Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Investigating The Impact of Religiosity On Emotional and Behavioral Coping in Prison
Investigating The Impact of Religiosity On Emotional and Behavioral Coping in Prison
net/publication/232940540
CITATIONS READS
20 528
3 authors, including:
Kent R. Kerley
University of Texas at Arlington
43 PUBLICATIONS 958 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Kent R. Kerley on 29 April 2015.
Kent R. Kerley
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Marisa C. Allison
Mississippi State University
Rachelle D. Graham
Mississippi State University
ABSTRACT
Given the significant rise in incarceration rates over the past thirty years
and the uniquely stressful context of prison life, many investigators have
explored the degree to which individuals are able to cope with
incarceration. One factor that has not been explored fully for its potential
impact on inmate coping is religion. Using data from a representative
*
Grant support for this study was provided by the Louisville Institute,
Mississippi State University’s James W. Criss Fund, and the Stuart Irby Jr.
Foundation. The authors thank the editor, three anonymous reviewers, Troy
Blanchard, Todd Matthews, and Heith Copes for comments on a previous
version of the manuscript. Please direct correspondence to: Kent R. Kerley,
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Justice Sciences,
1201 University Blvd., Suite 210, Birmingham, AL 35294-4562,
krkerley@uab.edu.
72 Journal of Crime & Justice
INTRODUCTION
PRISON COPING
Research on prison coping can be grouped into three categories.
First, early research on prison coping focused on identifying the specific
stressors that inmates encounter (Johnson and Toch, 1982; Sykes, 1958).
Second, others studied prison coping as it relates to inmate classification
and the creation of successful treatment programs (Wooldredge, 1999;
Wright, 1993). Third, and germane to the present study, researchers have
sought to elucidate variations in coping ability and to understand the
resources that inmates use to cope with confinement.
The research indicates that a combination of individual and
institutional factors impact the ability of inmates to cope with incarceration.
At the individual level, age, educational attainment, criminal history,
sentence length, and psychopathology are all strong predictors of prison
adjustment and coping (Gendreau, Goggin, and Law, 1997; Islam-Zwart
and Vik, 2004; MacKenzie, 1987; MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985;
Sappington, 1996; Warren, Hurt, Loper, and Chauhan, 2004). Institutional
variables linked to prison coping include inmate control of the prison
environment, time served, crowding, and limited resources (Gendreau et al.,
1997; MacKenzie, Goodstein, and Blouin, 1987; MacKenzie, Robinson, and
Campbell, 1989; Sappington, 1996).
In terms of outcome measures, researchers who study prison
coping typically use both emotional and behavioral measures of coping.
The frequency of experiencing negative affective states such as depression
and anxiety are commonly used to measure emotional coping (Fogel, 1993;
MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985; MacKenzie et al., 1987; Porporino and
Zamble, 1984; Warren et al., 2004; Wooldredge, 1999). Self-reported and
institutional records of inmate conflicts are commonly used to measure
behavioral forms of prison coping (Clear et al., 1992; MacKenzie, 1987;
MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985; Porporino and Zamble, 1984; Warren et
al., 2004).
Data for this study are derived from a survey of inmates at a large
state-level penitentiary in the Southeastern region of the United States. This
76 Journal of Crime & Justice
all-male facility is the largest of its state’s three state-managed prisons and
is one of the largest prisons in the nation both in terms of acreage and
inmate population. The sample was drawn in June of 2002 following
receipt of a current inmate list from the state department of corrections. At
the time the sample was drawn, there were approximately 5,100 inmates at
the facility. Inmates who were in “lockdown,” under age 18, or in the
facility’s hospital were eliminated from the sampling frame. This left an
inmate population of 4,313 from which the sample was drawn. To achieve
a sampling error of no greater than 5 percent, 875 inmates were randomly
selected to receive the survey questionnaire.
Survey packets were delivered to all randomly selected study
participants on the same date in June of 2002. The inmates received the
survey packet addressed specifically to them during their regular mail
pickup times. Each packet contained a cover letter, informed consent form,
survey questionnaire, and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope. A
total of 386 valid questionnaires were returned to the principal investigator,
which constituted an overall response rate of 45 percent. This response rate
is within the range of acceptability for a survey of a high-risk or “captive”
population (Babbie, 2007). Moreover, to our knowledge, this is the first
study of religiosity and faith-based prison programs utilizing a random
sample survey of inmates at a large prison facility. Previous studies of
religiosity and faith-based prison programs employed convenience samples
(see for example Clear et al., 1992; Johnson, 2004).
We note that the original sample frame, which was provided by the
institution, included basic demographic and criminal history information
about each inmate. The study facility houses a disproportionately high
percentage of serious offenders compared to other facilities, and thus
offenders in the sample are more likely to have committed serious offenses
than a sample of inmates from other “average” facilities. With this issue in
mind, after survey administration was completed, we tested for statistical
differences between respondents and non-respondents in terms of
demographic characteristics, type of crime, and sentence length, and found
no significant differences between the two groups. Additionally, the
demographics of the sample are consistent with the demographics of the
institution. This provides additional evidence that the sample was
representative, and as Babbie (2007, p. 261) notes, “a demonstrated lack of
response bias is far more important than a high response rate.”
The survey questionnaire contained a broad range of items
pertaining to inmates’ family and religious background, criminal history,
experience of negative emotions, use of coping mechanisms, involvement in
faith-based prison programs, and negative interactions with other inmates.
Journal of Crime & Justice 77
Dependent Variables
We utilize two dependent variables to measure inmate coping. The
first dependent variable is inmates’ experience of negative emotions.
Negative emotions or affective states are commonly used measures for
assessing the degree to which inmates are able to cope emotionally with
incarceration (Fogel, 1993; MacKenzie and Goodstein, 1985; MacKenzie et
al., 1987; Porporino and Zamble, 1984; Warren et al., 2004; Wooldredge,
1999). Consistent with the religious coping scale (RCOPE) developed by
Pargament, Koenig, and Perez (2000), we asked inmates to report how
often, on average, they experienced six different negative emotions. This
allows us to capture both the range of different emotions experienced, as
well as how often they were experienced (see also Pargament, 1997).
The emotions included in the survey were: sadness, worry, anger,
stress, depression, and bitterness. These six measures can be classified as
“trait-based” emotions, rather than as “situational-based” emotions
(Mazerolle, Piquero, and Capowich, 2003). The original response
categories were: never or almost never, 3-4 times per year, once per month,
once per week, 3-4 times per week, and daily. We converted each category
to the number of days per year that the emotion was experienced, centering
to the category midpoint when necessary. This practice simply makes the
measure a better approximation of a numeric variable and makes it more
appropriate for OLS regression (see for example Kerley, Benson, Lee, and
Cullen, 2004). For example, if an inmate responded that he experienced
sadness 3-4 times per week, the value would be 182 days per year. We then
conducted factor analysis to determine whether a common factor emerged
among the six measures. We used a principal components solution with
varimax rotation and list-wise deletion for missing values. Means and
factor loadings for each emotion are presented in Table 1. As seen in this
table, all six variables strongly loaded on one factor (p < .01, Alpha = .85).
We then used the SPSS procedure to save the values of the common factor
as a new variable to be used in our ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression
models presented in Table 3.1
78 Journal of Crime & Justice
Table 1.
Factor Analysis for Experience of Negative Emotions among Inmates
Mean Factor Loading
Independent Variables
The independent variables for this study are grouped into three
categories: religiosity, criminal history, and demographic control variables.2
First, there are five measures designed to tap both the cognitive and
behavioral dimensions of religiosity. Investigators have argued routinely
Journal of Crime & Justice 79
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics for Variables in Multivariate Models
Dependent Variables Percent or Mean
Experience of Negative Emotions (in days per year)
Sadness 181.74
Worry 203.19
Anger 135.66
Stress 202.47
Depression 143.13
Bitterness 115.32
Arguing with Other Inmates
1 or more times per month 54.70
Less than once per month 45.30
Independent Variables
Religious conversion
Yes 31.5
No 68.5
Belief in a higher power
Yes 93.7
No 6.3
Right and wrong should be based on God’s laws
Strongly agree or agree 77.0
Neither, disagree, or strongly disagree 23.0
Attendance at religious services
Once per week or more 38.5
Less than once per week 61.5
Attendance at Operation Starting Line
Yes 69.4
No 30.6
Number of arrests
3 or more arrests 66.9
Less than 3 arrests 33.1
Number of times in prison
2 or more times 37.9
1 time 62.1
Length of sentence (in years) 27.7
Security classification
Medium or maximum 57.6
Minimum 42.4
Age (in years) 36.16
Race
Black 66.9
White 33.1
Education
High school or better 58.4
Less than high school 41.6
82 Journal of Crime & Justice
RESULTS
significantly less often than younger and White inmates. Thus, when we
measure prison coping in terms of the experience of negative emotions, we
find that religion and religious participation do not appear to have inhibiting
effects.
In Table 4, we present a multivariate logistic regression model for
the likelihood of inmate arguing. We report the findings from this analysis
as odds ratios of engaging in arguments one or more times per month.3 For
the five measures of religiosity, we find that four of them significantly
reduce the odds of frequent arguments. Concerning the cognitive
dimension of religiosity, inmates believing in a higher power are 73 percent
less likely to engage in one or more arguments per month than inmates not
believing in a higher power. Those strongly agreeing or agreeing with the
statement that “right and wrong should be based on God’s laws” are 47.3
percent less likely to argue once or more per month than those in the
reference category. Our odds ratios for the behavioral dimension of
religiosity yield similar results. Inmates attending multiple religious
services per week and the Operation Starting Line event are only about half
as likely to engage in one or more arguments per month than those in the
reference categories. Religious conversion is the only measure of
religiosity that does not significantly decrease the frequency of inmate
arguments.4
For the measures of criminal history, we find that inmates who
have served two or more terms in prison are nearly three times as likely to
engage in arguments than those with fewer times incarcerated.
Additionally, inmates classified as medium or maximum security prisoners
are twice as likely to be involved in one or more arguments per month than
those in minimum security. These findings indicate that higher security
inmates with two or more prison stints are at the greatest risk for verbal
conflicts.
For the demographic factors, we note that older inmates are
significantly less likely than younger inmates to participate in frequent
arguments. Our findings indicate that a one-year increase in age is
associated with a 5.8 percent decrease in the odds of arguing. This finding
may suggest that older inmates are either more respected in the prison
community or better equipped to negotiate the difficulties of prison life
(MacKenzie, 1987; Porporino and Zamble, 1984). We find no significant
race or education differences in the odds of regular arguing.
84 Journal of Crime & Justice
Table 3.
OLS Regression Analysis for Experience of Negative Emotions
B SE
Religiosity
Religious conversion (1=Yes, 0=No) -.070 .136
Belief in a higher power
(1=Yes, 0=No) -.015 .242
Right and wrong should be based on
God’s laws
Strongly agree or agree -.105 .149
Neither, disagree, or strongly disagree ref ref
Attendance at religious services
More than once per week -.041 .131
Once per week or less ref ref
Attendance at Operation Starting Line
(1=Yes, 0=No) -.028 .129
Criminal History
Number of arrests
3 or more arrests .054 .138
Less than 3 arrests ref ref
Number of times in prison
2 or more times .058 .136
1 time ref ref
Length of sentence (in years) .001 .002
Security classification
Medium or maximum .376*** .126
Minimum ref ref
Demographics
Age (in years) -.016** .006
Race
Black -.289** .130
White ref ref
Education
High school or better -.018 .126
Less than high school ref ref
R square .091
F= 2.07, Model sig. at p < .05
*sig. at p < .10, ** sig. at p < .05, *** sig. at p < .01
Journal of Crime & Justice 85
Table 4.
Logistic Regression Analysis for Arguing One or More Times Per
Month with Other Inmates
Odds
B Ratio
Religiosity
Religious conversion (1=Yes, 0=No) -.413 .662
Belief in a higher power
(1=Yes, 0=No) -1.309 .270**
Right and wrong should be based on
God’s laws
Strongly agree or agree -.641 .527*
Neither, disagree, or strongly disagree ref ref
Attendance at religious services
More than once per week -.602 .548**
Once per week or less ref ref
Attendance at Operation Starting Line
(1=Yes, 0=No) -.780 .459***
Criminal History
Number of arrests
3 or more arrests .481 1.618
Less than 3 arrests ref ref
Number of times in prison
2 or more times 1.011 2.748***
1 time ref ref
Length of sentence (in years) .002 1.002
Security classification
Medium or maximum .688 1.990**
Minimum ref ref
Demographics
Age (in years) -.060 .942***
Race
Black -.040 .961
White ref ref
Education
High school or better -.012 .988
Less than high school ref ref
-2 log likelihood 329.108
Nagelkerke R-square .229
*sig. at p < .10, ** sig. at p < .05, *** sig. at p < .01
86 Journal of Crime & Justice
Zwart and Vik, 2004; Severance, 2004; Warren et al., 2004) and, ideally,
future studies would be conducted in prison facilities that house both males
and females so that the relationship between religiosity and prison coping
could be assessed simultaneously by gender.
Third, the question of temporal order in the relationship between
religiosity and negative emotions could be raised. In other words, is it
possible that inmates who had the fewest emotional problems were the ones
most likely to be committed to a religious faith and to attend religious
services? Although multivariate models assume some degree of causal
ordering, we do not rule out the possibility that there may be reciprocal or
interactive effects. Scholars in the sociology of religion have acknowledged
that religiosity may have both direct and indirect effects, and that the
relationship between religiosity and outcomes such as crime, mental health,
and physical health could be recursive (Ellison and Levin, 1998; Ellison et
al. 2001). In addition, given that we are using cross-sectional data and not
testing a specific theory, our models are perhaps more relational or
associational than causal. The clear need in future studies is longitudinal
data that could allow for a determination of the causal ordering between
religiosity and negative emotions over time.
Overall, our study shows mixed results in regards to religion as a
coping mechanism for the uniquely stressful experience of incarceration. In
terms of the frequency with which inmates experience negative emotions,
we find little positive impact of religiosity and religious participation.
However, when we measure coping in terms of negative interpersonal
relationships, we find that religiosity has a strong direct effect on the
frequency of arguments. Additional research is needed to explore further
this relationship between religion and prison coping. Moreover, given the
significant relationship between religion and coping for members of the
general public, it is important for additional research to be conducted that
assesses the potential value of religion as a coping mechanism for
correctional populations.
NOTES
1
The issue could be raised that the exact length of time that inmates had
been incarcerated at the time of the survey could potentially impact their
experience of negative emotions. Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to
construct a measure of the point in their sentences that inmates had reached
at the time of survey administration. We do, however, have accurate
measures of age, length of current sentence, number of arrests, and number
90 Journal of Crime & Justice
of times in prison, and these would appear adequate for capturing any time
dimensions for the negative emotions.
2
All independent variables transformed into binary indicators because of
skewness or for use in logistic regression models were also treated as binary
for the OLS models. We also ran the OLS models presented in Table 3
with the original coding schemes for the independent variables and the
results were virtually identical. Thus, in an effort to maximize consistency
and clarity of interpretation, we used the same coding schemes for all of our
models presented in Tables 3 and 4.
3
We also ran the arguing model displayed in Table 4 with the cut point
changed to “once per week or more” and the results were virtually identical.
4
For the measure of religious attendance, we ran the models in Tables 3 and
4 with the comparison of inmates attending services “more than once per
week or more” versus all others. The results were virtually identical to
those using the standard weekly attendance measure of “once per week or
more.”
Journal of Crime & Justice 91
REFERENCES
Austin, J. and J. Irwin (2001). It’s About Time: America’s Imprisonment Binge. 2nd
ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Babbie, Earl. (2007). The Practice of Social Research. 11th ed. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Clear, T.R., P.L. Hardyman, B.D. Stout, K. Lucken, and H.R. Dammer (2000). “The
Value of Religion in Prison.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 16:53-
74.
Clear, T.R., B.D. Stout, H.R. Dammer, L. Kelly, P.L. Hardyman, and C. Shapiro
(1992). “Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners Adjust to Prison?” National
Council on Crime and Delinquency Focus November:1-7.
Clear, T.R. and M.T. Sumter (2002). “Prisoners, Prison, and Religion: Religion and
Adjustment to Prison.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 35:127-159.
Ellison, C. G. (1992). “Are Religious People Nice People? Evidence from the
National Survey of Black Americans.” Social Forces 71:411-430.
Ellison, C.G. and J.S. Levin (1998). “The Religion-Health Connection: Evidence,
Theory, and Future Directions.” Health Education and Behavior 25: 700-720.
Ellison, C.G., J.D. Boardman, D.R. Williams, and J.S. Jackson (2001). “Religious
Involvement, Stress, and Mental Health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Study.”
Social Forces 80:215-249.
Fogel, C.I. (1993). “Hard Time: The Stressful Nature of Incarceration for Women.”
Issues in Mental Health Nursing 14:367-377.
Hadaway, C. K., P.L. Marler, and M. Chaves (1993). “What the Polls Don’t Show:
A Closer Look at U.S. Church Attendance.” American Sociological Review 58:741-
752.
Harrison, M.O., H.G. Koenig, J.C. Hays, A.G. Eme-Akwari, and K. I. Pargament
(2001). “The Epidemiology of Religious Coping: A Review of Recent Literature.”
International Review of Psychiatry 13:86-93.
Johnson, B.R. (2004). “Religious Programs and Recidivism among Former Inmates
in Prison Fellowship Programs: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study.” Justice Quarterly
21:329-354.
Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, David B. & De Li, S. (2001). Does adolescent
religious commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on
delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:22-43.
Johnson, B. R., Larson, D. B., De Li, S. & Jang, S. J. (2000). “Escaping from the
crime of inner cities: Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged
youth.” Justice Quarterly 17:377-391.
Johnson, B.R., D.B. Larson, and T.C. Pitts (1997). “Religious Programs,
Institutional Adjustment, and Recidivism among Former Inmates in Prison
Fellowship Programs.” Justice Quarterly 14:145-165.
Johnson, R. and H. Toch. (1982). The Pains of Imprisonment. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.
Kimmett, E., I. O’Donnell, and C. Martin (2003). Prison Violence: The Dynamics of
Conflict, Fear and Power. Devon, UK: Millan Publishing.
Krause, N., C.G. Ellison, B.A. Shaw, J.P. Marcum, and J.D. Boardman (2001).
“Church-Based Social Support and Religious Coping.” Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 40:637-656.
MacKenzie, D.L. and L.I. Goodstein (1985). “Long-Term Incarceration Impacts and
Characteristics of Long-Term Offenders.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 12:395-
414.
MacKenzie, D. L., L.I. Goodstein, and D.C. Blouin (1987). “Personal Control and
Prisoner Adjustment: An Empirical Test of a Proposed Model.” Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 24:49-69.
Pargament, K.I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research,
Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Pargament, K.I. (2002). “The Bitter and the Sweet: An Evaluation of the Costs and
Benefits of Religiousness.” Psychological Inquiry 13:168-181.
Pargament, K.I., H.G. Koenig, and L. Perez (2000). “The Many Methods of
Religious Coping: Initial Development and Validation of the RCOPE.” Journal of
Clinical Psychology 56:519-543.
Pargament, K.I., B.W. Smith, H.G. Koenig, and L. Perez (1998). “Patterns of
Positive and Negative Religious Coping with Major Life Stressors.” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 37:710-724.
Journal of Crime & Justice 95
Phillips, R.E., K.I. Pargament, Q.K. Lynn, and C.D. Crossley (2004). “Self-
Directing Religious Coping: A Deistic God, Abandoning God, or no God at All?”
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43:409-418.
Ploch, D. R. and C. Hastings (1995). “Some Church, Some Don’t.” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 34:507-515.
Sundt, J.L., H.R. Dammer, and F.T. Cullen (2002). “The Role of the Prison
Chaplain in Rehabilitation.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 35:59-86.
Warren, J. I., S. Hurt, A.B. Loper, and P. Chauhan (2004). “Exploring Prison
Adjustment among Female Inmates: Issues of Measurement and Prediction.”
Criminal Justice and Behavior 31:624-645.
96 Journal of Crime & Justice