El precio y la relación calidad precio

Encompassed within one of the most dominant approaches to offender rehabilitation – the RNR model (see section 1.3) - the responsivity principle asserts that a) cognitive-behavioural and social learning interpersonal influence strategies should be employed (general responsivity) (Ellis, 1962; Beck, 1963; Bandura, 1977; Pratt et al., 2010), and b) services should be matched to individual factors, including personality, motivation, ability, and demographics such as age, gender, and ethnicity (specific responsivity) (Andrews, 2006; Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2006). Whilst the general responsivity principle has received much empirical support (the ‘What Works’ literature- see sections 1.3 and 1.5.3), the principle of specific responsivity has attracted less research attention (Gendreau, Smith and French, 2006; Bourgon and Bonta, 2014).

Perhaps as a result of insufficient attention to specific responsivity, RNR has been criticised for its lack of attention to aspects of motivation- including personal well-being, strengths, and human potential and achievement (Ward and Stewart, 2003a; Ward and Brown, 2004;

66 Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2006). In response, Andrews and Bonta reiterated specific responsivity as a principle that: “individualizes treatment according to strengths, ability, motivation, personality…” (2010, p. 46 emphasis added). However, emphasis has remained on controlling risk and managing criminogenic needs. Any focus on motivation has primarily focused upon low levels of motivation as a barrier to accessing services that must be alleviated (Serin and Kennedy, 1997; Birgden, 2004; Gendreau, Smith and French, 2006). Yet focusing on risk reduction in treatment is unlikely to motivate offenders to remain in programmes and thus limits the likelihood of long-term change (Maruna, 2001; Ward, 2002; Ward, Melser and Yates, 2007; Ward, Yates and Willis, 2012). Additionally, RNR’s perception of offenders as clusters of risk factors as opposed to integrated, complex beings who are seeking to give value and meaning to their lives has been criticised (Ward and Stewart, 2003a; McMurran and Ward, 2004). Ward and Stewart (2003a) have also highlighted that the focus within the risk management model upon criminogenic needs sets the precedent that needs decoupled from recidivism are comparatively unimportant. Such an approach, Ward and Stewart (2003a) argue, does not take seriously enough the link between basic human needs and human nature, and underplays the psychological importance of enhancing human wellbeing for motivation (as emphasised in SDT- see section 3.4).

In response to such criticism, a recent reconsideration of the responsivity principle drew more attention to enhancing client engagement and attending to non-criminogenic targets- such as self-esteem and enhanced knowledge (Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2011; Polaschek, 2012; Bourgon and Bonta, 2014). However, this placed more emphasis on the responsiveness of services than client attributes such as motivation - “Although client attributes provide context, responsivity is first and foremost about our efforts to accommodate those attributes…” (Bourgon and Bonta, 2014, p. 8). Thus the model retains a feel of treatment ‘acting on’ offenders, with little mention of the role of identity, agency or self-determination in promoting change (see also Ward, Melser and Yates, 2007). People need reasons to want to engage in change, not just the capacities to do so- for which there is little acknowledgement within RNR (Polaschek, 2012). The responsivity principle acknowledges that motivation for treatment is more complex than simply being motivated or unmotivated - conceptualising it as “an interactional and interpersonal process” that can be influenced by internal and external factors (Serin and Kennedy, 1997, p. 10). However, motivation is operationally defined as “the probability that a person will enter into, continue, and adhere to a specific strategy”, and is often measured by attrition rates, attendance and participation levels (Serin and Kennedy, 1997,

67 p. 10). Motivation is rated as either low, moderate or high- often by staff (Serin and Kennedy, 1997). This conceptualisation of motivation is limited for several reasons (see sections 2.2.2 and 3.3) -most fundamentally that it does not consider the ‘why’ of programme participation (addressed in the current study through SDT- see section 3.5). In their closing recommendations of a recent article, RNR proponents acknowledged that “an additional focus on motivations underlying change and participation in treatment is sensible.” (Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2011, p. 751).

3.2.2 The Transtheoretical Model of behaviour change (TTM; Prochaska and Di Clemente,

1982; Prochaska and DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross, 1992)

The transtheoretical model (TTM) of behaviour change suggests people pass through five identifiable Stages of Change (SoC) as they move to resolve a problem (McConnaughy, Prochaska and Velicer, 1983; McConnaughy et al., 1989). Although not explicitly presented as such, each progressive stage is interpreted as increased motivation to engage in the change process (Drieschner, Lammers and van der Staak, 2004; Groshkova, 2010). It is inarguably the most influential theoretical model of the process of behaviour change in therapy, particularly within addiction treatment (Howells and Day, 2003). The TTM has been applied to several areas of intervention, including smoking cessation, alcohol and drug treatment, pain management, domestic violence, and treatment adherence (Stewart and Picheca, 2001). The stages are precontemplation (individuals are not even considering the possibility of change or do not recognise they have a problem); contemplation (individuals are ambivalent about change and both consider and reject reasons for change); determination (individuals have serious intentions/plans to change their behaviour; action (individuals commit to change and engage in actions to bring about change); and maintenance (individuals work to sustain changes and prevent relapse). The delineation of stages allows for practitioners to assess individuals’ readiness to change and tailor interventions to their current stage of readiness (Burrowes and Needs, 2009). Whilst most research attention has been directed to the SoC, the model also identified three key change variables of processes of change, decisional balance and self- efficacy (Prochaska and Diclemente, 1986). Processes of change consist of interventions to assist movement through the stages, and a context of change that addresses wider influences on behaviour such as interpersonal, social and environmental factors (Kennedy and Gregoire, 2009). Decisional balance refers to the assessment of the costs and benefits of change, and self-

68 efficacy involves the individuals’ confidence in their ability to succeed at a given task (Casey, Day and Howells, 2005).

The TTM has been widely used to assess suitability for treatment, and changes in motivation over the course of treatment, with offender populations. This has included studies of substance abusing offenders (D’Sylva et al., 2012); offenders undergoing anger management (Williamson et al., 2003); mentally disordered offenders (McMurran et al., 1998; Polaschek and Ross, 2010); sex offenders (Tierney and McCabe, 2001, 2005; Pelissier, 2007); general offenders (Polaschek, Anstiss and Wilson, 2010; Anstiss, Polaschek and Wilson, 2011; Yong et al., 2015); adolescent offenders (Cohen et al., 2005), and domestic violence perpetrators (Daniels and Murphy, 1997; Levesque, Gelles and Velicer, 2000; Scott and Wolfe, 2003; Scott, 2004). Whilst some of these studies have found that the TTM shows promise when applied to offender populations (eg. Daniels and Murphy, 1997; Levesque, Gelles and Velicer, 2000; Scott and Wolfe, 2003; Williamson et al., 2003; Cohen et al., 2005; Tierney and McCabe, 2005; Pelissier, 2007; Polaschek, Anstiss and Wilson, 2010; Anstiss, Polaschek and Wilson, 2011), the evidence is generally weaker when the TTM is applied to behaviour change other than recovery from substance addiction (Serin and Lloyd, 2009). A review acknowledged the value of the processes of change variable for providing a context in which to facilitate more effective treatment outcomes and encouraging practitioners to work with offenders to enhance motivation to change, rather than labelling them resistant or untreatable (Casey, Day and Howells, 2005) (see also Williams and Strean, 2002). However, they concluded that the SoC construct alone is unlikely to adequately explain offenders’ motivation and behaviour change.

Thus, the practical utility of the TTM with offender populations has been questioned, and multiple shortcomings identified. Firstly, motivation to change in the action and maintenance stages is difficult to assess with offenders, given the external boundaries imposed by imprisonment (eg. limited freedom of movement, limited access to resources and activities, little opportunity to make decisions), which limit how they can apply change processes (McMurran et al., 1998; Tierney and McCabe, 2001; Yong et al., 2015). Secondly, the TTM has been criticised on the grounds that the relationship between stages is not clear or consistent and the model is too inflexible (Drieschner, Lammers and van der Staak, 2004). Thirdly, that change does not realistically occur in stages, as predicted by SoC (McMurran, 2009; D’Sylva et al., 2012). Specifically, concerns have been raised about the validity of stage assessments, reliance on a set of categories that do not reflect qualitatively different states, and

69 oversimplifying the complexities of behavioural change by imposing artificial categories (Bandura, 1997; Carey et al., 1999; Littell and Girvin, 2002; Groshkova, 2010; D’Sylva et al., 2012; Martin, 2012; Yong et al., 2015). Fourth, for overemphasising offender decision-making and under-emphasising the role of contextual factors such as other individuals, the environment, the CJS and individual contextual factors such as personal background and experiences (Burrowes and Needs, 2009). Fifth, it has been suggested that, due to its conceptual development within addiction recovery (involving frequent, intrapersonal behaviours), the TTM may be of limited use with offenders (whose offending behaviour may be infrequent and sporadic), therefore building prosocial habits may be a more fruitful avenue of intervention (Serin and Lloyd, 2009). This suggestion was supported by findings from a study with psychopathic violent prisoners that early-programme SoC did not predict how much change prisoners made, and those whose therapeutic alliance increased the most over the course of treatment made the most change (Polaschek and Ross, 2010). Sixth, (and parallel to some criticisms of RNR), focus within the TTM on motivation as a client attribute (albeit one that can be influenced) pays little attention to the feelings and values underlying motivation that mean change processes mean different things to different people (Littell and Girvin, 2002; Serin and Lloyd, 2009; Ward, Yates and Willis, 2012). Again, neglecting the ‘why’ of motivation.

Finally (and most relevantly for the current study), the precontemplation and contemplation stages have been operationalised primarily according to problem recognition– positing that the extent to which an individual perceives they have a problem determines the likelihood of entering treatment. This neglects other factors that are likely to influence decisions to enter treatment such as perceived external pressure, outcome expectancies or the perceived suitability of treatment (Drieschner, Lammers and van der Staak, 2004). Not accounting for the secondary gains of engaging in treatment is a significant limitation given that for many offenders, decisions to enter and remain in treatment are influenced by various factors besides the treatment itself (see section 2.3) (Day and Howells, 2002; Howells and Day, 2003). For behaviour in which there is an element of coercion involved, the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is helpful. It has been suggested that combining SDT with TTM to articulate the source of motivation (ie. internal/external) could enhance understanding of the relative importance of coercion and internal motivation for treatment (see also section 2.4) (Kennedy and Gregoire, 2009) (see also Baker, 2010; Yong et al., 2015).

70 Despite its conceptual issues, reviews of models and measures of offender change acknowledge that the TTM has influenced the growth of further re-conceptualisations of motivation in a criminal justice context (Day and Howells, 2002; Groshkova, 2010; Mossière and Serin, 2014). For example, motivation for treatment and behaviour change has more recently been studied as a component of ‘readiness to change’, which examines treatment engagement in light of a range of external factors, as well as internal states (Campbell, Sellen and McMurran, 2010). Two prominent examples of such approaches - the Multifactor Offender Readiness Model and the Readiness for Change Framework - are now turned to.