Explanations of institutional aggression (prison) Flashcards
AO1: Deprivation model
“The deprivation model holds, in brief, that the prison environment and loss of freedom cause deep psychological trauma so that, for reasons of psychological self-preservation, prisoners create a deviant prison subculture that promotes violence.”
Deprivation model
Gresham Sykes (1958) talked about the five ‘pains of imprisonment’ which include deprivation of liberty, deprivation of goods and services, deprivation of heterosexual relationships, deprivation of autonomy and deprivation of security.
Deprivation of liberty- means the loss of freedom, both by confinement to and by the prison. Increased loneliness and boredom lead to frustration and despair.
Deprivation of autonomy- subjected to rules and commands, controlling behaviour leads to the prisoner feeling helpless and frustrated.
Deprivation of security- hierarchical, competitive nature of prison culture. Stressful environment encourages the use of aggression either as attack or defence.
AO2: Irwin & Cressey
Irwin & Cressey believed that the ‘pains of imprisonment’ were only part of the story.
Their criticism- deprivation model focuses too heavily on the prison environment. The model overlooks the individual characteristics and previous experiences of the prisoners themselves.They proposed an ‘importation model’ as an addition to the deprivation model in order to account for behaviours that inmates have learned outside prison and bring in with them.
AO1: Importation model
The importation model explains prison aggression in terms of what prisoners bring into the institution. It says that inmate aggression is primarily the result of offenders’ attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours that form outside prison walls and are brought into or ‘imported’ into the institution (Irwin & Cressey, 1962).
Importation model
Irwin & Cressey argued that prison inmate populations consist of multiple subcultures, all have their norms that were developed outside prison and are imported into the prison.
Two such subcultures are the ‘Thief subculture’ and the ‘Convict subculture’. Subcultures share common background experiences. In addition inmates bring with them socio-demographic characteristics, such as age and ethnicity, and criminal career variables like time served in institutions and type of offence history.
The model predicts that aggression results from patterns of behaviour that were learned from a young age. Prisoners who have learned aggressive responses to conflict are likely to imitate that behaviour in prison.
AO2: DeLisi et al (2004)
Aim: To investigate the importation model as an explanation for prison violence
Method: 831 male participants were randomly chosen from a sampling population of 20,000 in south-western USA.
-Looked at several variables relevant to the importation model: gang membership, history of violence, age, ethnicity, education, vocational skills and family and social support.
-Studied inmates with various gang memberships and levels of recidivism (repeat offences). These variables were correlated with inmate misconduct.
(controlled for length of sentence)
Findings: Some of the strongest predictors were the ‘criminal career’ variables, especially violence history, confinement history, and escape history.
Significant effects were the ethnicity, education, familial ties and social support. Inmates from racial and ethnic minority groups were significantly more violent than white inmates.
-Age was a factor: inmates engage in more misconduct when they are young and then gradually desist as they age.
There was little support for the effect of gang membership on rates of prison violence.
Conclusion and evaluation for DeLisi
Conclusions: There is support for the theory that characteristics, beliefs and behaviours that are imported into prison institutions are a significant cause of violence in prison.
Evaluation:
-Data from one American state + only male inmates (limited external or population validity
-Ignores ‘deprivation’ factors
-More aggressive inmates may be kept in tougher prisons
AO2: Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando (2002)
Aim: compares the effectiveness of deprivation and importation models, violence against staff and other inmates
Method: Analysis of 431 disciplinary reports, during six months, in a men’s state prison in the southern states of USA. Interviews and observations with inmates and prison staff.
IV = 36 variables, classified into three types: deprivation, importation, situational.
DV = violent misconduct, misconduct against staff, misconduct against inmates; each measured by several rule violations from the prison rules handbook.
Results: Both models helped explain violent incidents against others, property and self. Deprivation variables were slightly more powerful than importation models in explaining violent misconduct, although the difference between them was very small.
Comments on Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando
-Addresses interval validity problem in DeLisi as both models were compared within the same prison.
AO2: Grapendaal (1990)
Aim: Compares the deprivation and importation models in ability to predict inmate attitudes and behaviours.
Method: Relationship between the components of each model – deprivation and importation - and the inmates’ level of opposition and exploitation. They used regression analysis which is a form of correlation that calculates how well one variable predicts values in another.
- Used standardized questionnaires and prison data, daily observation, participation, and informal contacts with prisoners as well as prison staff.
- Research was conducted in three prisons in Holland, two of them high-security. The sample was 114 males chosen randomly.
Results: They found that the deprivation model in general was far better than importation model in predicting opposition to the institution. The conclusion was that an oppositional attitude is mainly explained by the situation in the prison itself. But they were equal in predicting exploitation of others. suggests interactionist model is a better predictor of exploitation behaviours.
Grapendaal conclusion
Conclusion: Overall Grapendall concluded that the deprivation model is more useful for shaping policy decisions in prisons. This is because prison managers can address each of the variables when deciding how best to run the prison.
But he also suggests that the importation model has a practical application: prison managers should avoid too many ‘career criminals’ (those who have an early involvement in crime). Results showed that a prisoner’s early involvement in crime (importation) was a key predictor of exploitation behaviour. Grapendall suggests prisons should have a ‘mixed population’ of criminal types in order to avoid a culture of exploitation.
AO2: Both models are clearly social psychological explanations for institutional aggression. What cause(s)/approach(s) do they fail to take into account, is that a limitation, and why?
- Fails to take into account biological explanation e.g. genetics and hormones -> neural mechanisms.
- Also fails to take into account behaviour learnt in the prison; SLT
Which model is more reliably supported?
-The deprivation model seems to be a stronger explanation generally for aggression in institutions
AO2: Ireland (2002) - mixture of both models
Ireland (2002) says the most useful model for describing bullying behaviour is one that takes into account environmental and individual characteristics, and views bullying and aggression as an interaction between them. “Bullying is very much a product of the interaction between the prison environment and those housed within it. The environment acts to influence and reinforce the behaviour of prisoners who are predisposed to bullying others”.
Alternative theory: the Lucifer effect
The Lucifer Effect is the title of Zimbardo’s (2007) book, written on the back of his experience of being asked to testify for the defense in the court martial of Sgt Ivan Frederick, a guard at Abu Ghraib prison. He coined the term “Lucifer Effect” based on God’s favourite angel, Lucifer, who disobeyed God and ultimately became Satan; he believes social situational forces can make good people become evil.
