Introduction
With violence, illicit drug abuse
and related crime on the rise in the 1970’s, the United States began to focus
its social policies on these issues. In addition, such social issues gained
attention in popular media. In 1978, director Arnold Shapiro released a
documentary entitled “Scared Straight,” which followed a group of juvenile
delinquents who spent a day in a maximum security prison. The visit was
coordinated with the prison to expose these juveniles to the harsh realities
and consequences of crime through their interactions with the inmates and the
prison environment. Ultimately, the goal was to deter the young offenders from
committing crime in the future. That year, the documentary won an Academy Award
for “Best Documentary Feature” (14). As a result of the film, many states
implemented “Scared Straight” programs targeting at-risk youth and juvenile
delinquents. The programs consisted of prison tours where the participating
youth were integrated into the prison population and heard personal accounts of
inmates’ experiences. Often, prison inmates were instructed to dramatize their
experiences and use intimidation as a tactic with the visiting youth. These
sessions have been characterized as “shock probation,” traumatizing and at
times, brutal. Anthony Schembri, the Secretary of the Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, visited a Scared Straight Program in a state prison and
described the adolescents’ experiences as “an emotional roller coaster” (12).
After extensive research was
conducted on the ineffectiveness of the intervention, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) publicly denounced the program. In
addition, the OJJDP discontinued all federal funding for any Scared Straight
program in 2011 (9). However, programs with a similar framework and purpose are
still currently in operation. The continuation of this program framework is
particularly troubling due to the abundance of empirical evidence showing its
ineffectiveness (10). There are multiple flaws within the design of Scared
Straight that can even make the program counterproductive in some cases. To begin
with, the very nature of the visits presents at-risk youth with a threat to
their literal freedom, which in turn invokes psychological reactance. This can
result in the opposite of the intended effects of the program. Additionally,
the intervention assumes a rational choice model in terms of the adolescents’
subsequent decisions as a result of their prison visits. This is especially
problematic considering the target population’s general lack of emotional
maturity and decision making skills. Finally, there are major implications for
the socialization of at-risk youth into the prison culture through these
sessions. These inherent flaws in the program prevent it from accomplishing its
objectives.
Flaw 1: Scared straight
invokes the wrong reaction.
The Scared Straight program exposes
at-risk youth to incarceration as a potential consequence for criminal or
deviant behavior. The major aspects of the prison experience that the youth are
expected to process are the discomfort and degradation that inmates must endure.
Also, there is an associated loss of personal control that results from being
constantly monitored and dictated by prison authority figures. Adolescent
visitors are given a schedule by which they must adhere to, similarly to the
inmates. By matching the experience of the visitor so closely to that of the
inmates, the program successfully presents the adolescents with a potential
threat to their personal freedom. The prospect of ending up in prison is a
literal threat to their freedom in addition to the loss of control and choice
of behavior. According to social psychologist Jack Brehm, such threats can
induce an unfavorable reaction. Brehm’s Theory of Psychological Reactance
describes the cause and effect relationship as the following:
Whatever freedom is threatened…the
resulting reactance leads to increased perceived
attractiveness of that option. Thus, there may be two manifestations of the occurrence of reactance: actual
attempts to restore freedom, and increased
perceived attractiveness of the lost or threatened option (4).
Psychological
reactance shows that there is an element of danger in showing at-risk youth the
negative consequences of crime and deviance because it may actually create an
appeal to this behavior. Among the principles of psychological reactance,
Scared Straight programs act in accordance with that of dominance the most. I
would argue that this exertion of authoritarianism also contributes to the
potential for reactance on the part of the participating adolescents. Throughout
the program, the participants come into contact with figures of official
authority (prison guards) in addition to those of unofficial authority
(convicted felons). Both parties exert their dominance over the adolescents who
visit the prison.
As stated in the theory, reactance
can result in an attempt to restore freedom. Among youth advocates, there has
been concern that some youth may interpret such program tactics “as a challenge
to their ability to escape the consequences these programs hope will act as
deterrents” (13). In other words, the program efforts could potentially
backfire and engender deviant behavior instead of deterring it. There is
empirical evidence showing that the program has had ineffective and
counterproductive results in the past; the most well known of which was a study
conducted by The Campbell Collaboration. The authors completed a meta-analysis
of seven randomized trials in order to examine the deterring effects of Scared
Straight programs on juvenile delinquents and at-risk youth. The study found
the program framework “to be more harmful than doing nothing” and the effect to
be “nearly identical and negative in direction, regardless of the meta-analytic
strategy” (11). These results confirm the notion of restoring freedom in psychological
reactance and engaging in the actual behavior that is condemned. The study also
reveals the unsuccessful outcomes of the program, which has major implications
for those who implement it.
Flaw 2: Scared Straight
assumes teenagers are rational beings.
The design of the Scared Straight
program follows that of a rational choice model, which does not align properly
with the target population. The objective is to expose the participating youth
to the harsh consequences of criminal behavior in a way that is so jarring that
the participants recall this experience in future decision-making. When
confronted with the opportunity to engage in deviant behavior, the program
experience will ideally be factored into one’s decision. The Health Belief
Model, which explains health related behaviors, includes a cost-benefit
analysis in the individual’s decision making process (2). This model, like many
other individual behavioral models, assumes that the decision maker undergoes a
rational weighing of costs and benefits. This is a potential weakness of the
model when being applied to programs such as Scared Straight because it is not
likely that the participants are rational beings. Additionally, the model
assumes that the individual has the time and emotional maturity to go through
this decision making process.
Scared Straight typically targets
juveniles who have already committed a crime or those who are deemed “at-risk”
youth. The majority of participants are males between the ages of 14-18 who
come from areas with high prevalence of crime (11). If these young men are
faced with the decision to engage in crime or not, it is unlikely that they
will have the maturity or time to make a rational decision. The impact of
socio-emotional context, brain development and pubertal maturation was examined
in a study by the Department of Psychology at Temple University. After
reviewing existing research, the study
investigators found that “differential maturation in the structure and
function of brain systems leaves adolescents particularly vulnerable to
socio-emotional influences and risk-taking behaviors” (5). During adolescence,
humans are still experiencing major changes and development in the brain and in
the social context as well. Thus, the adolescents targeted by Scared Straight
do not benefit from a rational choice model due to their cognitive
developmental level and other influences. The program takes on a very
simplistic view of behavior by assuming that exposure to an extreme negative
consequence will be enough to deter at-risk youth from committing crime. In
actuality, there are a number of other factors that could influence a youth’s
decision to take part in deviant behavior.
Flaw 3: The program
socializes at-risk youth into the sub-culture of crime.
A major hazard of prison visits for
adolescents who are already at-risk is the possibility of socializing and
desensitizing the youth to the prison culture. By bringing a group of
adolescents into a prison and treating them as inmates, the Scared Straight
program is having them enact a role that some may internalize as inevitable for
themselves. Anthony Schembri, the Secretary of the Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, hypothesized about “anticipatory socialization” in the Scared
Straight Program. According to Schembri, “this process occurs when individuals
perceive the certainty of an event and, upon being placed in a similar
situation, begin to be socialized toward that event” (12). It is probable that
the adolescents in the intervention program are aware of their status as
at-risk youth—either through the subculture of violence around them or their
past criminal behavior. Once put in the setting of a prison, what is to stop
them from accepting the role that has
been prescribed to them? (Other than the scare tactic, which has been proven to
be ineffective).
The Scared Straight program has had
a place in the media since its inception and this has contributed greatly to
its socialization in our culture. In January 2011, A&E aired its own
television series, “Beyond Scared Straight.” The show documents prison visits
and personal accounts from the adolescents who are in the program. The presence
of this program on television as entertainment trivializes the importance of
the issue. In addition, it desensitizes the public to the issue of criminal
behavior in adolescents. This process of desensitization to violence has been
examined by psychologists in many experimental study designs. In one
investigation, the authors recruited a sample of college students, showed them
clips of violent movies and measured for trait aggression, sympathy, and
reaction to the violent clips afterwards. The study found that “repeated
exposure to media violence reduces the psychological impact of media violence
in the short term, therefore desensitizing viewers to media violence” (1).
These results could have significant implications for the Scared Straight
program and the potential effect of exposing at-risk youth to the prison
environment. Violence, illicit drug use and other illegal activities are
already pervasive in the media. By familiarizing these adolescents with crime
in another context, the program
only contributes to the normalizing of
this culture.
Proposed Intervention
As an alternative to the Scared
Straight program, I would propose a community-based prevention program that
utilizes different tactics to deter at-risk youth from criminal behavior. This
would be implemented as a weekly after school session in local community
centers for adolescents from ages 14-17. Sessions would consist of
skills-building workshops for participants. These skills would include
socio-cognitive, problem solving and employment based skills. Since the program
would not be court mandated, there would have to be incentives to participate.
As a community program, we could collaborate with nearby schools to arrange
proper incentives. In addition, we would recruit local youth for an advisory
committee in order to gain their personal perspectives. The intervention’s
major objective would be to empower youth by emphasizing ownership over one’s
decisions and essentially creating a movement around personal agency. The
program would take advantage of the current age of social networks and media in
order to disseminate the messages. Ultimately, the intervention would socialize
these at-risk youth into a culture of productivity and opportunity. This is in
stark contrast to demoralized and degrading culture of the Scared Straight
program.
Defense 1: The intervention
empowers youth instead of threatening them.
One of the major flaws within the
Scared Straight program was the intimidation tactic that essentially threatened
the freedom of its participants. This proposed intervention would be tested
before implementation for the potential invocation of psychological reactance. Program managers could run a test version of
the program and recruit adolescents to give their feedback on the messages
taken from the session. We would want to test for perceived pressure or threats
to personal choice. Instead of causing reactance, this program would use the
Theory of Psychological Reactance to inform the methods used. For example,
there would be no exertion of dominance from those supervising the program. For
adolescents, authority figures such as
police officers would not be the most effective communicators. Rather, we would
mobilize a group of local community members who could serve as leaders in the
program. It is important that these community leaders are recognized and
respected by the adolescents who are participating in the program. This aspect
of familiarity serves to effectively captivate the target audience and bolster
the credibility of the message being delivered. For instance, if the program
could recruit a successful athlete or business owner who is rooted in the community,
the participants could easily identify with them. Their accounts of resilience
and ultimate success would be ideal sources of support for the program’s
objectives.
By emphasizing the participant’s
ownership of their own decisions, the program would empower the adolescents
instead of scorning them as the Scared Straight Program did. This perception of
one’s ability to execute decisions is described within the psychological
concept of Self-efficacy. This refers to “subjective judgments of one’s capabilities
to organize and execute course of action to attain designated goals” (6).
Unlike the Scared Straight program, this alternative intervention would foster
positive perceptions of control, outcome expectations and self-esteem through
integrated workshops. The idea is to create a sense of identity and control
over one’s identity. Whereas the Scared Straight program already assigns
participants an identity and takes away this sense of control.
Defense 2: The intervention
utilizes the peer-group to influence behavior.
The alternative approach to
intervening with at-risk youth would utilize the theory of diffusion innovation
to influence decision making. Adolescence is a period of time when we are
easily influenced by what our peers are doing in addition to what is perceived
as trendy or “cool” at the time. The social science Theory of Diffusion
Innovation explains how a population adopts a product or behavior through
diffusion throughout the population (3). In addition, the “key to adoption is
that the person must perceive the [behavior] as new or innovative” (3). Our
goal as a new intervention program, would be to present the community program
as something novel and different from what the community is used to. After
assessing the makeup of the networks within the adolescent community, we would
initially target those with the most social influence. The Diffusion of
Innovation Theory would define these adolescents as the “Innovators.” According
to the model, the spread of behavior through a specific population must start
with the innovators (3). In the same way that these teenagers are the
individuals who initiate fashion trends within their circles, we would aim for
them to spark an interest in our program. This method of influencing behavior
through the spread of popularity is much more realistic for our target audience
than the notion that they will engage in a certain behavior because it is
rational. This approach takes into account the social factors that often
manipulate adolescents’ behavior patterns.
Defense 3: The program
socializes at-risk in a positive manner.
The proposed intervention strategy
will result in favorable behavioral outcomes as opposed to the Scared Straight
program because it socializes youth into a positive culture. The social context
of prison visits is not healthy for an adolescent who is already bombarded with
images and stories of criminal behavior by the media. The alternative program
recognizes the importance of the social environment and how an adolescent may
interact with it. According to the Social Cognitive Theory, a person’s behavior
is influenced by the social environment in addition to reinforcements,
observations and expectations that accompany the social context (3). Therefore,
it is extremely important that this program utilizes the principles of the
theory in order to affect its participants. The idea of reinforcement is
particularly useful in the new intervention because weekly sessions allow
program managers to track and reward positive behavior. For example, for participants
who abstain from illegal activity and are able to avoid encounters with law
enforcement or the court system, there can be rewards such as organized trips
to other cities. This type of positive reinforcement reminds the participants
who stay out of trouble that by abstaining from criminal behavior, they are
creating other opportunities for themselves.
Another concept of the Social
Cognitive Theory that is modeled within the alternative program is
observational learning. This concept asserts that “people can witness and
observe a behavior conducted by others, and then reproduce those actions” (3).
By recruiting role models who have refrained from engaging in criminal
behavior, the program is providing a model from which the participating adolescents
can observe and imitate. These community members would be relatively young and
recognized by the participants so that they could easily connect with them.
Unlike the Scared Straight program, which utilizes authority figures such as
prison guards and menacing prison inmates, this program relies on positive
figures. In a society that is plagued with violence, substance abuse and crime,
it is imperative that at-risk youth are exposed to a healthier social context
from which they can function. A major goal of this intervention is to change
adolescents’ perceived norms of behavior through observation and reinforcement.
Conclusion
Scared Straight was a program that
was implemented with honorable intentions—to deter at-risk youth from engaging
in dangerous behaviors such as violence, illicit drug use and other illegal
activities. However, it has become evident that the program itself is a danger
to at-risk adolescents. There is a multitude of literature reviewing the
ineffectiveness and risks associated with the intervention strategy. The
program’s scare tactics produce undesirable results such as re-offending and
deviant behavior. Furthermore, the Scared Straight program socializes its
participants into a culture that it wants them to avert. The implications of
this program are scary for the future of at-risk youth. I believe that there
must be a shift from these law enforcement based programs to community based
programs for adolescents. I propose an intervention that does not invoke
reactance in its participants. Rather, it empowers them to take ownership over
their personal decisions. This comprehensive
program could successfully train at-risk youth to engage in productive
behavior so that they will have a more appealing alternative to criminal
behavior.
REFERENCES
1. Avraamides M,
Fanti K, Henrich C, Vanman E. Desensitization to Media Violence Over a Short Period of Time. Aggressive Behavior 2009; 35, 179-187.
2. Becker M,
Rosenstock I, Strecher V. Social Learning Theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly 1988; 15:2, 175-183.
3. Boston
University School of Public Health. Behavioral
Change Models: Diffusion of
Innovation Theory. Boston, MA: Boston University School of Public Health. http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/SB721-Models/SB721- Models4.html
4. Brehm J. Psychological Reactance: Theory and
Applications. Advances in Consumer Research 1989; 72-75.
5. Chein J,
Smith A, Steinberg L. Impact of socio-emotional context, brain development, and pubertal maturation
on adolescent risk-taking. Hormones &
Behavior 2013; 64(2): 323-332.
6. Cleary T,
Zimmerman B. Adolescents’ development of personal agency (pp. 47). In: Cleary T, Zimmerman B, ed. Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents.
2006.
7. Dymnicki A,
Henry D, Weissberg R. Understanding How Programs Work to Prevent Overt Aggressive Behaviors:
A Meta-analysis of Mediators of Elementary
School–Based Programs. Journal of School Violence 2011; 10:4, 315-337.
8. Hendrikson H.
Beyond Bars. State Legislatures 2012;
38(2): 28-29.
9. Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Justice Department Discourages
the Use of “Scared Straight” Programs.
Washington, DC: OJJDP. https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/news_at_glance/234084/topstory.html
10. Office of
the Surgeon General (US). Youth Violence:
A Report of the Surgeon General.
Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General (US), 2001.
11. Petrosino A,
Turpin C, Buehler J. “Scared Straight”
and other juvenile awareness programs
for preventing juvenile delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2004.
12. Schembri A. Scared Straight Programs: Jail and Detention
Tours. Tallahassee, FL:
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2006.
13. Strategies
for Youth. How to Avoid the Failures of
Scared Straight. Cambridge, MA:
Strategies for Youth. http://strategiesforyouth.org/for-police/how- to/how-to-scared-straight/
14. The New York
Times. Movies. New York: The New York
Times. http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/43074/Scared-Straight-/overview
No comments:
Post a Comment