Table 4 presents the mean, standard deviation, and statistical significance of the differences, while Table 5 presents the correlation matrix for all cases in the first time interval. This information provides us with an initial understanding of the relationship and distribution of variables of interest.
An examination of the correlation table gives an initial picture of the strength and direction of the relationship between each pair of variables. Offenses reported in the prior interview are strongly related to offenses reported in the next interview (.597). As to the degree of involvement in conventional activities, the higher involvement, the fewer offenses (- .256) and the more perceived reintegrating shaming (.322 for informal as well as .233 for formal). The perceived reintegrating shaming in negatively associated with subsequent delinquent level (- .451 for informal as well as - .2656 for formal). Age is not associated with either prior delinquent level or subsequent delinquency. Nor is it related to any types of shaming. With regard to ethnicity, being black is negatively related to the number of prior ( .221), and subsequent offenses committed (- .266). Being black is positively related to perception of greater informal reintegrating shaming (.274). In contrast, being white is negatively related to a perceived greater informal stigmatizing shaming (- .144). Being white is also positively associated with more subsequent offenses (.189) As to gender, males and females are almost at the same levels of delinquency,' commitment in coventional activities, and shaming (almost every correlation is lon-significant and the strength of association is nearly zero). ..
('
,
,
- .4(
...
307
The Journal of National Chengchi University, Vol. 69, 1994 , . r .
"
. lable 4: Mean and Standard Deviation
Variable " N Mean Std Dev P
A B A B A B
AGE 199 80 15.982 16.294 1.798 1.636 ns
PRIOR! 197 79 27.228 27.177 16.277 17.147 ns
PRIOR2 199 80 24.789 22.675 15.035 13.999 ns
COMMIT 199 80 2.861 2.878 0.511 0.550 ns
INTSHAM 198 79 1.751 1.783 0.663 0.690 ns
EXIFSHM 198, 79 2.468 2.463 0.432 0.441 ns
EXFMSHM 198 79 2.192 2.176 0.661 0.671 ns
WHITES 199 80 0.412 0.287 0.493 0.455 ns
I• • it~;
'"
OTHERS 199 80 0.045 0.062 0.208 0.243 ns
HISPANIC 199 80 0.352 0.400 0.479 0.493 ns
BLACKS 199 80 0.191 0.250 0.394 0.436 ns
MALE 199 80 0.764 0.775 0.426 0.420 ns
PREDI 197 79 8.30 8.53 8.44 9.10 ns
PRED2 199 80 6.68 6.04 7.58 6.89 ns
NPRED! 197 79 18.93 18.64 9.42 9.30 ns
NPRED2 199 80 18.10 16.64 9.02 8.45 ns
PERIOD 199 80 38.36 31.74 8.84 3.35 .001
Subscript: 1 - Refers to prior delinquency; 2 - Refers to subsequent delinquency A - Statistics for the Total Sample; B Statistics for the Sub-sample
P significance test
308
Table 5: Pearson Correlations for Total Sample
.001
1_.
The Journal of National Chengchi University, Vol. 69, 1994
Table 6: Unstanaardized Regression Coefficients for Subsequent Delinquency (N = 107) . ,} High Shamable Juveniles
TOIal Offenses Predatory Offenses Non- Predatory
ml m2 m3 ml m2 m3 ml m2 m3
INTERCEPT 57.48**" 19A8 41.33* 17.73 7.25 26.06* 35.76** 8A7 17.95 (l7.64)b (16.85) (17.31) (12.25) (12.89) (12.88) (10.32) (10.17) (11.11)
AGE -.89 .54 -.57 .07 -.04 -.23 -.58 .34 - .32
to
5) (.73) (.70) (.65) (.65) (.60) (.48) (.42) (AI)MALE ~02 2.68 1.25 2.51 2A2 -A8 .93 1.97 1.56
I (3.53) (3.01) (2,91) (2.42) (2.55) (2A5) (2.03) (1.88) (1. 90) COMMIT -6A7* -4.88 -.25 -4.01* -3-88* .10 -2.57 -lAO .33
...
(3.09) (2.67) (2.91) (1.84) (1.79) (1.99) (1.88) (\.65) (1.80)ETHNICITYI
White 1.14 -1.93 -4.02 -1.85 -2.44 -3.44 1.52 -1.28 -2.06 (4.61) (4.02) (3.88) (3.04) (2.99) (2.83) (2.72) (2A2) (2.40)
Hspnc 3.66 1.72 -.75 2.92 2.76 .62 -JI -1.85 -2.61
(4.57) (3.92) (3.80) (2.82) (2.75) (2.58) (2.73) (2.37) (2.36) Other 5.16 -.34 -4.23 -2.28 -4.00 -1028* 6.39 4.61 3.97
(8.90) (7.73) (7.53) (4.87) (4.n) (4.71) (5.76) (5.05) (5.07)
DURATION .34* .30* .12 .12 .23** .21*
(.13) (.13) (.09) (.08) (.08) (.08)
PRIOR A6** .32**
Predatory (.09) (.09) 0.26 0.29* 0.05 .005
(.\5) (.14) (.12) (.12)
Nonpredatory 0.12 -.11 0.51** AI*
(.19) (.18) (.15) (.16)
SHAMING
Exifshm -.70* -4.93* - 3.87*
(2.95) (1.96) (1.87)
Esfmshm -3.16 -3.44* -.52
(2.05) (1.45) (1.29)
R2 .08 .34 A3 .17 .28 .42 .05 .33 .37
P .33 .001 .001 .053 .01 .001 .53 .001
in parenthesis is standard error.
*
« .05);**
« .01); P (significance level for the overall model).I (blacks are the reference category).
Exifshm (external informal shaming); Exfmshm (external formal shaming).
-310
Table 7: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for Self-report Delinquency (N =92) Low shamable Juveniles
Total Offenses Predatory Offenses Non-Predatory
ml m2 m3 ml m2 m3 ml m2 m3
INTERCEPT 26.98a 11.30 30.27 15.52 !l.40 22.43 11.62 1.16 8.98 (l7.66)h (17.45) (18.55) (10.84) (11.55) (11.90) (9.54) (9.55) (10.44)
AGE -.01 -.62 -.38 .11 -.53 -.05 .25 -.Il -.06
(.85) (.85) (.56) (.60) (.62) (.49) (.51) (.53) MALE 13.60** 9.82** 10.27** 8.82** 6.32* 5.48 4.66** 3.94* 4.25*
(3.57) (3.34) (3.35) (3.11 ) (3.12) (3.11 ) (1.74) (1.81) (1.87) COMMIT -6.15* -4.5S -4.17 -4.4S* -4.4S* -3.34 -2.33 -1.23 1.41
(2.77) (2.53) (2.59) (1.92) (1.96) (1.97) (1.42) (1.4» (1.41) ETHNICITYI
White IS.05** 11.87** 10.02* 4.46 3.02 2.23 11.29** 9.48** 8.71**
(4.40) (4.04) (4.08) (2.79) (2.66) (2.76) (2.32) (2.20) (2.23) Hospnc 6.67 6.43 S.53 2.81 2.85 2.67 5.38* 4.8S* 4.46
(4.57) (4.12) (4.08) (2.98) (2.82) (2.80) (2.39) (2.2S) (2.26)
Other 4.47 2.87 .50 -.14 -1.43 1.74 6.05 5.53 4.53
(6.S4) (S.92) (5.94) (4.05) (3.85) (4.09) (3.48) (3.24) (3.26)
DURATION .32* .30* .17 .16 .20* .19*
(.16) (.IS) (.ll) (.10) (.08) (.08)
-
...PRIOR .39** .33**
Predatory 0.28 0.32* 0.07 .06
(.15) (.14) (.12) (.12) ....
Nonpredatory .10 -.04 0.28* .25
(.IS) (.16) (.13) (.14) SHAMING
Exifshm -1O.lS* -6.85* . -3.99
(3.92) (2.59)
,I
(2.18)Exfmshm 1.90 -.49 1.31
(2.35) (1.75) (1.27)
R2 .26 .41 .45 .18 .30 .37 .30 .42 .44
P .001 .001 .001 .016 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001
* « .05); ** « .01); P (significance level for the overall model).
I (blacks are the reference category). ,
Exifshm (external informal shaming); Exfmshm (external formal shaming).
t .
( '. " ,
....,-I
Due to the nature of the dependent variable and the goal of the study, regression analysis is performed to test the hypotheses: Unstandardized beta coefficients are
-311
or
-about
see The Journal of National Chengchi University, Vol. 69, 1994
, r .
reported in Table
f)'
and Table 7. 23Those with
'lot
and hIgh shamability alike, external mformal shamIng has a!
significant influence upon juveniles either shamable or not shamable. The only exception is: to low shamable juveniles, external informal shaming has no effect upon the commission of non-predatory offenses, which is consisten with one of the hypothesis. However, external informal shaming has neverthelss an impact upon low shamabe juveniles in their commission of predatory crimes, which is not expected.
In cases of high sha~le juveniles, reintegrating shaming can help reduce subsequent delinqency level, both predatory and non-predatory. Informal reintegrating shaming can reduce subsequ~nt overall and predatory delinquency level even in cases of low shamable juveniles .
....
In contrast, external formal shaming has no effect upon juveniles' subsequent offenses except in high shamable juveniles cases where external formal shaming still can exert an effect on subsequent predatory offenses. In other words, high shamable juveniles are also responsive to external formal shaming. The more reintegrating the shaming is, the fewer the predatory offenses committed by high shamable juveniles. As to the relative importance of informal and formal shaming, the result supports our hypothesis, suggesting that informal shaming is more imrx>rtant than formal shaming. The magnitude of the regression coefficients of both variables shows that informal shaming has a greater impact upon predatory offenses than formal shaming. To our expectation, how significant others think of us, negatively positively, leaves a bearing on our behavior. Also, as expected, external formal shaming has no influence upon those with low shamability. Given the variable shamability is derived from whether juveniles care about those insignificant other's opinion toward themselves. It is quite reasonable to see that external formal shaming can hardly influence low shamable juveniles, who, though not caring insignificant others' opinion, are nevertheless sensitive to significant others opinions.
The fact that external informal shaming has a significant effect upon low shamable juveniles seems to support the suspicion just mentioned above.
As to those socio-demographic variables, readers can refer to Table 7 to their independent effects. As mentioned before, the inclusion of those controls is
23 The reason to report unstandardized coefficients is that unstandardized regression techniques are not sensitive to changes in variances across populations, while correlational methods are. Thus, the former are generally preferred in panel analysis (Blalock, 1967).
312
to determine to what extent and how the shaming variables affect juveniles' behaviors by controlling for those socio-demographic variables.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this section, we will discuss which hypotheses are supported and which are rejected by the data. Later, we will reexamine labeling theory in view of the shaming model. We then will discuss the weakness in this data set and problems that hamper studies like the current one. Last, a brief summary is presented to conclude the current study.
1. Hypothesis Review
The first two hypothesis postulated that people with higher shamability will if shamed by either significant or insignificant others exhibit less deviance. These were supported by the data, especially in cases of predatory offenses. In other words, juveniles who care about how others think of them do reduce their delinquency level. Whether this effect will remain a longer time is another point in question that merits further study to determine exactly how shamability functions over time.
To be noted, even formal shaming can exert an impact upon the commission of predatory crimes. Simply put, reintegrating shaming helps reduce predatory offenses, while stigmatizing push toward further delinquency. It is obvious that shaming from different sources, namely informal and formal sources, leads to different behavior outcomes depending upon the internal state of the juven~s (shamable or not) and the nature of external shaming (reintegrating or stigm£tizing).
The study seems to suggest that a perception of greater reintegrating shaming leads to less deviance, especially serious offenses. This is supported in this study.
We did find that the perception of reintegrating shaming from ones' significant others would lead to less deviance, both predatory and non-predatory. This conflicts with Braithwaite's shaming theory which argues for a shaming effect on pr~9atory crimes
only.
f '
An important policy concern arises from the recognition o.!jthe significance of informal shaming, namely, what determines a perception of positive vs. negative shaming. Prior delinquent history? The experience . after the first official intervention?
Or the cumulative effects of a growing record of public intervention? Answers need
-313
.i. . .
..
if
we
on think
more The Journal of National Cliengchi University, Vol. 69, 1994
a detailed examimu£rr of the potential determinants of informal shaming, which is the subject for fu.re research.
The third hypothesis holds that informal shaming can exert a greater effect ,./
upon behavior outcomes than formal shaming. To high shamable juveniles, informal shaming holds a greater influence upon subsequent delinquency. This finding lends quite a support to symbolic interactionism, suggesting the importance of significant other in an individual's lives.
The fourth hypo~esis suggests no effect of either formal and informal shaming on low shamable jt.¥"~niles. The data basically support this position. Compared to high shamable juveniles, not only formal but also informal shaming is relatively helpless with the prevention of subequent offenses in low shamable juveniles. The
..
only exception is informal shaming can have an effect upon low shamable juveniles,especially in their commission of predatory offenses. The reason that low shamable juveniles are still responsive to external informal shaming lies perhaps in the inadequacy of its empirical derivative. It is likely that low shamabe juveniles are relatively immune to external shaming from either informal or formal sources the empirical indicator of shamability is adequate. Additionally, non-predatory offenses are generally not what collective sentiments coverge so that external shaming, especially shaming from formal sources usually fails.
2. Review of Labeling Theory
The shaming model present in this study refined some key constructs of labelling theory. We proposed a distinction between societal reactions into two types: reactions from the police and social service agencies (formal source) on the one hand, and reactions from one's significant others (informal source), on the other. Further, proposed that the response varies even within each type of reaction. We introduced reintegrating shaming and stigmatizing shaming to characterize the nature of societal reactions. In addition, we introduced the concept of shamability, a very important theoretical linkage that might explain why people exposed to the same societal shaming behave differently. Overall, the shaming model places more emphasis the perception of societal reaction than the societal reaction itself, since we people's perception varies even though social facts may stay the same. It is the perception that is a better determinant of behavior.
One major assertion of labeling theory is that societal labeling as a result of official contact is a cause of secondary deviance. The more the contact, the
-314
serious the secondary deviance. The data in this study did not entirely refute nor support this proposition. The effect of societal labeling will take place under some conditions (Le. to those with a higher sense of shamability), and the effect is not always negative (if the labelling is reintegrating). The data show a significant effect of shaming on juveniles who are shamable. This finding helps fill a gap in labeling theory by pointing out shamability as the mechanism connecting labeling to subsequent behaviors.
Further, external shaming does have an interaction effect with shamability as time progresses. Higher shamability and greater reintegrating shaming decrease delinquency over time, a finding consistent to Braithwaite's shaming model.
Additionally, labeling theory does not distinguish different sources of labeling, implying labeling from both informal and formal sources have no different quality.
These assumptions are not supported by the data. We find a different quality between significant others' reaction and official personnel's reaction. How juveniles perceive the reaction from their significant others is a significant determinant of their later behavior, both predatory and non-predatory. The more reintegrating shaming they perceive from thier significant others, the less deviant they will be. In comparison, the impact of formal shaming is quite limited, while that of informal shaming is much more influential and global.
3. Insufficiency in the Data Set for Testing Shaming Hypotheses
The original data set was not designed to test the shaming model. Therefore, we encountered some problems in testing our hypotheses. First, since }he perceptual process leading up to the eventual behavior manifestation involves ~rriod of time, it is methodologically ideal to conduct this line of research und~r a longitudinal framework. The data did include more than one interview to make it more longitudinal. However, given the time span between interviews, whether this time interval is good enough to trace the change is still an empirical question. Considering juveniles' delinquent pattern, the time interval between two interviews may be too long to have an accurate memory of how many times certain offen~es had been committed. This is especially so for non-predatory crimes. It is i~al to take a behavior log whenever offenses occur so that we can accurately trac~ th~ development
of delinquency pattern. ...,l
Also absent from the data set is the social-economic status juveniles' parents have. This variable is often postulated in criminological theory as one of important
"
' ........
315
on be
'111
""""~
The Journal of National 'Chengchi University, VoL 69, 1994
factors that
speci,f{Juve~iles'
lifecircu~stances
(Cohen, 1955;G~ve.
1975; .Hewitt, 1970; Merton,. ,iJ68; Mlller, 1958; Relss, 1976). Even though hterature usmg self reports suggests' that delinquency is not just a lower-class phenonemon (Cohen and Short, 1971; Haney and Gold, 1973; Reid, 1976; Tittle and Villemez, 1978; Voss, 1966), it would have been useful to test it in the shaming model. We do assume that there is a status-specific shaming effect based on the reasoning that the consequence of shaming puts those in higher social standing in a much more disadvantageous po~ition. Lower class youth, in comparison, may have internalized conceptions of linied social-economic opportunities which further negative societal reaction can deGrease no less (Foster et at., 1972:209).Another weakness is that the perceived opinions of significant others is not
'" measured. We only have this from the police and social service agencies. It is
possible that juveniles do not care about these official personnel's opinions but do care about those of significant others. If this is true, then the data at hand provide insufficient information to let us determine whether the youth is really shamable or not. In other words, the measure of shamability used in this study reflects a partial degree of shamability.
The last weakness is the absence of the length of delinquent history (i.e. years of delinquent life). A veteran delinquent should respond to shaming differently from a relatively new delinquent. Prior history that is controlled in the model refers only to offenses committed just prior to the current interview since the last interview.
This is more a reflection of the current delinquent level than that of prior delinquent history. Research shows that age at first arrest or age at the onset of the antisocial behavior is an efficient predictor of later delinquency (Glueck, and Glueck, 1960;
Mandelzys, 1979; Shannon, 1978; Wolfgang, et. aI., 1972). Juveniles with a long delinquent history are very likely to perceive shaming more negatively, or even be resistant to shaming. In other words, shaming will have a differential effect juveniles with various lengths of delinquent life. From a policy point of view, strategies in dealing with juveniles with different deviant histories should different.
4. Conclusion
The current study supports some aspects of Braithwaite's shaming hypothesis, namely the significance of informal shaming; What he predicted is that shaming is more deterring when administered by those who are significant to us. However,
316
Informal Social Control of Crime - Modification of Labeling Theory
it is a twcredged sword. A perception of shaming that is reintegrating can restore the once-wayward back to society. However, once stigmatizing shaming aoo rejection is perceived, shaming may push one further toward more delinquency. What is suggested here is that our behavior depends a lot upon our social images in the eyes of our signifi~ant others. Social approval from them is constantly needed for positive reinforcement of pro-social behaviors. This finding helps fIll a gap in labeling theory, namely, when labeling leads to more deviance vs. less deviance. One important implication arising from this study is that when people care about their significant others' opinion, that care is the prerequisite to their "reform".
This study, however, does not fully support Braithwaite's shaming hypotheses about predatory crimes. To high shamable juveniles, informal shaming works not only for predatory offenses, but also for non-predatory offenses. But to low shamable juveniles, this study seems to suggest that internal shaming state, along with other social forces, is a greater control mechanism.
Societal reaction from more agency personnel is not found to be an important variable in juveniles' behavior. Labeling theory attributes the development of secondary deviance to societal labeling. This study modifies this proposition by suggesting that development of secondary deviance will take place only when juveniles are shamable and perceive greater reintegrating shaming. Nevertheless, this effect is limited to total and predatory offenses, but not non-predatory offenses.
One important conclusion is that labeling theory only tells half of the reality.
Labeling will not necessarily incur negative consequences. It depends upon the nature of labeling itself and the situation in which labeling is administered. Further, the shaming model helps modify the labeling concept by specifically sP<711ing out when and how one kind of consequences vs. others will take place. 9verall, informal reintegrating shaming generates positive behavioral consequen~ while informal stigmatizing shaming generates negative consequences, given that juveniles are shamable. Formal shaming by itself has no effect, but when joined with shamability, it can influence certain behavior.
A second conclusion is that, as an important theoretical addition to the labeling theory, shamability was found to be a significant mediator linking e~ternal societal shaming to specific behavior outcomes. However, its effect eme~es only when internal shame state of individuals exists. ' f
A third conclusion is that external informal shaming works 'for 'both predatory , and non-predatory offenses, contrary to one of Braithwaite's shaming propositions, But consistent to Braithwaite's prediction, external 'informal shaming is more important
-317
~
..,
...
social
a
to The Journal of National Chengchi University, Vol. 69, 1994
than formal shamin¥' with regards to their effect upon subsequent offenses.
Last but nOLXeast, informal social control has an influence upon juveniles'
I
behavior, as also predicted by Braithwaite. More reintegrating shaming from significant others helps reduce delinquency. This shaming effect works for both predatory and non-predatory offenses. In addition, the shaming effect is not a constant phenomenon. It has a duration. This study is not able to determine when external shaming effect is at its height and when it will decline. The external shaming effect by itself was found tr,take place in the early stage of delinquecy, but its continued effect lies in the level of internal shaming. Future research needs to be done to
I
explore its exact pattern for greater policy utility.
In brief, the current study points to the importance of informal
..
mechanisms in crime control. The key to effective crime control lies not only withjudicial and social service organizations, but more importantly, with the informal social organizations, such as family,. school, neighborhood, church, etc. This finding, on the one hand, supports previous cross-cultural studies, such as Adler's, noting a greater effectivenes of crime control by informal social organizations. On the other, it explains why the past focus on restructuring judicial or formal social organizations to control crime failed the task.
REFERENCES
Ageton, Suzanne, and Elliott, Delbert S. 1974. "The Effects of Legal Processing on Self
Concept." Social Problems. 22(1): 87-100.
Ageton, Suzanne and Elliott, Delbert S. 1978. The Incidence of Delinquent Behavior in National Probability Sample of Adolescents. Boulder, Colorado: Behavioral Research Institute.
Adler, Freda. 1983. Nations Not Obsessed With Crime. Littleton, Colorado: F.B. Rothman.
Aultman, Madeline G. 1979. "Delinquency Causation: A Typological Comparison of Path Models." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 20(2): 152-163.
Ausubel, David P. 1955. "Relationships Between Shame and Guilt in the Socializing Process." Psychological Review. 62:378-390.
Bayley, David H. 1976. Forces of Order: Police Behavior in Japan and the United States.
Bayley, David H. 1976. Forces of Order: Police Behavior in Japan and the United States.