The Role of Proneness to Guilt and Shame Among People in Custody in Promoting Restorative Justice Processes

Abstract

This research examined the role of guilt and shame proneness among people in custody in shaping attitudes toward restorative justice (RJ) and in predicting the effectiveness of RJ practices. Study 1 (n = 110) examined the correlation between participant guilt and shame proneness and willingness to participate in an RJ process. It revealed that proneness to guilt, but not to shame, was correlated with willingness to participate in an RJ process. Mediational modeling showed that guilt proneness predicted willingness to participate in an RJ process via its strong correlation with regret and remorse. Study 2 (n = 133) examined whether shame and guilt proneness affects the effectiveness of an RJ practice. It revealed that high guilt proneness predicted high willingness to participate in RJ, whereas shame proneness moderated the effectiveness of an RJ practice. These results can help practitioners and researchers develop interventions to promote the effectiveness of RJ programs.

Keywords

prisoners restorative justice guilt shame attitudes rehabilitation

Introduction

International crime trends have remained relatively stable or declined in recent years (United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, 2015). This trend, however, has not reduced prison populations (Gazal-Ayal & Roberts, 2019). In addition, numerous studies show that punitive policies involving widespread incarceration often fail to address the needs of persons who have perpetrated a crime (hereafter, perpetrators), of victims, or of their communities, and fail to provide significant deterrence or rehabilitation (Gromet & Darley, 2009; O’Hear, 2006; Strang & Sherman, 2003). Consequently, in recent decades, law enforcement and social supervision systems in various countries, including Israel, have introduced alternative methods for settling the disputes behind much of criminal behavior.

Many of these methods are informed by the concept of restorative justice (RJ). As an approach to doing justice, RJ places the emphasis on repairing harm to individuals, relations, and society (Walgrave, 2013). According to the RJ approach, this is to be achieved by unprejudiced, guided dialogue between the parties harmed by the offense and the perpetrator on ways of redressing the harm (Johnstone, 2012; Zehr & Mika, 2003). Despite these important insights, however, use of RJ processes remains modest internationally (Butler & Maruna, 2016; Peleg-Koriat & Weimann-Saks, 2019; Pereira, 2017). To address this, barriers to the widespread and effective implementation of these processes need to be examined. The present study does so by focusing on the powerful but relatively understudied role of psychological barriers.

RJ: Background

Unlike the criminal justice system, which views the offense only as a deviation from legal norms, RJ views it primarily as a dispute between the perpetrator and the victim, the results of which are harmful to both, as well as to the community (Zehr, 2002). According to the Anglo-American legal system practiced in Israel, the criminal process begins with an investigation whose findings are reported to the prosecution for indictment. The decision to hold a trial is imposed on both the perpetrator and victim. The RJ approach, on the contrary, offers a substantially different process (Dancig-Rosenberg & Gal, 2013).

Three core aspects define RJ: harms, needs, and obligations. It focuses on the harms and needs of both victim and perpetrator and addresses the obligations of all stakeholders, including the community. RJ is not a specific program, but all programs informed by it, including the one reported below, shift the focus from what the perpetrator deserves to these core aspects and involve all affected parties (Zehr, 2002; Zehr & Mika, 2003).

RJ aims to settle disputes and redress harm by identifying the parties’ needs through impartial, guided dialogue. Such dialogue facilitates consensual resolution and enables the parties to the dispute to embark on a path of reconciliation, victim healing, and perpetrator rehabilitation and reintegration (Dhami et al., 2009; Johnstone, 2011; Zehr & Mika, 2003). The community is an important stakeholder, representing the dual role of secondary victim and secondary perpetrator, the latter due to its failure to prevent or address the crime (McCold, 2004). Community members are invited to share responsibility by taking part in the design of the restoration plan (Dancig-Rosenberg & Gal, 2013).

Although distinct from retributive justice that is oriented toward punishing perpetrators proportionately to the severity of the crime, RJ does not contradict it (for the opposite view, see Bazemore, 1998; Walgrave, 2004). Both recognize that an offense undermines the balance between the parties, and that there has to be a proportionate response to the criminal act. However, they differ in how they believe that balance can be restored (Brunk, 2001; Zehr, 2002). RJ complements retributive justice by helping achieve its practical goals along with additional goals more difficult for retributive justice to achieve, such as redressing harm, offering the perpetrator an opportunity to apologize, and enabling healing contact between the perpetrator, on one hand, and the victim and community, on the other (Dancig-Rosenberg & Gal, 2013). In evaluation studies, both victims and perpetrators were more satisfied with RJ than with conventional criminal processes (Poulson, 2003; Sherman & Strang, 2007). In addition, perpetrators who participated in RJ processes tended to present lower recidivism rates than were perpetrators who participated in conventional criminal processes (Bazemore & Elis, 2007; H. Hayes, 2007; Sherman & Strang, 2007).

Despite these encouraging findings, when it comes to serious offenses, the RJ process is controversial and rarely used. One understandable concern with RJ as an alternative to incarceration for serious offenses—as McGlynn et al. (2012) argue in the case of sexual offenses—is that diverting them from the court system might reduce their perceived severity. Others are concerned that an informal process may be experienced as revictimization (Jülich & Buttle, 2010; Stubbs, 2002). On the contrary, RJ’s positive effects appear to be more substantial precisely in serious offenses (Sherman, 2003; Van Camp, 2014). Moreover, limiting the process to specific cases such as juvenile delinquency and other offenses unlikely to lead to incarceration could defeat the key purpose of RJ, as the conventional approach of retributive justice remains the default (Butler & Maruna, 2016; Wood, 2015). Informed by these considerations, the present study examines the incorporation of RJ within prison walls as likely to provide access to RJ to a wider population of adults convicted of serious offenses, without, however, replacing court proceedings.

RJ in Prison: Attitudes and Effectiveness

RJ processes can be incorporated in various stages of the conventional judicial procedure. Whereas in the past decades, they have been primarily used prior to sentencing and as an alternative to incarceration, in recent years, a number of countries have concluded that prisons would not disappear in the near future and that for people convicted of certain crimes, there is still no alternative. Consequently, one solution is to incorporate restorative processes after sentencing as well so that individuals in custody and their victims can take advantage of its numerous benefits (Dhami et al., 2009; Van Ness, 2007; Wallace & Wylie, 2013).

Incorporating RJ processes in prisons can help those in custody acknowledge the harm they have caused and the resulting needs of the victims and other affected parties. People in custody may be expected to accept responsibility and given the opportunity to make amends (Mace, 2000; Newell, 2001). These processes can also improve their self-image and social skills, both necessary for reintegration in the community. Moreover, processes such as victim-offender mediation (VOM) or conferencing may even help victims cope with their ongoing sense of victimhood and thus reduce hostility and fears in the community. Indeed, some RJ practices aim at enhancing the community–prison relationship by means of community service or cooperative workshops for individuals in custody and members of the community (Dhami et al., 2009). Finally, the very participation in RJ processes helps people serving a sentence acquire constructive and nonviolent conflict management skills that can contribute to conflict management among themselves and between them and the prison staff (Butler & Maruna, 2016; Dhami et al., 2009; Newell, 2002).

Some RJ practices are easier to implement during incarceration. These include programs that raise perpetrators’ awareness of the harm caused to victims, the frequent lack of which prevents acknowledgment and eventually reconciliation, and may undermine the retributive justice process in limiting it to punishment rather than rehabilitation (Dhami et al., 2009; Liebmann, 2007; Peleg-Koriat & Weimann-Saks, 2019). A victim awareness program developed in the United Kingdom in 1998, for example, brings together perpetrators and surrogate victims (real victims unrelated to the perpetrator), who relate their tangible and intangible injuries. Alternatively, people in custody watch video clips of victims and experience simulations demonstrating the harm caused (Anderson, 2018; Peleg-Koriat & Weimann-Saks, 2019; Umbreit et al., 2007).

While RJ appears to be a promising alternative or complementary form of justice, including during incarceration, scholars are concerned that without support by the public, victims, and perpetrators, it may decline (Gavrielides, 2016; Moss et al., 2019), or be limited to minor offenses (Hoyle & Rosenblatt, 2016). For example, if victims and perpetrators do not adopt favorable attitudes toward RJ, they might be unwilling to meet (Peleg-Koriat & Weimann-Saks, 2019; Zebel et al., 2017). Likewise, negative attitudes might preclude community participation, which is key to the process, as aforementioned (Hoyle & Rosenblatt, 2016; Rossner & Bruce, 2016). Although several studies have examined willingness to participate in RJ among different types of incarcerated individuals (Peleg-Koriat & Weimann-Saks, 2019; Stamatakis & Vandeviver, 2013), the role of psychological factors such as emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and personality traits within this general process has yet to be studied.

Regarding such factors, previous research indicates differential effectiveness of RJ processes across offenses and perpetrators (De Beus & Rodriguez, 2007; Forgays & DeMilio, 2005; Rodriguez, 2007; Sherman et al., 2000). Most studies have examined the moderating role of offense type (e.g., property vs. violence; de Beus & Rodriguez, 2007; Sherman et al., 2000), or demographic and situational characteristics (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2013; De Beus & Rodriguez, 2007; H. Hayes & Daly, 2004). However, research on differential effectiveness resulting from psychological variables is almost nonexistent. In a seminal study, Scheuerman and Matthews (2014) found that RJ was more effective (in terms of perceived procedural justice and shaming) for perpetrators low in negative emotionality and high in constraint. Although this study provided preliminary evidence that perpetrators with certain personality traits perceived RJ processes differently, we need to explore additional psychological variables associated with RJ effectiveness. In the present study, we have chosen to examine the role of guilt and shame proneness among people serving a sentence for crime.

Guilt and Shame Proneness

Shame and guilt are relevant to criminology and to rehabilitation in particular as they are considered “moral” emotions and thus key to preventing socially undesirable and fostering prosocial behavior (Tangney et al., 2011). Previous psychological research has focused on dispositional tendencies to experience guilt and shame (Tangney, 1996). These emotions invoke heightened self-awareness and distress (Tangney & Dearing, 2002) and usually arise following wrongdoing or injury that threaten a personal relationship (Tangney, 1995).

Although guilt and shame are often similarly described in the literature (Halperin & Reifen Tagar, 2017; Lickel et al., 2011), several important factors distinguish between them, including core appraisals, emotional goals, and action tendencies (e.g., Brown et al., 2008; Gausel & Leach, 2011; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Whereas shame involves negative focus about the global self (“I am a bad person”), guilt involves focus on a particular action (“I did a bad thing”; Tangney et al., 2007; Tracy & Robins, 2006). When feeling guilty, people experience empathy with the victim, tension, as well as regret and remorse and are motivated to acknowledge their misdeed, to apologize, and to make amends (Lewis, 1971; Lindsay-Hartz, 1984; Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Wallbott & Scherer, 1995). By avoiding global attributions to the self and focusing on a specific behavior, people can prevent the pain from overwhelming them and be able to make up for the consequences of their behavior (Tangney et al., 2011). All of these elements are essential for the success of RJ processes, as further discussed below.

Conversely, when people experience shame, they tend to feel more threatened than when experiencing guilt and are more concerned with others’ negative evaluations of them—they feel unworthy and exposed. Rather than motivating reparative behavior, this tends to lead to a defensive reaction, running away, or hiding (Tangney et al., 2011). Proneness to shame has been associated with a tendency to blame other people, deny responsibility, avoid the other, and direct anger toward the self, the other, or the environment (Bear et al., 2009; Behrendt & Ben-Ari, 2012; Luyten et al., 2002; Tangney et al., 1992).

Tangney et al. (2011) examined shame and guilt among adults incarcerated on felony charges and found that proneness to these feelings predicted crime but was differentially related to key constructs. Self-control, for example, was correlated positively with guilt and negatively with shame proneness. In another study, Tangney et al. (2014) assessed guilt propensity among incarcerated individuals and found that it predicted recidivism directly and negatively in the first year postrelease, whereas shame propensity did not. They also found that proneness to guilt about specific behaviors was associated with reduced recidivism. Proneness to shame, on the contrary, predicted recidivism via strong correlation to blame externalization, albeit when unimpeded by defensive externalization of blame, shame also reduced recidivism. To conclude, people can experience two distinct types of “self-conscious” emotions: shame that is focused on the self and associated with hiding and escaping, and guilt that is focused on behavior and is associated with reparation.

Guilt and Shame Proneness and RJ

Guilt and shame proneness are key variables in cognitive, social, and criminal psychology. Nevertheless, they have not been studied as personality traits in the context of RJ. Braithwaite’s (1989) reintegrative shaming theory has been widely used to explain RJ procedures (Harris & Maruna, 2005). This theory distinguishes between reintegrative and disintegrative shaming (stigmatization). Reintegrative shaming, which underlies the RJ approach, is based on a process that condemns the act alongside the perpetrators’ acceptance and concern for their rehabilitation. According to this approach, shaming must be reintegrative and not stigmatizing, as in legal procedures that often prevent people who have served a sentence for a crime from reintegrating into the community. Reintegrative shaming uncouples self and behavior, so that the perpetrator’s self is sustained “as sacred rather than profane” (Braithwaite & Mugford, 1994, p. 146). Tangney et al. (2011) supported that distinction and claimed that whereas focusing on behavior rather than the person was congruent with guilt as described in the psychological literature, disintegrative shaming was more congruent with the psychological definition of shame.

Whereas Braithwaite’s (1989) theory refers to shaming as deriving from the criminal procedure or as one of its goals, the literature is surprisingly rather silent on the role of personality traits and emotional variables in willingness to participate in RJ processes and in their success. In particular, no study to our knowledge has examined the distinct and interactive effects of proneness to guilt and shame in that context. Accordingly, and given the unique characteristics of those emotions as reviewed above, we may expect the guilt proneness (as a personality trait) of people in custody to be accompanied by regret and remorse over the “bad thing done,” by high concern for others, and by the ability to take personal responsibility. In turn, those thoughts and feelings are expected to lead to higher willingness to participate in an RJ process. Contrarily, the shame proneness (as a personality trait) of people in custody would be accompanied by greater concern for self and by a desire to escape and deny responsibility and blame. Those in turn are expected to lead to lower willingness to participate in an RJ process.

Moreover, guilt-prone individuals tend to manage their anger constructively through nonhostile discussion and direct corrective action and have little inclination for aggression (Lutwak et al., 2001; Paulhus et al., 2004). In contrast, shame proneness is correlated with hostility and anger, as well as defensive externalization of blame by scapegoating (Bennett et al., 2005; Harper & Arias, 2004; Harper et al., 2005; Paulhus et al., 2004; Tangney et al., 2014). Thus, we expect shame proneness to decrease the effectiveness of RJ interventions and the willingness of people in custody to participate in them.

The Current Research

The present research examines psychological factors that affect attitudes toward RJ among incarcerated individuals. We hypothesized that shame and guilt proneness affects (a) their willingness to participate in RJ processes that include direct encounters between perpetrator and victim (i.e., RJ conferencing or VOM), and (b) contribute to the effectiveness of a key RJ program: victim awareness practice. These hypotheses were tested in two studies. Study 1 examined the correlation between the proneness of people in custody to guilt and shame and their willingness to participate in an RJ process. To better understand the relationship and explore the mediating role of regret and remorse, a mediation model was constructed. In Study 2, we conducted an empirical experiment to examine, for the first time, whether perpetrators’ shame proneness would decrease and guilt proneness increase the effectiveness of the RJ victim awareness practice.

Study 1

Study 1 explored whether the proneness of people in custody to shame and guilt was correlated with their willingness to participate in an RJ process and mediated by regret and remorse. Specifically, it examined whether guilt proneness would lead to increased willingness to participate in an RJ process (H1a) and whether shame proneness would reduce willingness to participate in such a process (H1b). In addition, and in line with Tangney et al. (2014), the study examined whether regret and remorse levels could explain the relationship between guilt and shame proneness and willingness to participate in an RJ process (H2a,b).

Method

Participants

One-hundred and ten males incarcerated in two prisons in Israel took part in the study. These individuals constituted 94% of those invited to participate. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 75 (M = 38.78, SD = 12.70); most were Muslim (60.4%), and most were religious (42.7%) or traditional (35%). More than half were married (52.4%), had elementary (33.6%) or secondary education (29.1%), and 14.5% had postsecondary education. For 61.3% this was their first incarceration. The average period of incarceration was 38.98 months (SD = 52.28; range = 1–480 months; see Table 1).

Table 1:

Study 1: Sample Descriptive Statistics (N = 110)

Variable			n	%
Prison
A			49	44.5
B			61	55.5
Participation in the prison’s therapeutic program
Yes			85	87.6
No			12	12.4
Type of offense
Drugs			8	7.8
Property			9	8.8
Assault			7	6.9
Violence			20	19.6
Family			6	5.9
Sex			9	8.8
Traffic			22	21.6
Other			21	20.6
Religion
Jewish			29	28.7
Muslim			61	60.4
Christian			8	7.3
Other			3	3
Religiosity
Religious			44	42.7
Traditional			36	35
Nonreligious			23	22.3
Family status
Married			54	52.4
Divorced			15	14.6
Single			29	28.2
Widowed			5	4.8
	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
Age (years)	19	75	38.78	12.70
Number of children	0	11	2.31	2.31
Current prison term (months)	1	480	38.98	52.28
Number of previous incarcerations	0	11	2.35	2.15
Remaining prison term (months)	1	100	20.57	18.10

Instruments

All participants completed a demographic questionnaire about their total and remaining prison term, offense, type of harm, and victims’ identity.

Shame and guilt proneness was evaluated using items culled from the guilt and shame indices of the Test of Self-Conscious Affect-3 (TOSCA-3; Tangney et al., 2000), translated into Hebrew by Behrendt and Ben-Ari (2012). Back-translation was used for the Arabic version of the questionnaire to ensure accuracy. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in a series of daily situations (e.g., “At work, you wait until the last minute to plan a project, and it turns out badly”). Each scenario was followed by responses that described shame and guilt experiences (e.g., for shame, “You would feel incompetent”; for guilt, “You would feel: I deserve to be reprimanded for mismanaging the project”). For each option, participants rated the likelihood that their feelings would match those described on a 5-point scale (not at all likely to very likely). Reliabilities for the guilt and shame subscales were Cronbach’s α = .82 and α = .87, respectively.

Level of regret and remorse was assessed using four questions culled from Dinsdale (2002), with some adjustments: “To what extent do you regret the consequences of the offense for which you are serving a prison sentence?” “To what extent do you feel sorry for the harm you caused?” “Do you regret the effects your crime had on other people?” and “Do you feel responsible for the offense you committed and because of them you are serving a prison sentence?” Respondents were asked to mark their responses on a 5-point scale (not at all to very much; α = .78).

Willingness to participate in an RJ process including direct encounters between perpetrator and victim was measured using a 4-item scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; α = .87). The items were based on Dinsdale (2002), with minor adjustments (e.g., “I would like to meet face-to-face victims of crimes similar to the one I committed”; “I have things to say to the victim of my offense”).

Procedure

The researchers administered questionnaire forms in Hebrew and Arabic to the participants, who were selected without preliminary criteria during an idle period, after obtaining their informed consent. To ensure anonymity, opportunity sampling was employed, such that all incarcerated individuals available at the time of sampling were approached and asked to participate. They were told that participation was voluntary and that refusing to participate would result in no consequences to them. We made it clear that the survey was anonymous and that they should therefore provide no identifying details and emphasized that no member of the prison staff would be able to access their responses. Average response time was roughly 15 min. The study was approved by the Israel Prison Service and the Institutional Ethics Committee at Yezreel Valley Academic College.

Results

No differences between the prisons were found in levels of shame, t(101) = −.814, p = .418, and guilt proneness, t(101) = −.182, p = .856. To test Hypotheses H1a,b, we computed Pearson correlations among the research variables. A significant positive correlation was found between guilt proneness and willingness to participate in an RJ process (r = .37, p < .001), but none was found between shame proneness and willingness to participate in an RJ process (r = .10, p = .322).

To examine the mediating role of regret and remorse in the relation between guilt and shame proneness, on one hand, and willingness to participate in an RJ process, on the other (H2a,b), we used A. Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS bootstrapping command with 5,000 iterations (Model 4). The analysis treated guilt and shame proneness as predictor variables, regret and remorse as the mediator, and willingness to participate in an RJ process as the dependent variable. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effect of guilt proneness on willingness to participate through regret and remorse did not include 0, 95% CI = [.045, .627] with 5,000 resamples, F(2, 92) = 12.83, p < .001. In other words, the model indicated indirect effects of guilt proneness on willingness to participate through regret and remorse (see Figure 1). The 95% CI for the indirect effect of shame proneness on willingness to participate through regret and remorse did include 0, 95% CI = [−.357, .495] with 5,000 resamples, F(2, 92) = 6.93, p = .067. In other words, the model indicated no indirect effects of shame proneness on willingness to participate through regret and remorse (see Figure 2).

Figure 1:

Mediation Model of Guilt Proneness on Willingness to Participate in RJ Process

Figure 2:

Mediation Model of Shame on Willingness to Participate in RJ Process

These findings reveal that participants’ guilt proneness was positively correlated with willingness to participate in an RJ process, whereas their shame proneness was not. In addition, feelings of regret and remorse mediated the correlation between guilt proneness and willingness to participate in an RJ process. Our goal in Study 2 was to replicate Study 1 and conduct an experiment to test, for the first time, the effect of guilt and shame proneness on the effectiveness of the preparatory RJ practice of victim awareness found effective in a previous study (Weimann-Saks & Peleg-Koriat, 2020).

Study 2

Study 2 examined whether perpetrators’ shame proneness would decrease the effectiveness of the victim awareness practice and whether guilt proneness would increase it. Specifically, we hypothesized, first, that participants who had taken part in a victim awareness practice would be more willing to participate in a further RJ process than those who had not (H3). We further hypothesized that participants with high guilt proneness would be more willing to participate in a further RJ process than would participants with low guilt proneness (H4a). Conversely, we hypothesized that participants with low shame proneness would be more willing to participate in a further RJ process than would participants with high shame proneness (H4b). Finally, we hypothesized an interaction effect whereby the practice would lead to higher willingness to participate in a further RJ process among participants with high compared with low guilt proneness (H5a) and among participants with low compared with high shame proneness (H5b).

Method

Participants

The study was designed as a parallel two-group randomized controlled trial. Incarcerated individuals who agreed to participate (92% of those invited) were summoned to the prison yard and randomly and alternately assigned to two groups. No differences were found between the groups in age, t(130) = 0.941, p = .349; number of children, t(128) = 0.336, p = .737; current term of imprisonment, t(131) = −0.266, p = .151; number of previous imprisonments, t(131) = 0.302, p = .499; or remaining imprisonment term, t(131) = 0.622, p = 535. In addition, similar distributions were found for the qualitative variables of religion and religiosity, type of offense, participation in the prison’s therapeutic program, education level, and marital status.

The final sample included 133 males incarcerated in two Israeli prisons. Their ages ranged from 19 to 72 (M = 37.54, SD = 12.23). Most participants were Muslim (60.8%), and most participants overall were religious (42.2%) or traditional (37.5%). More than half (51.8%) were married; most had completed elementary (32.8%) or secondary education (28.4%), and 17.4% had postsecondary education. For 61.1% this was their first prison term. The average period of imprisonment was 40.45 months (SD = 49.01; range = 1–480 months). Most participants were serving the first half of their sentence (see Table 2).

Table 2:

Study 2: Sample Descriptive Statistics (N = 133)

Variable			n	%
Prison
A			68	51.1
B			65	48.9
Participation in the prison’s therapeutic program
Yes			107	89.2
No			13	10.8
Type of offense
Drugs			10	7.9
Property			11	8.7
Assault			9	7.1
Violence			26	20.5
Family			11	4.7
Sex			6	8.7
Traffic			29	22.8
Other			25	19.7
Religion
Jewish			36	28.8
Muslim			76	60.8
Christian			10	8.0
Other			3	2.4
Religiosity
Religious			46	42.2
Traditional			41	37.5
Nonreligious			22	20.3
Family status
Married			55	51.8
Divorced			15	14.2
Single			31	29
Widowed			6	5.6
	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
Age (years)	19	72	37.54	12.23
Number of children	0	10	2.41	2.34
Current prison term (months)	1	480	40.45	49.01
Number of previous incarcerations	0	9	2.32	2.06
Remaining prison term (months)	1	101	21.18	17.41

Procedure

The present study was carried out in two separate phases. In the first, all completed a questionnaire that examined shame and guilt proneness (the independent variable), demographic questions, and details about their offense and sentence. In the second phase, which included the same participants and took place 1 hr after the first, they were divided into two nearly equal groups. The experimental group (n = 67) were shown a 15-min video (1,770 words) in which a young crime victim related her personal story involving a violent robbery at her father’s grocery store. The video was screened in the prison library, and the group watched it together. Approximately 1 hr later, the participants completed questionnaires (in Hebrew or Arabic) identical to that used in Study 1, but without the part that examined the dependent variable (shame and guilt proneness), which they had completed in the first phase. The control group (n = 66) did not watch the video and only completed questionnaires. Survey response time was approximately 20 min. The study took place at a time when there was no other activity in the prison.

All participants were selected without preliminary criteria. Participants were told that participation was voluntary and that they were free to refuse our request to participate in the study. It was also explained to them that the survey was anonymous and that they should therefore provide no identifying details and it was emphasized that no member of the prison staff would be able to access their responses. The study was approved by the Israel Prison Service and the Institutional Ethics Committee at Yezreel Valley Academic College.

Materials

Video

The video shown to the experimental participants featured a monologue by a young woman excitedly describing her experience of witnessing the armed robbery of her father’s grocery store, which left him in a permanent vegetative state. She described feeling afraid, anxious, and distressed during and after the robbery. She asked, “Why did it have to happen to us?” “Did the perpetrator know my father?” “Is the perpetrator aware of the harm he caused?” She also tried to guess the perpetrator’s identity and motive: “Maybe he was a drug addict . . . Maybe he was sick and . . . needed help?” Following the incident, she had trouble functioning. The store closed down, her mother had cancer, and the family became impoverished. The woman said she was still afraid to walk the streets alone, and that her family was unable to return to normal. At the end, she expressed a wish to receive answers to all her questions, so that she and her family could get on with their lives, and particularly so that her mother would be able to receive explanations before she died.

Questionnaires

The questionnaires were identical to the set used in Study 1 with sufficient Cronbach’s α values for guilt (α = .77), shame (α = .81), regret and remorse (α = .86), and willingness to participate in an RJ process (α = .89). We calculated the median of shame and guilt proneness and then divided the participants into those high and low on the variable.

Results

In accordance with H3, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect for exposure to RJ practice on willingness to participate in RJ process, F(1, 132) = 4.909, p =.029, $η_{p}^{2} = . 051$ . Participants who watched the video indicated higher levels of willingness to participate in RJ process (M = 4.62, SD = 1.48) than participants who did not (M = 3.95, SD = 1.75). Moreover, in accordance with H4a, a significant effect was also found for guilt proneness, F(1, 132) = 9.699, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2} = . 096$ . Participants with high guilt proneness indicated higher levels of positive attitudes toward participation in RJ processes (M = 4.74, SD = 1.49) than did participants with low guilt proneness (M = 3.77, SD = 1.67). As for H5a, no significant interaction was found between exposure to RJ practice and guilt proneness in affecting willingness to participate in an RJ process, F(1, 132) = 0.88, p = .350, $η_{p}^{2} = . 010$ (see Figure 3).

Figure 3:

Interaction of Participation in a Victim Awareness Program and Guilt Proneness on Willingness to Participate in RJ Process

Contrary to H4b, a two-way ANOVA did not reveal a significant effect for shame proneness on willingness to participate in RJ process, F(1, 132) = 0.739, p = .392, $η_{p}^{2} = . 008$ . As for H5b, significant interaction was found between exposure to RJ practice and shame proneness in affecting willingness to participate in an RJ process, F(1, 132) = 3.874, p = .042, $η_{p}^{2} = . 031$ (see Figure 4). For participants with high shame proneness, there was no difference between those exposed and not exposed to RJ practice, t(64) = 0.30, p = .769,; for participants with low shame proneness, there was difference between those exposed and not exposed to RJ practice, M = 4.73, SD = 1.54 versus M = 3.46, SD = 1.81; t(65) = 2.62, p = .012.

Figure 4:

Interaction of Participation in a Victim Awareness Program and Shame Proneness on Willingness to Participate in RJ Process

General Discussion

The aim of the present research was to examine whether the proneness of people in custody to guilt and shame affected their attitudes toward RJ and predicted the effectiveness of a specific RJ practice. Taken together, the results of the two studies support the important psychological role of these variables. Study 1 revealed that guilt proneness was positively correlated with willingness to participate in an RJ process, whereas shame proneness was not. In addition, mediational modeling showed that guilt proneness predicted willingness to participate in an RJ process via its strong correlation with regret and remorse.

Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 and showed that high proneness to guilt predicted high willingness to participate in an RJ process. Moreover, proneness to shame moderated the effectiveness of the RJ victim awareness practice by increasing willingness to participate in a further RJ process, but only for participants with low proneness to shame. However, contrary to our hypothesis, no differences were found in the effectiveness of the RJ practice between participants with high and low guilt proneness.

This study contributes to the literature both theoretically and practically by providing in-depth understanding of the role-played by proneness to guilt and shame among people in custody participating in RJ processes. Theoretically, the study creates an interdisciplinary integration between the field of RJ and the psychology of emotions (guilt and shame) and expands the limited empirical knowledge regarding attitudes of incarcerated individuals toward RJ processes and the psychological factors involved in shaping them. According to Tibbetts (2003), psychology researchers and practitioners tend to emphasize the differences between shame and guilt, whereas criminologists tend to use the terms interchangeably, ignoring the important distinction between self (shame) and behavior (guilt). This study highlights the differences between these emotions and their effects. We believe shame and guilt proneness, which have not yet been well conceptualized and researched in the current context, provide a new glimpse into the psychological dynamics of attitudes toward RJ and improve our understanding of the effectiveness of RJ practices as a complementary form of justice.

More specifically, our findings add another layer to Braithwaite’s (1989) reintegrative shaming theory by indicating that beyond the importance of the reintegrative shaming process during the RJ process, the guilt and shame proneness (as personal traits) of people in custody had a significant preliminary role in increasing willingness to participate in an RJ process and improving the effectiveness the preliminary RJ practice of victim awareness. Thus, “guilt-inducing, shame-reducing” interventions (Tangney & Dearing, 2002) may be particularly promising as a preliminary step encouraging more incarcerated individuals to participate in RJ processes, which would in turn contribute to the reintegrative shaming (or guilt) process.

The additional finding of the potentially positive implications of guilt proneness in the context of an RJ process—empathy with the victim, regret and remorse—accords with the growing trend of positive criminology. Positive criminology is a new conceptual perspective encompassing several criminological models and theories that identify positive factors and individual strengths that may help perpetrators rehabilitate, and interventions that highlight human strengths (Ronel & Elisha, 2010). Finally, the findings provide insights into the importance of shame and guilt for creating a positive climate within prison based on a discourse of needs and commitment to restoration. The use of RJ practices in prison is an important application of positive criminology as it creates a cumulative experience with rehabilitative impact.

On the practical level, the propensities to shame and guilt are accessible to a range of interventions that can affect human behavior. Based on cognitive perceptions and appraisals, they respond well to reframing processes (Behrendt & Ben-Ari, 2012). By redefining their narratives, individuals in custody can view themselves and their behavior from a broader perspective and shift their proneness from shame to guilt. When guilt is enhanced, threats may decrease and feelings of control and self-efficacy may be reconstructed, increasing motivation to make amends.

Gavrielides (2014) proposed dividing the RJ process in prisons into preparatory and delivery practices. The former include all the unilateral processes, such as offending behavior and victim awareness practices, whereas the latter consist of programs that include direct and indirect meetings between the perpetrator and victim, or others who have been harmed by the offense. In line with Gavrielides’ and our findings, we can advise prisons to first introduce “guilt-inducing, shame-reducing” preparatory practices and only then move on to delivery practices, that is, RJ conferencing or VOM. We believe that such an approach would translate academic knowledge into effective tools that can encourage implementation of RJ processes during incarceration.

Another unexpected finding is the distinct contribution of shame versus guilt proneness to the effectiveness of the RJ process. While in Study 1 both tendencies were found related to attitudes toward RJ, Study 2 revealed that shame proneness impaired the effectiveness of the process while guilt proneness did not. It seems that the cognitive-affective experience of shame (negative self-appraisals) motivates the action tendency to hide or avoid and to externalization of blame. This action tendency forms a psychological barrier that prevents perpetrators from being emotionally available to becoming aware of the victim and to developing regret and remorse, which in turn may enhance their willingness to participate in further RJ interventions.

This nuanced understanding also has implications for practitioners and researchers developing interventions to promote the effectiveness of RJ programs. At the preliminary stage that includes shaping incarcerated individuals’ positive attitudes toward RJ, it is advisable to use “guilt-inducing, shame-reducing” interventions. However, in the second stage, after the recruitment and while preparing for the practice itself, the focus should be on reducing proneness to shame, which is a significant barrier to success.

Despite these important findings and implications, the present research is not without limitations. First, the use of self-report questionnaires involves potential gaps between the participants’ statements and their actual reactions (Holland et al., 2002). Second, generalizability is limited given the unique demographic characteristics of the participants—people in custody in Israel who are mostly religious or traditional Muslims (around 60% in both studies). Importantly, in the Islamic world, sulha (“reconciliation”) is a common community conflict-resolution practice based on principles similar to those of RJ. It aims to transforms the parties’ attitudes from desire for retribution to forgiveness (Pely & Luzon, 2018). It is possible that this ancient tradition affected the Muslim participants’ attitudes and action tendencies. However, due to the fact that a significant minority of the sample were non-Muslim participants (less than 30 in each group), we decided there would be no real statistical significance to controlling the ethnoreligious variable. Nevertheless, although the distribution of background variables in this sample is almost similar to that of the Israeli prison population, future research should examine larger groups so that background variables could be controlled. Note, however, that the fact that our experiment was conducted in the field with incarcerated individuals actively exposed to a real rather than a simulated RJ practice reinforces the external validity of our findings, thus contributing to their generalizability.

Finally, our sample consisted only of members of prison populations who agreed to participate. Due to the low rejection rate, we do not have enough data to compare participants with nonparticipants. Future studies should examine the relationship between psychological and other variables and willingness to participate in the study and in RJ processes, as well as their effectiveness within or outside prison walls.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

The authors would like to thank the Israel Prisons Service for allowing the research to take place inside the prisons and thus strengthen its validity. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on this manuscript.

ORCID iD

Inbal Peleg-Koriat

Inbal Peleg-Koriat, PhD, is a lawyer and conflict management and negotiation specialist, a lecturer and a faculty member at the Yezreel Valley Academic College. She earned her PhD from the Conflict Resolution, Management and Negotiation (CRMN) Graduate Program at Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

Dana Weimann-Saks, PhD, is a lawyer and a social psychologist, a senior lecturer and a faculty member at the Yezreel Valley Academic College. She earned her PhD in social psychology from the Psychology Department at Haifa University, Israel.

References

Anderson

J. E.

(2018). Introducing and theorising an in-prison restorative justice programme: The second-generation Sycamore Tree Project. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 1(2), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.5553/IJRJ/258908912018001002003

Bazemore

(1998). Restorative justice and earned redemption: Communities, victims, and offender reintegration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(6), 768–813.

Bazemore

Elis

(2007). Evaluation of restorative justice. In Johnstone

Van Ness

D. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 397–426). Willan.

Bear

G. G.

Uribe-Zarain

Manning

M. A.

Shiomi

(2009). Shame, guilt, blaming, and anger: Differences between children in Japan and the US. Motivation and Emotion, 33(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9130-8

Behrendt

Ben-Ari

(2012). The positive side of negative emotion: The role of guilt and shame in coping with interpersonal conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56, 1116–1138. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022002712445746

Bennett

D. S.

Sullivan

M. W.

Lewis

(2005). Young children’s adjustment as a function of maltreatment, shame, and anger. Child Maltreatment, 10(4), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505278619

Bergseth

K. J.

Bouffard

J. A.

(2013). Examining the effectiveness of a restorative justice program for various types of juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(9), 1054–1075. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12453551

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804618

Braithwaite

Mugford

(1994). Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies: Dealing with juvenile offenders. The British Journal of Criminology, 34(2), 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048400

10.

Brown

González

Zagefka

Manzi

Čehajić

(2008). Nuestra culpa: Collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.75

11.

Brunk

C. G.

(2001). Restorative justice and the philosophical theories of criminal punishment. In Hadley

M. L.

(Ed.), The spiritual roots of restorative justice (pp. 31–56). SUNY Press.

12.

Butler

Maruna

(2016). Rethinking prison disciplinary processes: A potential future for restorative justice. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1117997

13.

Dancig-Rosenberg

Gal

(2013). Restorative criminal justice. Cardozo Law Review, 34, 101–134.

14.

De Beus

Rodriguez

(2007). Restorative justice practice: An examination of program completion and recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.03.009

15.

Dhami

M. K.

Mantle

Fox

(2009). Restorative justice in prisons. Contemporary Justice Review, 12(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580903343027

16.

Dinsdale

(2002). Restorative justice in HM Prison Holme House. In Coyle

(Ed.), “We don’t waste prisoners’ time and we don’t waste bicycles: The impact of restorative work in prisons (pp. 39–63). The International Centre for Prison Studies. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/restorative_justice_1.pdf

17.

Forgays

D. K.

DeMilio

(2005). Is teen court effective for repeat offenders? A test of the restorative justice approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04269411

18.

Gausel

Leach

C. W.

(2011). Concern for self-image and social image in the management of moral failure: Rethinking shame. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.803

19.

Gavrielides

(2014). Reconciling the notions of restorative justice and imprisonment. The Prison Journal, 94(4), 479–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885514548010

20.

Gavrielides

(2016). Repositioning restorative justice in Europe. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1105342

21.

Gazal-Ayal

Roberts

J. V.

(2019). Alternatives to imprisonment: Recent international developments. Law & Contemporary Problems, 82, 1–9.

22.

Gromet

D. M.

Darley

J. M.

(2009). Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the satisfaction of multiple goals. Law and Society Review, 43(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00365.x

23.

Halperin

Reifen Tagar

(2017). Emotions in conflicts: Understanding emotional processes sheds light on the nature and potential resolution of intractable conflicts. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.017

24.

Harper

F. W. K.

Arias

(2004). The role of shame in predicting adult anger and depressive symptoms among victims of child psychological maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 19(6), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-004-0681-x

25.

Harper

F. W. K.

Austin

A. G.

Cercone

J. J.

Arias

(2005). The role of shame, anger, and affect regulation in men’s perpetration of psychological abuse in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(12), 1648–1662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278717

26.

Harris

Maruna

(2005). Shame, shaming and restorative justice: A critical appraisal. In Sullivan

Tifft

(Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective (pp. 452–462). Routledge.

27.

Hayes

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.

28.

Hayes

(2007). Reoffending and restorative justice. In Johnstone

Van Ness

D. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 426–445). Willan.

29.

Hayes

Daly

(2004). Conferencing and re-offending in Queensland. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(2), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.37.2.167

30.

Holland

R. W.

Verplanken

Van Knippenberg

(2002). On the nature of attitude–behavior relations: The strong guide, the weak follow. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(6), 869–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.135

31.

Hoyle

Rosenblatt

F. F.

(2016). Looking back to the future: Threats to the success of restorative justice in the United Kingdom. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1095830

32.

Johnstone

(2011). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates (2nd ed.). Routledge.

33.

Johnstone

(2012). The standardization of restorative justice. In Gavrielides

(Ed.), Rights and restoration within youth justice (pp. 91–115). De Sitter.

34.

Jülich

Buttle

(2010). Beyond conflict resolution: Towards a restorative process for sexual violence. Te Awatea Review, 8, 21–25.

35.

Lewis

H. B.

(1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. International Universities Press.

36.

Lickel

Steele

R. R.

Schmader

(2011). Group-based shame and guilt: Emerging directions in research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(3), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00340.x

37.

Liebmann

(2007). Restorative justice: How it works. Jessica Kingsley.

38.

Lindsay-Hartz

(1984). Contrasting experiences of shame and guilt. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(6), 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276484027006003

39.

Lutwak

Panish

J. B.

Ferrari

J. R.

Razzino

B. E.

(2001). Shame and guilt and their relationship to positive expectations and anger expressiveness. Adolescence, 36, 641–653.

40.

Luyten

Fontaine

J. R.

Corveleyn

(2002). Does the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA) measure maladaptive aspects of guilt and adaptive aspects of shame? An empirical investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1373–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00197-6

41.

Mace

(2000). Restorative principles in the prison setting: A vision for the future. International Centre for Prison Studies.

42.

McCold

(2004). What is the role of community in restorative justice theory and practice? In Zehr

Toews

(Eds.), Critical issues in restorative justice (pp. 155–172). Criminal Justice Press; Willan.

43.

McGlynn

Westmarland

Godden

(2012). “I just wanted him to hear me”: Sexual violence and the possibilities of restorative justice. Journal of Law and Society, 39(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2012.00579.x

44.

Moss

S. A.

Lee

Berman

Rung

(2019). When do people value rehabilitation and restorative justice over the punishment of offenders? Victims & Offenders, 14(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1539688

45.

Newell

(2001). Responding to the crisis: Belgium establishes restorative prisons. International Centre for Prison Studies.

46.

Newell

(2002). Restorative justice in prisons: The possibility of change. Cropwood Fellowship Programme.

47.

O’Hear

M. M.

(2006). Victims and criminal justice: What’s next. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19(2), 83–90.

48.

Paulhus

D. L.

Robins

R. W.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Tracy

J. L.

(2004). Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_7

49.

Peleg-Koriat

Weimann-Saks

(2019). The attitudes of prisoners towards participation in restorative justice procedures. International Journal of Restorative Justice, 2(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.5553/IJRJ/258908912019002001004

50.

Pely

Luzon

(2018). The Muslim/Arab sulha and the restorative justice model same purpose, different approach. Cardozo Law Review, 19(2), 289–307.

51.

Pereira

(2017). The decision to participate in mediation and individual factors: The role of moral foundations and their relation to restorative and retributive orientations. Restorative Justice, 5(2), 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2017.1343420

52.

Poulson

(2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 1, 167–204.

53.

Rodriguez

(2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705285983

54.

Ronel

Elisha

(2010). In a different perspective: Introducing positive criminology. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(2), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09357772

55.

Rossner

Bruce

(2016). Community participation in restorative justice: Rituals, reintegration, and quasi-professionalization. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1125980

56.

Scheuerman

H. L.

Matthews

S. K.

(2014). The importance of perceptions in restorative justice conferences: The influence of offender personality traits on procedural justice and shaming. Justice Quarterly, 31(5), 852–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.690442

57.

Sherman

L. W.

(2003). Reason for emotion: Reinventing justice with theories, innovations, and research. Criminology, 41(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00980.x

58.

Sherman

L. W.

Strang

(2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute.

59.

Sherman

L. W.

Strang

Woods

D. J.

(2000). Recidivism patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) (pp. 1–54). Australian Institute of Criminology.

60.

Stamatakis

Vandeviver

(2013). Restorative justice in Belgian prisons: The results of an empirical research. Crime, Law and Social Change, 59(1), 79–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9408-8

61.

Strang

Sherman

(2003). Repairing the harm: Victims and restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 15, 17–23.

62.

Stubbs

(2002). Domestic violence and women’s safety: Feminist challenges to restorative justice. In Strang

Braithwaite

(Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 42–61). Cambridge University Press.

63.

Tangney

J. P.

(1995). Shame and guilt in interpersonal relationships. In Tangney

J. P.

Fischer

K. W.

(Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 114–139). Guilford.

64.

Tangney

J. P.

(1996). Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of shame and guilt. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 34(9), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(96)00034-4

65.

Tangney

J. P.

Dearing

R. L.

(2002). Shame and guilt. Guilford. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950664.n388

66.

Tangney

J. P.

Dearing

R. L.

Wagner

P. E.

Gramzow

(2000). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect–3 (TOSCA-3). George Mason University.

67.

Tangney

J. P.

Stuewig

Martinez

A. G.

(2014). Two faces of shame: The roles of shame and guilt in predicting recidivism. Psychological Science, 25(3), 799–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613508790

68.

Tangney

J. P.

Stuewig

Mashek

Hastings

(2011). Assessing jail inmates’ proneness to shame and guilt: Feeling bad about the behavior or the self? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 710–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811405762

69.

Tangney

J. P.

Stuewig

Mashek

D. J.

(2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

70.

Tangney

J. P.

Wagner

Fletcher

Gramzow

(1992). Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.669

71.

Tibbetts

S. G.

(2003). Self-conscious emotions and criminal offending. Psychological Reports, 93(1), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2003.93.1.101

72.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1339–1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206290212

73.

Umbreit

M. S.

Coates

R. B.

Vos

(2007). Restorative justice dialogue: A multi-dimensional, evidence-based practice theory. Contemporary Justice Review, 10(1), 23–41.

74.

United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. (2015). The state of crime and criminal justice worldwide. https://www.un.org/en/events/crimecongress2015/pdf/Factsheet_2_The_State_of_Crime_EN.pdf

75.

Van Camp

(2014). Victims of violence and restorative practices: Finding a voice. Routledge.

76.

Van Ness

(2007). Prisons and restorative justice. In Johnstone

Van Ness

D. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 312–324). Routledge.

77.

Walgrave

(2004). Restoration in youth justice. Crime & Justice, 31, 543–597.

78.

Walgrave

(2013). Restorative justice, self-interest and responsible citizenship. Willan.

79.

Wallace

Wylie

(2013). Changing on the inside: Restorative justice in prisons: A literature review. International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 19(1), 57–69. http://doi.org/10.15362/ijbs.v19i1.180

80.

Wallbott

H. G.

Scherer

K. R.

(1995). Cultural determinants in experiencing shame and guilt. In. In Tangney

J. P.

Fischer

K. W.

(Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 465–487). Guilford.

81.

Weimann-Saks

Peleg-Koriat

(2020). Promoting prisoners’ positive attitudes towards participating in a restorative justice process: The effects of a victim awareness process. The Prison Journal, 100(3), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520916820

82.

Wood

W. R.

(2015). Why restorative justice will not reduce incarceration. British Journal of Criminology, 55(5), 883–900. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu108

83.

Zebel

Schreurs

Ufkes

E. G.

(2017). Crime seriousness and participation in restorative justice: The role of time elapsed since the offense. Law and Human Behavior, 41(4), 385–397. http://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000242

84.

Zehr

(2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.

85.

Zehr

Mika

(2003). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. In McLaughlin

Fergusson

Hughes

Westmarland

(Eds.), Restorative justice: Critical issues (pp. 40–43). SAGE; The Open University.