Parental shaming and adolescent delinquency: a partial test of reintegrative shaming theory.

• Jurisdiction: Australia
• Date: 01 August 2007
• Author: Losoncz, Ibolya,Tyson, Graham
• Published date: 01 August 2007
• Author: Losoncz, Ibolya

The past decade has seen an increase in the application of Braithwaite's reintegrative shaming theory as a framework for restorative justice programs. However, to date the theory has received little empirical attention. The current study set out to contribute to the empirical testing of the theory by exploring the appropriateness of the causal model put forward by Braithwaite. One-hundred-and-seventy Year 9 and Year 10 high school students from 2 government high schools in the Australian Capital Territory completed a survey capturing projected delinquency, delinquent peers and family processes. Principal component analysis found an overlap between aspects of shaming with reintegration and stigmatisation. Furthermore, not all facets of reintegration and stigmatisation were found to be discrete concepts. Results from subsequent structural equation modelling were largely supportive of RST, particularly the theory's emphasis on the harmful effects of stigmatisation and the beneficial effects of reintegration. However, shaming, as defined in the theory, may not affect predatory crime in the way it is predicted by RST.

**********

Reintegrative shaming theory (RST) was first put forward by Braithwaite in the late 1980s. The basic idea of RST is that societies, communities and families where shame is communicated effectively and reintegratively are less likely to experience predatory crime than places where shame is communicated in a stigmatising approach, or not communicated at all. The key concept in the theory is shaming, partitioned into two types: stigmatising and reintegrative. Stigmatising shaming treats the wrongdoer with disrespect, as a bad person and as an outcast. Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, recognises that the wrongdoer is a good person who has done a bad act; and although the wrongful act will be confronted, after the confrontation special efforts will be made to show the wrongdoer that he/she is still valued and respected. The theory argues that reintegrative shaming reduces crime, while stigmatising shaming increases it (Braithwaite, 1989). While the theory enjoys much attention and acclaim, to date it has received limited empirical testing. The aim of the current research is to contribute to the experimental testing of the major constructs and propositions of RST by first developing adequate quantitative measures of key concepts in the theory, and then exploring the adequacy of the causal model put forward by Braithwaite.

In his theory, Braithwaite drew heavily on preexisting theories of control, subculture, opportunity, and labelling theory, integrated into a learning theory framework. According to the labelling perspective on delinquency, negative actions or reactions by other people affect the beliefs and feelings individuals develop about themselves (Erikson, 1962; Taylor, Walton, & Young, 1973). However, critics of labelling theory argue that any such statement needs to be refined by identifying alternative outcomes of labelling and specifying the conditions under which each is likely to occur (Grimes & Turk, 1978).

Braithwaite (1989) suggested that his theory refined and clarified labelling theory by partitioning stigmatising or labelling from reintegrative shaming. He argued that while labelling causes offenders to become outcasts, or to view themselves as outcasts, and adopt a deviant identity, RST offers an alternative outcome, as long as it is the act being labelled and not the person. Following the labelling of the act as bad, and holding offenders responsible for their law breaking, offenders are forgiven and accepted back into their family and community.

Braithwaite (1989) identifies several conditions that facilitate reintegration, the most important of which are a communitarian society and a strong family system characterised by a sense of interdependency. That is, individuals who are bonded to conventional society, or their family, are easy to shame back into conforming behaviour. Identifying gender as a predictor of interdependency is another significant element of the theory, as it accommodates the explanation of the relatively low predatory offence rates among females. Braithwaite (1989) proposes that females experience more attachment to their families, as they are more socialised into being interdependent through the caretaking of others, as well as more likely to be encouraged to fit back into the family. Therefore, they are more susceptible to shaming, particularly reintegrative shaming.

The apparent popularity and growing support for reintegrative shaming-based restorative justice models in Australia, New Zealand and North America calls for the evaluation of RST in the areas of procedural outcomes and research evidence for the model. In Australia, research on procedural outcomes of conferencing based on RST has largely focused on participants' perceptions of the fairness of the process and their satisfaction with the process and outcome. The most consistent finding, to date, is that conferences are perceived as fair and participants are satisfied with the process and outcomes (Strang, Barnes, Braithwaite, & Sherman, 1999). Concerning the effects of restorative justice conferences on recidivism, a recent meta-analytic review of the pertinent literature by Bonta, Jesseman, Rugge and Cormier (2006) found that on average restorative justice interventions are associated with reduction in recidivism. While the effects are small, they were found to be significant, particularly for low risk offenders and for programs operating in a noncoercive environment. As for empirical support, the most important criterion by which to judge a theory (Akers, 2000), the number of studies which have used direct quantitative measures of the key concepts in the theory or have investigated the predicted causal effects of reintegration and shaming on criminal behaviour are, to date, rather limited (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004; Bennett, 1996; Harris, 2001; Hay, 2001; Makkai & Braithwaite, 1994; Zhang, 1995; Zhang & Zhang, 2004).

Researchers who have set out to test RST are confronted by two tasks: the operationalisation of key concepts in the theory and testing the causal structures proposed by the theory. Most of the studies faced serious limitations in their attempt to adequately operationalise the key concepts in RST. This was largely attributed to the use of existing datasets, most of which did not contain variables that sufficiently captured the main concepts in RST. However, there were two important studies that specifically investigated Braithwaite's assertion (1989) of four distinct facets of shaming and reintegration (i.e., low shaming-low reintegration, low shaming-high reintegration, high shaming-low reintegration, and high shaming-high reintegration). The first study, undertaken by Makkai and Braithwaite (1994), investigated the compliance with governmental regulatory standards in nursing homes. Specifically, the study examined changes in compliance level of nursing homes following the visits of government inspectors identified as either supportive of reintegrative shaming or characterised by stigmatising attitudes. Consistent with the prediction of the theory, the four facets of shaming and reintegration formed separate dimensions.

However, a more recent research by Nathan Harris (2001) provided contradictory results. In his study Harris (2001) factor analysed data collected from 900 drink-driving cases randomly assigned to a restorative justice conference or to a court. The study used observational and self-report measures to assess the relationship between shaming, reintegration and stigmatisation. The prediction that the four facets of shaming and reintegration would form separate dimensions was not supported. Instead, shaming was found to be independent from both reintegration and stigmatisation. Furthermore, the study found reintegration and stigmatisation to be independent concepts rather than opposite poles of a continuum.

Research studies that examined the major causal structures of RST reported conflicting support for the key hypotheses of RST. The study by Makkai and Braithwaite (1994) found strong support for all predictions of RST. That is, high levels of shaming combined with high levels of reintegration by inspectors resulted in a greater increase in compliance by nursing homes than high levels of shaming that were stigmatising, or low levels of shaming that were reintegrative. The key concept of interdependency, measured by the presence or absence of existing meetings between the director of the home and the inspector prior to the regulatory encounter, was also found to have a strong positive effect on compliance.

However, the study by Bennett (1996), which set out to partially assess RST at the individual level using the survey data from the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS), (2) found only limited support. While Bennett established a positive correlation between family interdependency and family reintegration, reintegrative shaming was not found to be a significant determinant of the frequency of offending. In fact, the only significant determinants of frequency of repeated delinquency were stigmatising shaming and delinquent peers. This finding on the effect of delinquent peers on delinquency is consistent with the criminology literature, which shows that the number of delinquent friends is one of the strongest predictor of self-reported delinquency (Agnew, 1995; Hirschi, 1969; Matsueda, 1982; Warr & Stafford, 1991).

Similarly, a micro-level exploratory research by Hay (2001) found only limited support for the predictions of RST. While analysis of the survey data, collected from adolescents on their parents' use of reintegration and shaming and their reports of projected predatory delinquency, found a significant negative correlation between reintegration and delinquency, and between shaming and delinquency, the study found no interactive...