Psychological Strengths and Posttraumatic Growth in the Successful Reintegration of South African Ex-Offenders

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the possible presence of psychological strengths and posttraumatic growth in the life stories of ex-offenders who desisted returning to crime. Recidivism rates in South African offenders released from prison remain as high as 97%. Little is known about positive psychological factors that may facilitate successful reentry of ex-offenders in the South African context. In an exploratory qualitative study, three adult male ex-offenders who had successfully reintegrated into society were interviewed, using a semi-structured interview schedule focusing on their life stories. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Several psychological strengths, including hope, gratitude, and spirituality, were evident in the responses of the participants. Furthermore, they seemed to experience a sense of posttraumatic growth. Identifying psychological strengths, including character strengths, may add to understanding and facilitating successful reintegration of ex-offenders. From these preliminary findings, implications for practice and research are proposed.

Keywords

offender reintegration character strengths positive psychology qualitative research

South Africa has a large prison population. Four out of every 1,000 South Africans are in correctional facilities, and adult males make up the majority of the total prison population comprising 162,162 individuals (Department of Correctional Services, 2011). According to international research, most prisoners eventually return to society but often rapidly reoffend (Petersilia, 2005). Official statistics regarding recidivism in South Africa is lacking but is estimated to be between 55% and 97% (Schoeman, 2010). Yet, despite the challenges related to readjustment to society and the high rates of recidivism, some former offenders do succeed to successfully reintegrate into society.

Research on how individuals released from prison make successful transitions to the community is expanding. Some literature focused on factors such as age, gender, employment, social support (e.g., Bahr, Harris, Fisher, & Armstrong, 2010), and readiness for change, as well as education opportunities (Graffam, Shinkfield, Lavelle, & McPherson, 2004). Although there is an increased interest in individual characteristics associated with desistance from offending (Healy & O’Donnell, 2008), including strengths (Maruna, Porter, & Carvalho, 2004), less is known about factors related to positive psychological functioning, such as psychological strengths and posttraumatic growth. Recently, Ronel and Elisha (2011) proposed a focus on positive factors in understanding desistance from crime. Similarly, the Good Lives Model (Laws & Ward, 2011; Ward & Marshall, 2007), a strengths-based model for offender rehabilitation, is based on the premise that it is important to build an individual’s capabilities and strengths to avoid recidivism. Therefore, exploring the possible presence of psychological strengths as well as posttraumatic growth following incarceration may add to the existing information on factors that may contribute to successful reintegration of ex-offenders.

Psychological Strengths

Psychological strengths can be viewed broadly as personal qualities that allow individuals to perform well (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan, & Hurling, 2011) and assist them in coping with life (Smith, 2006). Strengths can be interpersonal, intrapersonal, or external, and are generally culturally expressed, rooted in context, and developmentally oriented. According to Smith (2006), strengths develop through an active and culturally based contextual process and are not rigid personality traits. The study of psychological strengths is important in the field of positive psychology, which aims to shift the focus of psychology from psychopathology alone to also include the facets of positive psychological functioning and wellbeing (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). It holds the premise that individuals should be assessed according to their emotional problems and strengths (Peterson, 2006). In the case of ex-offenders who are reentering into society, the focus could thus be on these positive psychological factors that promote reintegration and reduce recidivism. Viewed from this perspective, a psychological strength may be any facet of adaptive and positive psychological functioning.

The Values in Action (VIA) classification of character strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) is often used to describe specific psychological strengths. In this classification, 24 character strengths, clustered in six classes of virtues are described. Table 1 reflects the VIA classification.

Table 1.

VIA Classification of Character Strengths.

Virtue	Character strengths
Wisdom : Cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition of knowledge	Creativity Curiosity Open-mindedness Love of learning Perspective
Courage: Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal	Authenticity Bravery Persistence Zest
Humanity: Interpersonal strengths	Kindness Love Social intelligence
Justice: Civic strengths that underlie healthy community life	FairnessLeadershipTeamwork
Temperance: Strengths that protect against excess	Forgiveness Modesty Prudence Self regulation
Transcendence: Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning	Humor Appreciation of beauty and excellence Gratitude Hope Spirituality

Note. Adapted from Peterson and Seligman (2004).

Until recently, character strengths were mainly investigated among reasonably well-adjusted individuals. However, Ronel and Elisha (2011) proposed the concept of positive criminology that focuses on the personal strengths of offenders. Specifically, the concept of positive criminology emphasizes protective factors, the importance of positive encounters with others, and the potential of ex-offenders to be reformed (Elisha, Idisis, & Ronel, 2012). In the current study, Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) categorization of character strengths was used as a framework to identify the psychological strengths of ex-offenders.

Posttraumatic Growth

This facet of positive psychological functioning can be defined as positive psychological change as a result of the struggle with difficult life circumstances and stressors (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). This may include a changed perception of self, awareness of new possibilities, and appreciation of life. The existing research among individuals incarcerated for sex offences suggested that imprisonment may lead to positive changes and serve as an opportunity for transformation, similar to posttraumatic growth (Elisha et al., 2012). Furthermore, Ronel and Elisha (2011) proposed that attributing psychological growth to a traumatic event is central to rehabilitation of offenders. However, research exploring posttraumatic growth in the context of reintegration is scarce.

Offender Reentry and Reintegration

Research suggests that most incarcerated individuals eventually return to society and that returning to criminal behavior occurs rapidly (Petersilia, 2005). In the South African context, programs to reduce reoffending and encourage rehabilitation are limited because of the lack of resources in correctional facilities (Dissel, 2012). There is evidence that several factors may facilitate adjustment to society and successful reentry, including spirituality (Nolan, 2004), social support (Maruna, 2001; Nolan, 2004; Petersilia, 2005; Wilkinson, 2005), assuming responsibility (Garland, 1997; Taxman, 2004), employment (Petersilia, 2005), education (Rose & Voss, 2003), and a strong sense of self-identity (Maruna, 2001). Furthermore, a willingness to denounce past behavior, a realization that life and spiritual growth are on-going processes, replacing prison values with more meaningful and worthwhile values, finding hope and purpose for one’s life, and recognizing the importance of giving back to society (Nolan, 2004) also contribute to the reintegration process.

Despite these findings, research focused on the exploration of more subjective factors that may encourage desistance from crime is still limited (Ronel & Elisha, 2011). The aim of this study was therefore to explore the presence of psychological strengths and posttraumatic growth as evident in the narratives of offenders who have managed to successfully reintegrate into society.

Method

Research Approach

This study was exploratory in nature and a broad qualitative approach was followed. Elements of narrative studies (Creswell, 2012) were included as the researchers were interested in how psychological strengths of offenders unfolded through the telling of their life stories (cf. McAdams, 2006). It was expected that these stories may reflect the evolving adaptive narrative identities of ex-offenders (Ward & Marshall, 2007) including the presence of psychological strengths and posttraumatic growth.

Participants

Three male adult ex-offenders of African descent and aged between 36 and 41 were recruited through purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2012). The participants attended a church support group for ex-offenders and were selected based on specific criteria: (a) They were subjectively viewed by the support group facilitator as desisting from crime and successfully reintegrated into society; (b) subjectively identified themselves as being successfully reintegrated into society and refraining from crime; and (c) were employed, did not abuse any substances, and had been out of prison for at least 6 months.

Demographic information on the participants is provided in Table 2 above. They were all involved in stable relationships and had at least one child. At the time of the interview, the participants had been released from prison between 3 and 5 years. Because the focus of the study was on the current functioning, no information regarding the nature of crimes committed by the participants were solicited. However, all the participants were incarcerated in a maximum security prison.

Table 2.

Demographic Information of Participants.

Pseudonym	Age	Marital status	Occupation	Period out of prison (at time of interview)
Eric	41	Engaged to the mother of one of his children	Manager at a gas station	5 years
Mark	36	Engaged to the mother of his child	Enrolled as apprentice electrician	5 years
Michael	37	Married with one child	Law student; part-time lecturer; about to start practical training as attorney	4 years

It is acknowledged that the small number of participants poses serious limitations to the study, but several practical factors made it difficult to recruit a larger sample. The size of the support group varied from six to 15 members from one meeting to the next, and many of the group members did not meet all the criteria for the study. For example, some were only released from prison recently and some were unemployed. Furthermore, the study formed part of the second author’s masters’ dissertation, and, because of logistical and time constraints, it was not possible to obtain more participants. However, based on Creswell’s (2012) assertion that samples as small as one have been used in narrative studies, the authors decided to proceed with data analysis. Results were interpreted with caution and in accordance with the preliminary and exploratory nature of the study.

Procedure

The second author first obtained informed consent from the support group facilitator to conduct the study and thereafter approached the possible participants. After the participants consented to taking part in the study face-to-face semi-structured interviews were held. They were interviewed once, and each interview lasted between 1 and 1.5 hr. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim.

Interview Schedule

An adapted version of McAdams’ Life Story Interview (McAdams, 1995) was used as a framework for the interviews. Telling a life story requires that the participant merges the person he once was with the person he has become (Maruna, 2001). This self-narrative is important because people create stories to explain their actions and how experiences relate to their goals and beliefs. Furthermore, future actions may be guided by these stories because individuals act according to the stories they create (McAdams, 1985).

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed according to Miles and Huberman’s (1994) approach, consisting of the three linked subprocesses of data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. Data analysis included making comparisons, observing patterns and themes, and clustering. Thematic content analysis (Hayes, 2000) was used to recognize, analyze, and describe patterns or themes within data. Data analysis was mainly deductive (based on the interpretation of theoretical knowledge related to psychological strengths and posttraumatic growth), but additional themes that emerged from the data were also taken into account.

Ensuring Research Quality

As suggested by Creswell (2003), the authors implemented several strategies to enhance trustworthiness of the study. Triangulation was used by obtaining information from different data sources regarding the success of the participants’ reintegration into society. Furthermore, after coding and analyzing the data, a colleague outside of the author group read and verified the results, thus peer debriefing was employed. The second author shared the results with the participants to allow member checking to occur. Finally, the authors were continuously reflecting on their own biases and assumptions as both the authors were involved in the data analysis.

Ethical Considerations

Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time. They also provided consent for the interviews to be audio-recorded. Pseudonyms were used in presenting the results. No incentives were offered for participation.

Findings

Several psychological strengths as well as indications of posttraumatic growth emerged in the participants’ narratives. Strengths came to the fore both in the narratives related to time spent in prison and life after imprisonment, while posttraumatic growth was evident in narratives related to the present. Psychological strengths, coded according to the VIA classification (see Table 1), included strengths of wisdom and knowledge (love of learning and creativity), strengths of courage (persistence and authenticity), strengths of humanity (love and kindness), and strengths of transcendence (gratitude, hope, and spirituality). For the purpose of this article, only strengths that were present in the accounts of all three participants are presented here to allow for a more focused discussion.

Strengths of Wisdom and Knowledge: Impetus for Change During Incarceration and Resource During Reentry

According to Peterson and Seligman (2004), strengths of wisdom and knowledge are cognitive strengths related to acquiring and using knowledge. The participants demonstrated the strength of love of learning as seen by furthering their studies in prison. Mark completed his grade 12 in prison, while Michael went on to study law. Eric described his love of learning as being “hungry” for new information to free his mind, improve his skills, and share with others. This strength assisted him with his own studies and with his teaching of fellow inmates. He stated, “My mind was like a sponge, I was now hungry . . . I started having this great yearning to read and to do something different to liberate my mind . . . I improved upon my skills.”

The participants continued to use this strength when they returned to society, which seemed to contribute to reintegration. At the time of the interview, Michael was studying for a Master’s degree in law, hoping to contribute to society through his work:

I will be starting to do my articles as a lawyer and I know that my life really has got a purpose. It is not only about me, but I want to help many other people through what I received.

Education is generally seen as one of the factors that may increase successful reintegration (Rose & Voss, 2003). According to Peterson and Seligman (2004), a love of learning refers to cognitive engagement, and this strength helps an individual to persevere despite setbacks and negative feedback. The desire and aim to master new skills and add to one’s existing knowledge enables one to progress in life and achieve new goals. This may serve as a deterrent to recidivism, despite setbacks, which is important when reintegrating into society. For these participants, it was evident that this strength may have been important to successful reentry.

Creativity, as a strength, refers to ideas or behaviors that are original and adaptive (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The participants’ narratives reflected how they found new ways to solve problems experienced during imprisonment and on returning to society. Eric and Michael suggested to prison management that they open a school in the prison. This original and adaptive initiative enabled them to serve their prison term constructively, and they were successful in changing the gang culture of an entire section within the prison:

We introduced this idea of saying: “look guys, you have gangs that are running this prison amok, and you have us who want to try and change things. Open a school section for us, let us teach each other, let us forget about fighting, let us serve our prison terms . . . we cannot do it without your support.”

Once released, another participant showed creativity in the way he went about looking for employment. While working as an attendant at a gas station, Mark distributed his curriculum vitae to customers, eventually securing a job offer:

The time I was a petrol attendant, I used to market myself because I had learnt a lot in terms of networking while I was in prison . . . So I started marketing myself, sending my CV to all those big guys who were coming there . . . who were businessmen.

Creativity has not previously been considered a possible factor in successful reintegration and is not usually associated with the context of offending. However, if an individual is able to come up with ideas that are original and adaptive, he may be better able to cope with the challenges faced while reintegrating into society.

Strengths of Courage: Working Toward Change and Taking Responsibility

This core virtue refers to the emotional strength involving the will to accomplish goals even when faced with resistance (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The participants’ strengths of courage started to emerge in prison and may have helped them to move toward reintegration and change. In particular, the strengths of persistence and authenticity were reflected in their responses. Persistence allowed them to work toward goals in prison, while authenticity seemed important in the process of taking responsibility for previous criminal behavior.

The strength of persistence refers to completing tasks despite obstacles and finding satisfaction in finishing what was started (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Michael described how he set goals for himself and was determined to achieve them, even though there were challenges:

The first goal was that whatever I want or whatever I start I must see to it that I accomplish it . . . With all the major challenges that I faced, it is not easy . . . I am now registered for my Masters [degree] and I know that I have to go all the way until I finish it, despite all the challenges.

Eric relied on his strength of persistence when he undertook the legal battle of securing his release from prison. He described it as follows:

For me it was a most important point because it proved that really, once you set your mind on something, because it wasn’t a case that happened within a year, I think it took me two years . . . dedication and not giving up even in the midst of negative influences, but I just persevered.

Expecting positive results may increase the drive to persist (Peterson, Mayer, & Seligman, 1993) and may also increase resourcefulness and skills by improving a sense of self-efficacy if success is reached. Thus, working toward goals by using the strength of persistence may have contributed toward the successful reintegration of the participants in this study.

Authenticity includes speaking and acting honestly, as well as taking responsibility for feelings and actions. According to Harter (2005), authenticity involves owning personal experiences and acting according to the true self. Peterson and Seligman (2004) viewed authenticity as vital in the transformation of character, while assuming responsibility for actions is fundamental to the successful reintegration of offenders (Garland, 1997; Taxman, 2004). The participants’ narratives reflected this strength as taking responsibility for past criminal behaviors:

The ultimate decision to engage in criminal activities was mine . . . now I realize that when it comes to the crunch, the decision to commit a crime, to hurt, to love, to do anything in life rests with you. (Eric)

I was in prison because I hurt someone and I was . . . suffering the consequences of my action. And I learned that one has to do that, so I must be responsible about my actions . . . I think twice. (Mark)

Moreover, developing a self that truthfully reveals one’s character may be a vital first step in transforming character (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Recently Mapham and Hefferon (2012) noted that offenders who desisted from crime presented narratives characterized by a new self-concept. For these participants, developing an altered self-concept that was incompatible with offending may have supported successful reintegration.

Strengths of Humanity: Connecting With Others and Giving Back

This cluster of strengths relates to fostering interpersonal relationships. For the participants in this study, the strengths of love and kindness seemed to play a part in their reintegration.

The strength of love involves being close to people and valuing strong relations with others, especially when caring is reciprocated. Love is demonstrated through the sharing of help, reassurance, and acceptance. It entails strong positive emotions, devotion, and sacrifice (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). For the participants, the strength of love was related to establishing relationships with others and with God. Eric explained how his bond with his son became evident while he was still in prison, at the time of his graduation ceremony: “When we went to that ceremony . . . I was very elated and so was he [his son] and for me that was the highest point of my life.” This strength became more salient after release from prison for Michael who stated, “I have changed a lot. I now have compassion for people . . . I have now learned how to love.”

The strength of love may contribute to transformation as it involves developing a less self-centered viewpoint. Furthermore, valuing interpersonal relationships and showing love for others may deter engaging in criminal activities. Bahr et al. (2010) found that ex-offenders who had support from friends, thereby being involved in meaningful relationships, were less likely to return to crime, while Mapham and Hefferon (2012) concluded that improved familial relations supported desistance from crime. In this sense, having and using the strength of love may facilitate successful reintegration into society.

The strength of kindness, which includes generosity, nurturance, care, and compassion, refers to doing good deeds, as well as helping and taking care of others (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Kindness was reflected in the participants’ narratives related to experiences in prison and in the community after their release. Eric started to help others during his incarceration: “I got more involved in the education of other inmates . . . thinking about my release and what will I do afterwards . . . it was always linked with helping others.” Michael said, “It is not only about me, but I want to help many other people through what I received . . . to pay back, to help somebody else out there.”

Kindness may encourage desistance from crime because wanting to nurture, care, and do good deeds for others go against engaging in criminal activity. Helping others may also relieve the ex-offender’s sense of guilt (Maruna, 2001) and may encourage connectedness to others (Singer, 1997). Furthermore, helping others often benefits the helper, providing the ex-offender with a sense of achievement (Maruna, 2001), thereby strengthening desistance from crime. The strength of kindness could possibly be linked to the notion of “giving back to society,” which has been associated with reduced recidivism (Mapham & Hefferon, 2012; Maruna, 2001).

Strengths of Transcendence: Creating Meaning and Purpose

These strengths are related to fostering connections with the larger universe and developing meaning in life. For the participants in this study, three strengths of transcendence emerged in their narratives: gratitude, hope, and spirituality. It seems that the strengths came to the fore during imprisonment and were also actively used during reentry and in the present.

Gratitude involves awareness of and being grateful for the good things that happen and taking time to convey thankfulness (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). It also includes acknowledging that something valuable was received (Emmons & Mishra, 2011). The participants were grateful to various people, including fellow inmates, ministry support workers, friends, family, and God:

Those are the two people [inmate and support worker] who have really, really shaped my life. To me really they are people who are sent by God, they are the ones who had a major impact in that turning point in my life. (Michael)

I believe I’ve got so much to live for, my kids, there is so much at stake in my life . . . I may not be having a great life in terms of material things, but I’m very happy where I am and the relationship that I have with God. (Eric)

Gratitude is not necessarily an automatic response, and often resentment is more likely to follow after difficult life circumstances (Emmons & Mishra, 2011). This may be especially true after incarceration. Yet, the participants in this study did experience gratitude. As this strength is strongly correlated with psychological and social wellbeing (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Wood, Froh, & Geraghty, 2010), and seems to motivate moral behavior (Emmons & Mishra, 2011), experiencing and showing gratitude may facilitate reintegration and desistance from crime.

The strength of hope consists of optimism and future orientation and relates to anticipating the best in the future and working to attain it (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). It can further be defined as “goal-directed thinking in which people perceive that they can produce routes to desired goals and the requisite motivation to use those routes” (Lopez, Snyder, & Pedrotti, 2003, p. 94). The participants expressed their hopes for the future and described how they are working toward achieving their dreams. Eric said, “The future is rosy, I think it’s bright … everything is falling into place and I believe we are going to get our break . . . through the hard work we are doing.” Michael stated, “I know that after my Masters [degree] definitely I will go for my PhD. And I will do it! . . . It’s about achieving more . . . so those are the things that I want to achieve in life.”

Low levels of hope have been associated with increased recidivism, while having hope may encourage ex-offenders to find purpose in life and make necessary changes (Martin & Stermac, 2010). Similarly, Bahr et al. (2010) reported that offenders who expressed hope were more likely to demonstrate successful reentry into society. The narratives of the participants demonstrated a sense of hope that seemed to motivate them to refrain from crime despite setbacks.

Spirituality as a strength encompasses religiousness, faith, and purpose. It relates to beliefs about a higher purpose and the meaning of life (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This strength was evident in the participants’ responses, during imprisonment and on reentering society. Mark said, “Whatever happens, it happens for a reason and there is a purpose . . . God makes one to feel secure.” Michael mentioned how he noticed self-change related to spirituality:

Ever since I believed in God . . . I have changed a lot. I now have compassion for people. I now feel that I can share the little that I have with other people . . . I don’t have now that selfishness that I used to have, or any desire to hurt or harm or any malice to anybody.

Spirituality is beneficial when coping with stressful life experiences as it provides strength, guidance, and support, and can be transformative (Pargament, 1997; Pargament & Saunders, 2007). It may also foster resilience and facilitate growing and thriving following a trauma (Peres, Moreira-Almeida, Nasello, & Koenig, 2007). Furthermore, Peterson and Seligman (2004) stated that the strength of spirituality may prevent negative outcomes because it presents individuals with a moral framework. It seems that the strength of spirituality, which was first fostered in prison, may have played an important role in the successful reintegration of these participants. The fact that they are still attending a church support group may also reflect the continued use of this strength.

Posttraumatic Growth

Incarceration is a traumatic event (Elisha et al., 2012; Mapham & Hefferon, 2012), and, in South African prisons, a sense of lack of personal safety and proper medical care, as well as incidents of violence, coercion, and manipulation, is common (Muntingh, 2009). It was evident that the participants experienced imprisonment as traumatic. Michael stated, “I was shocked and that life really traumatized me . . . I never expected such things . . . even the way how people were handled.” Eric said, “It was very tough, it was very tough, people were being assaulted left and right, and the prison itself was tense.”

The positive outcome following a traumatic experience is referred to as posttraumatic growth (Tedeschi, Park, & Calhoun, 1998). The three key aspects of posttraumatic growth include changes in self perception, in relationships with others, and in the philosophy of life (Joseph & Linley, 2008). According to Aresti, Eatough, and Brooks-Gunn (2010), some form of self-change is important in long-term abstinence from crime, and changes in facets related to posttraumatic growth were evident in the participants’ narratives, suggesting such self-change.

First, there were changes in self-perception, as the participants viewed prison as a major turning point in their lives. Moreover, they believed that they would not have changed for the better if they had not been in prison. Eric stated, “As much as prison is a negative place for me . . . I really doubt if I would have changed the way I have changed if I had not gone to prison.”

It thus seems that the participants experienced imprisonment as an opportunity for life transformation, as suggested by Elisha et al. (2012). This transformation possibly paved the way for successful reintegration through developing a new self-narrative (Mapham & Hefferon, 2012).

Second, the participants also seemed to value interpersonal relationships more after incarceration, suggesting posttraumatic growth through changed relationships. This was particularly evident by an increased appreciation for relationships with their families. Eric mentioned, “The relationship that I now have with my half sister it’s just incredible . . . she has been so supportive,” and “. . . it gave me so much joy and pleasure just to sit there and spend more time with my son.” Michael valued his role as a father: “I need to be well informed, so that my baby can grow [up] very well.”

Positive familial relationships have been associated with desistance from crime (Naser & LaVigne, 2006), and, accordingly, the increased importance placed on relationships by the participants relationships may have contributed to their successful reintegration.

Finally, in the aftermath of traumatic events, individuals may experience a different philosophy of life developing, as evident in the participants’ narratives:

It was a low point of my life, but for me it was also a new beginning in terms of my faith … that was for me the turning point because from then onwards I devoted my life in God. (Eric)

To go to prison, really I would say that was . . . I don’t know how to say it, if I say it was a good thing . . . it was not as if I really wanted to go there. But I can say that it was indeed good for me that I went to prison because that’s where my life changed. (Michael)

Ronel and Elisha (2011) argued that ascribing growth and change to a traumatic event is an integral part of the rehabilitation process. In this study, the change seemed to lead to a sense of meaning, hope, and purpose. These positive changes may support a completely new way of living (Joseph & Linley, 2006). Furthermore, these changes can be so major that this growth is completely transformative (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995), thus contributing to successful reintegration.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore and identify the presence of psychological strengths and posttraumatic growth of three adult male ex-offenders who have successfully reintegrated into society. When considered in the framework of character strengths as outlined by Peterson and Seligman (2004), it seems that the participants used the strengths of wisdom and knowledge during incarceration to prepare for reentry. They furthered their education and also contributed to other prisoners’ education. A love of learning contributed to developing skills, while the strength of creativity allowed for flexibility in dealing with life circumstances during imprisonment and thereafter. The concept of creativity in association with desistance from crime has not previously been studied, perhaps due to the use of more narrow definitions associating creativity with artistic endeavors.

Strengths of courage, in particular, persistence and authenticity, seemed to encourage the participants to work toward goals and to take responsibility for their behavior. Love and kindness, viewed as the strengths of humanity, enabled the participants to develop positive interpersonal relationships and to become more involved in the community on their release. Finally, strengths of transcendence seemed to have developed in prison (spirituality) and emerged more clearly on reentry (gratitude and hope). Taken together, using these psychological strengths seemed to have facilitated desistance from crime. Using strengths is important for long-term psychological wellbeing (Wood et al., 2011), and may, thus, also have contributed to successful reintegration for these participants.

It is interesting that certain strengths did not feature as prominently in some of the participants’ narratives, particularly strengths of justice (fairness, leadership, and teamwork) and strengths of temperance, which include forgiveness, modesty, prudence, and self-regulation (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). However, because these strengths were not totally absent, it is unclear whether they were less relevant to the process of reintegration, in general, or less evident in some of the participants’ lives, in particular. More research is needed to understand the strengths of justice and temperance in the reintegration of ex-offenders.

Furthermore, the participants’ accounts also reflected a sense of posttraumatic growth. This finding supports previous research (Mapham & Hefferon, 2012; Maruna, 2002; Ronel & Elisha, 2011) that suggested the importance of finding new meaning in life, developing self-awareness, and having positive contact with significant others in desisting from crime.

Against this backdrop, certain recommendations for practice can be made. First, the findings support literature advocating the adoption of a strengths-based approach to treating offenders (e.g., Moulden & Marshall, 2005; Ronel, 2000; Ward & Marshall, 2007) and facilitating offender reintegration (e.g., Mapham & Hefferon, 2012; Maruna, 2001), thus more attention could be paid to implementing similar approaches in the South African context. Second, implementing strengths-based interventions in prison could be considered as a way to mobilize offenders’ psychological strengths in preparation for reintegration. Third, it seems that specific strengths may be important in facilitating successful reintegration, for example, the love of learning, authenticity, and spirituality. Interventions to enhance these strengths may be beneficial in reducing the possibility of reoffending. Finally, professionals working with ex-offenders should be cognizant of the possibility of posttraumatic growth occurring in their clients and be prepared to facilitate the process.

In terms of suggestions for future research, quantitative longitudinal studies focusing on identifying psychological strengths of ex-offenders, as well as their use of these strengths, may shed light on particular strengths that may be important to successful reintegration.

Despite these findings, limitations of the study are acknowledged. First, although the aim of the study was not to generalize findings, the main limitation is the small sample. Results should therefore be seen as preliminary, and a follow-up study with a larger sample is warranted. Second, there could have been a possibility of researcher bias due to the predetermined framework of character strengths. Third, the context where the research took place, a church support group, could have influenced the participants’ responses and resulted in more emphasis being placed on certain facets of their responses. Offenders who attend support groups may also be more inclined to achieve successful integration. The researchers attempted to deal with these limitations by bracketing their own assumptions during the analysis.

In conclusion, this study adds to the existing strengths-based literature on the rehabilitation of offenders, suggesting that individual positive psychological traits may also contribute to a reduced risk of reoffending. As Maruna (2001) stated, “. . . societies that do not believe that offenders can change will get offenders who do not believe that they can change” (p. 166). Moreover, Ronel and Elisha (2011) argued that successful reentry into society requires the strengthening of positive worldviews of offenders. Being aware of and using psychological strengths, as well as recognizing psychological growth following incarceration, may be one way of supporting ex-offenders in this endeavor.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aresti

Eatough

Brooks-Gunn

(2010). Doing time after time: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of reformed ex-prisoners’ experiences of self-change, identity, and career opportunities. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 169-190. doi:10.1080/110683160802516273

Bahr

S. J.

Harris

Fisher

J. K.

Armstrong

A. H.

(2010). Successful re-entry: What differentiates successful from unsuccessful parolees? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 667-692. doi:10.11770306624X09342435

Creswell

J. W.

(2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell

J. W.

(2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Department of Correctional Services. (2011). Basic information. Retrieved from http://www.dcs.gov.za/WebStatistics/

Dissel

(2012). Good practice principles in reducing re-offending: A review of the literature. Cape Town, South Africa: Community Law Centre.

Elisha

Idisis

Ronel

(2012).Window of opportunity: Social acceptance and life transformation in the rehabilitation of imprisoned sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 323-332. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.004

Emmons

R. A.

McCullough

M. E.

(2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.

Emmons

R. A.

Mishra

(2011). Why gratitude enhances well-being: What we know, what we need to know. In Sheldon

M. K.

Kashdan

T. B.

Steger

M. F.

(Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 248-258). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

10.

Garland

(1997). “Governmentality” and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology, 1, 173-214. doi:10.1177/1362480697001002002

11.

Graffam

Shinkfield

Lavelle

McPherson

(2004). Variables affecting successful integration as perceived by offenders and professionals. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40, 147-171. doi:10.1300/JO076v4001_08

12.

Harter

(2005). Authenticity. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382-394). New York, NY: Oxford.

13.

Hayes

(2000). Doing psychological research: Gathering and analyzing data. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

14.

Healy

O’Donnell

(2008). Calling time on crime: Motivation, generativity and agency in Irish probationers. Probation Journal, 55, 25-28. doi:10.1177/0264550507085676

15.

Joseph

Linley

P. A.

(2006). Positive therapy: A meta-theory for positive psychological practice. London, England: Routledge.

16.

Joseph

Linley

P. A.

(2008). Positive psychological perspectives on posttraumatic stress: An integrative psychosocial framework. In Joseph

Linley

P. A.

(Eds.), Trauma, recovery, and growth: Positive psychological perspectives on posttraumatic stress (pp. 3-20). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

17.

Laws

D. R.

Ward

(2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the key. New York, NY: Guilford.

18.

Lopez

S. J.

Snyder

C. R.

Pedrotti

J. T.

(2003). Hope: Many definitions, many measures. In Lopez

S. J.

Snyder

C. R.

(Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 91-108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

19.

Mapham

Hefferon

(2012). I used to be an offender-now I am a defender: Positive psychology approaches in facilitation of posttraumatic growth in offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51, 389-413. doi:10.1080/10509674.2012.683239

20.

Martin

Stermac

(2010). Measuring hope: Is hope related to criminal behavior in offenders? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 693-705. doi:10.1177/0306624X09336131

21.

Maruna

(2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

22.

Maruna

(2002). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Theoretical Criminology, 6, 227-234.

23.

Maruna

Porter

Carvalho

(2004). The Liverpool Desistance Study and probation practice: Opening the dialogue. Probation Journal, 51, 221-232.

24.

McAdams

D. P.

(1985). Power, intimacy and the life story: Personological inquiries into identity. New York, NY: Guilford.

25.

McAdams

D. P.

(1995). Life story interview. Retrieved from http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/Interviewrevised95.pdf

26.

McAdams

D. P.

(2006). The role of narrative in personality psychology today. Narrative Inquiry, 16, 11-18. doi:10.1075/ni.16.1.04mca

27.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Moulden

H. M.

Marshall

W. L.

(2005). Hope in the treatment of sexual offenders: The potential application of hope theory. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 1, 329-342.

29.

Muntingh

(2009). Ex-prisoners’ views on imprisonment and re-entry. Cape Town, South Africa: CSPRI Community Law Centre.

30.

Naser

R. L.

LaVigne

N. G.

(2006). Family support in the prisoner reentry process: Expectations and realities. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43, 93-106. doi:10.1300/J076v43n01_05

31.

Nolan

(2004). Prepared to re-enter society? Law & Order, 52, 90-92.

32.

Pargament

K. I.

(1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York, NY: Guilford.

33.

Pargament

K. I.

Saunders

S. M.

(2007). Introduction to the special issue on spirituality and psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 903-907. doi:10.1002/jclp.20405

34.

Peres

J. F. P.

Moreira-Almeida

Nasello

A. G.

Koenig

H. G.

(2007). Spirituality and resilience in trauma victims. Journal of Religion and Health, 46, 343-350. doi:10.1007/s10943-006-9103-0

35.

Petersilia

(2005). Hard time: Ex-offenders returning home after prison. Corrections Today, 67, 66-71.

36.

Peterson

(2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

37.

Peterson

Mayer

S. F.

Seligman

M. E. P.

(1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

38.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

39.

Ronel

(2000). From self-help to professional care: An expansion and an application of the 12-step program. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 108-122. doi:10.1177/0021886300361006

40.

Ronel

Elisha

(2011). A different perspective: Introducing positive criminology. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 305-325. doi:10.11.77/0306624X09357772

41.

Rose

J. E.

Voss

(2003). The unity in community: Fostering academic success among diverse communities of male offenders in correctional institutions. Journal of Correctional Education, 54, 131-159.

42.

Schoeman

(2010). Recidivism: A conceptual and operational conundrum. Acta Criminologica: CRIMSA Conference: Special Edition, 1, 80-94.

43.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

44.

Singer

J. A.

(1997). Message in a bottle: Stories of men and addiction. New York, NY: Free Press.

45.

Smith

E. J.

(2006). The strength-based counseling model. Counseling Psychologist, 34, 13-79. doi:10.1177/0011000005277018

46.

Taxman

F. S.

(2004). The offender and reentry: Supporting active participation in reintegration. Federal Probation, 68, 31-35.

47.

Tedeschi

R. G.

Calhoun

L. G.

(1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Tedeschi

R. G.

Calhoun

L. G.

(2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1-18.

49.

Tedeschi

R. G.

Park

C. L.

Calhoun

L. G.

(1998). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual issues. In Tedeschi

R. G.

Park

C. L.

Calhoun

L. G.

(Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 1-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Ward

Marshall

(2007). Narrative identity and offender rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 279-297.

51.

Wilkinson

R. A.

(2005). Engaging communities: An essential ingredient to offender reentry. Corrections Today, 67, 86-89.

52.

Wood

A. M.

Froh

J. J.

Geraghty

A. W. A.

(2010). Gratitude and wellbeing: A review and theoretical orientation. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 890-890. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.005

53.

Wood

A. M.

Linley

P. A.

Maltby

J. A.

Kashdan

T. B.

Hurling

(2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in wellbeing over time: Longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 15-19. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.004