INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION Flashcards
WHAT IS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION OF HOW AGGRESSION DEVELOPS WITHIN PRISONS?
The importation model by Irwin and Cressey
WHAT DOES THE IMPORTATION MODEL ARGUE?
It argues that prisons are not completely insulated from the happenings of everyday life outside in the ‘real world’. After all, it is the real world from which prison inmates come and they bring them a subculture typical of criminality. This includes beliefs, values, norms, attitudes and history of learning experiences as well as other personal characteristics such as gender, race and class. The willingness of inmates to use violence inside prison to settle disputes reflects their lives before they were imprisoned.
WHAT DID THOMAS ET AL SAY ABOUT DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
“People who prey on others on the streets also prey on others inside the prison”. Inmates import such behaviours as a means of negotiating their way through the unfamiliar and frightening prison environment in which existing inmates use aggression to establish power, status, influence and access to resources (the ‘convict subculture’). Therefore, aggression is the product of individual characteristics of inmates and not of the prison environment. So it follows that inmates are predisposed to using violence would be likely to do so in any setting, and were experienced in doing so outside prison.
WHO DID RESEARCH INTO THE IMPORTATION MODEL?
DeLisi studied 813 juvenile delinquents confined in institutions in California. These were inmates who who brought into confinement several negative dispositional features such as childhood trauma, high levels of anger and irritability, a history of substance abuse and a history of violent behaviour.
WHAT WERE THE FINDINGS OF DELISI’S RESEARCH INTO THE IMPORTATION MODEL?
These inmates were more likely to engage in suicidal activity and sexual misconduct, and committed more acts of physical violence that were brought to the attention to the parole board (compared to a control group of inmates with fewer negative dispositional factors).
WHO DEVELOPED THE DEPRIVATION MODEL?
Clemmer - This model places the causes of institutional aggression within the prison environment itself as a result of situational factors.
WHAT DOES CLEMMER ARGUE CAUSES INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION?
Harsh prison conditions are stressful for inmates therefore they have to cope by resulting to aggressive and often violent behaviours.
WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SITUATIONAL FACTORS THAT CAUSES INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION? WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT?
Being deprived of freedom, independence, goods and services, safety and heterosexual intimacy. Deprivation of material goods and services is especially important because it increases competition amongst inmates to acquire them, and is accompanied by a corresponding increase in aggression.
WHAT ELSE IS INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION INFLUENCED BY?
Aggression is also influenced by the nature of the prison regime. If it is unpredictable and regularly uses ‘lock ups’ to control behaviour, then this creates frustration, reduces stimulation by barring others more interesting activities, and reduces even further access to ‘goods’ (such a television). This is a recipe for violence which becomes an adaptive solution to the problem of deprivation.
WHAT DID STEINER INVESTIGATE?
Steiner investigated the factors that predicted inmate aggression in 512 prisons in the United States. He found that the inmate-on-inmate violence was more common in prisons where there were higher proportions of female staff, African-American inmates, Hispanic inmates and inmates in protective custody for their own safety. These are all prison-level factors because they are independent of the individual characteristics of prisoners.
AO3 - DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS (STRENGTH):
supporting research from Camp et al. They studied 561 inmates with similar criminal histories and predispositions to aggression. Half were placed in low-security Californian prisons and the other half were placed in the second-highest category of prisons. 33% of prisoners in the low security prison and 36% in the high security prison were involved in aggressive misconduct within 2 years - a difference that was not statistically significant. The researchers concluded that the conditions of the prison are less important predictors of aggressive behaviour than characteristics of inmates. This is strong evidence as the study is a field-experiment with random allocation of inmates to prisons of different security levels, allowing more valid conclusions that correlational studies or natural experiments.
AO3 - DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS (ALTERNATIVE):
Dilulio claims that the importation model is an inadequate explanation of aggressive behaviour because it ignores the roles of prison officials and factors relating to the running of prisons. He proposes an ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL MODEL (ACM), which states that poorly managed prisons are more likely to experience the most serious forms of inmate violence, including homicides and rioting. Poor management is characterised by several factors including weak and indecisive leadership, a thriving culture of informal and unofficial rules, staff who remain distant from inmates, and few opportunities for education. According the the model, these factors are more influential in determining aggression that inmate characteristics.
AO3 - SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS (STRENGTH):
Supporting evidence - individual characteristics are reliable predictors of aggression, but so are situational factors. Cunningham analysed 35 prison homicides in Texas prisons and found that some of the motivations for the behaviours were linked to some of the factors mentioned by Clemmer. Particularly important were arguments over drugs, homosexual relationships and personal possessions. These findings support its validity.
AO3 - SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS (CONTRADICTORY RESEARCH):
The deprivation model predicts that a lack of freedom and heterosexual relationships should lead to high levels of aggressive behaviours in prisons. However, research from Hensley does not support this. He studied 256 male and female inmates of two prisons in Mississippi (a state in the USA that allows conjugal visits). There was no link between involvement in these visits and reduced aggressive behaviour. This shows that situational factors do not affect prison violence.
