indicating that theyrelate to the inmates’ self-perceptions. They should not be taken as anobjective measurement of the different variables used in this study. Futurestudies should consider research methods other than surveys. Moreover,our sample was taken from a population of low- and medium-risk inmateswho expressed an interest in meditation at the county jail. These samplingparameters potentially introduced a bias to the study’s findings.Furthermore, results might not be generalized to high-risk inmates orthose not interested in meditation. This interest could bias our results.Future studies should attempt to replicate these findings with other typesof offenders or offenders incarcerated for more serious crimes. Finally, ourinterpretation of the link between self-compassion and criminality amonginmates is based on theoretical correlates of traits of crime. Future studiesshould investigate the more direct link between self-compassion andcriminality.

References

Adams, C. E., & Leary, M. R. (2007). Promoting self-compassionate attitudes towardeating among restrictive and guilty eaters. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26,1120–1144. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.10.1120

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders, text revision. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, E. (1994). The code of the streets. Atlantic Monthly, 273, 81–94.Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence

and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33.doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5

JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 513

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Boduszek, D., Shevlin, M., Mallett, J., Hyland, P., & O’Kane, D. (2012). Dimensionality andconstruct validity of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale within a sample of recidivisticprisoners. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 2(1), 19–25. doi:10.1108/20093821211210468

Bowlin, S. L., & Baer, R. A. (2012). Relationships between mindfulness, self-control, andpsychological functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 411–415. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.050

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, anddirect and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219

Center, J. P. (2004). A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.Desbordes, G., Negi, L. T., Pace, T. W., Wallace, B. A., Raison, C. L., & Schwartz, E. L. (2012).

Effects of mindful-attention and compassion meditation training on amygdala response toemotional stimuli in an ordinary, non-meditative state. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,6, 292–307. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292

Engström, M., & Söderfeldt, B. (2010). Brain activation during compassion meditation: A casestudy. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16, 597–599. doi:10.1089/acm.2009.0309

Gibson, C. L. (2005). A psychometric investigation of a self-control scale: The reliability andvalidity of Grasmick et al.’s scale for a sample of incarcerated male offenders (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Glaze, L. E. (2011). Correctional population in the United States 2010. Washington, DC:Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. New York, NY:Commonwealth Fund.

Gordon, R. A., Bindrim, T. A., McNicholas, M. L., & Walden, T. L. (1988). Perceptions ofblue-collar and white-collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated jurordecisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 191–197. doi:10.1080/00224545.1988.9711362

Gottfredson, H. G., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the coreempirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29. doi:10.1177/0022427893030001002

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2003). Mindfulness-based stressreduction and health benefits: a meta-analysis. Focus on Alternative and ComplementaryTherapies, 8(4), 500–500. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2003.tb04008.x

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stressreduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1),35–43. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7

Hart, H., & Rubia, K. (2012). Neuroimaging of child abuse: A critical review. Frontiers inHuman Neuroscience, 6, 52–76. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00052

Heatherton, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Binge eating as escape from self-awareness.Psychological Bulletin, 110, 86–108. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.86

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1995). Control theory and the life-course perspective.Studies on Crime & Crime Prevention, 4, 131–142.

Horney, J. D., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. (1995). Criminal careers in the short- term:Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. AmericanSociological Review, 60, 655–673. doi:10.2307/2096316

514 R. M. MORLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Klimecki, O. M., Leiberg, S., Lamm, C., & Singer, T. (2012). Functional neural plasticity andassociated changes in positive affect after compassion training. Cerebral Cortex, bhs142.doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs142

Klimecki, O. M., Leiberg, S., Lamm, C., & Singer, T. (2013). Functional neural plasticityand associated changes in positive affect after compassion training. Cerebral Cortex, 23,1552–1561. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs142

Kramer, J., & Steffensmeir, D. (1993). Race and imprisonment decisions. The SociologicalQuarterly, 34, 357–376. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00395.x

Kurian, G. T. (1997). The illustrated book of world rankings. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal

offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63,225–238. doi:10.2307/2657324

Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The Social Connectedness andthe Social Assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 232. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232

Liptak, A. (2008, April 23). U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations. New YorkTimes. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht23prison.12253738.html

Lo, Q. (2007). The relationship of self-compassion and self-esteem to empathy, shame, andsocial functioning in adolescents who offend sexually (Unpublished master’s thesis).University of Texas, Austin, TX.

Long, D. E. (1990). The anatomy of terrorism. New York, NY: The Free Press.Longe, O., Maratos, F. A., Gilbert, P., Evans, G., Volker, F., Rockliff, H., & Rippon, G. (2010).

Having a word with yourself: Neural correlates of self-criticism and self-reassurance.Neuroimage, 49, 1849–1856. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.019

Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Relating mindfulness and self-regulatoryprocesses. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 255–258. doi:10.1080/10478400701598363

McCrory, E., De Brito, S. A., & Viding, E. (2010). Research review: The neurobiology andgenetics of maltreatment and adversity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51,1079–1095. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02271.x

McNulty, T. L., & Bellair, P. E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in serious adolescentviolent behavior. Criminology, 41, 709–747. doi:10.1111/crim.2003.41.issue-3

Meneses, R. A., & Akers, R. L. (2011). A comparison of four general theories of crime anddeviance: Marijuana use among American and Bolivian university students. InternationalCriminal Justice Review, 21, 333–352. doi:10.1177/1057567711408302

Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explainingthe inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 439–466. doi:10.1007/s10940-005-7362-7

Morris, R. G., Gerber, J., & Menard, S. (2011). Social bonds, self-control, and adultcriminality: A nationally representative assessment of Hirschi’s revised self-control theory.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 584–599. doi:10.1177/0093854811402453

Murphy, C. M., Stosny, S., &Morrel, T. M. (2005). Change in self-esteem and physical aggressionduring treatment for partner violent men. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 201–210.doi:10.1007/s10896-005-5983-0

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choicetheories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27, 467–496. doi:10.2307/3054102

Neff, K. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitudetoward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–101. doi:10.1080/15298860309032

Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion.Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. doi:10.1080/15298860309027

JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 515

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of self-compassion inrelation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research inPersonality, 41, 908–916. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002

Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways ofrelating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23–50. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x

Netter, P., Hennig, J., Rohrmann, S., Wyhlidal, K., & Hain-Hermann, M. (1998). Modificationof experimentally induced aggression by temperament dimensions. Personality andIndividual Differences, 25, 873–888. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00070-1

Neumayer, E. (2005). Inequality and violent crime: Evidence from data on robbery andviolent theft. Journal of Peace Research, 42, 101–112. doi:10.1177/0022343305049669

O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors.Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

Oser, C. B. (2006). The criminal offending–self-esteem nexus: Which version of the self-esteemtheory is supported? The Prison Journal, 86, 344–363. doi:10.1177/0032885506291024

Papps, P. P., & O’Carroll, R. E. (1998). Extremes of self-esteem and narcissism and theexperience and expression of anger and aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 421–438.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:6<421::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-3

Rainforth, M. V., Alexander, C. N., & Cavanaugh, K. L. (2003). Effects of the transcendentalmeditation program on recidivism among former inmates of Folsom Prison: Survivalanalysis of 15-year follow-up data. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 36, 181–203.doi:10.1300/J076v36n01_09

Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem:Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. doi:10.1177/0146167201272002

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2009). Shared beginnings divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age

70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Stosny, S. (1995). Treating attachment abuse: A compassion approach. New York, NY: Springer.Sullivan, B. F., & Geaslin, D. L. (2001). The role of narcissism, self-esteem, and irrational

beliefs in predicting aggression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 16, 53–68.Taylor, J., Convery, I., & Barton, E. (2013). Social connectedness and female offending.

London, UK:The British Psychological Society.Taylor, J., Loney, B. R., Bobadilla, L., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and

environmental influences on psychopathy trait dimensions in a community sample ofmale twins. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 633–645. doi:10.1023/A:1026262207449

Toch, H. (1993). Violent men: An inquiry into the psychology of violence. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1969).

Tweng, J. M., Zhang, L., Catanese, K. R., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Lyche, L. F., & Baumeister, R. F.(2007). Replenishing connectedness: Reminders of social activity reduce aggression aftersocial exclusion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 205–224. doi:10.1348/014466605X90793

Walmsley, R. (2011). World prison population list (9th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.idcr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WPPL-9-22.pdf

Webb, J. B., & Forman, M. J. (2013). Evaluating the indirect effect of self-compassion onbinge eating severity through cognitive–affective self-regulatory pathways. EatingBehaviors, 14, 224–228. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2012.12.005

516 R. M. MORLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6

Woldgabreal, Y., Day, A., & Ward, T. (2014). The community-based supervision of offendersfrom a positive psychology perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 32–41.doi:10.1016/j.avb.2013.12.001

Yang, Y., & Raine, A. (2009). Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings inantisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research:Neuroimaging, 174, 81–88. doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.03.012

JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 517

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es],

[A

ndre

s R

amir

ez]

at 1

4:39

17

June

201

6