Institutional Aggression in Prisons

Question 1

What does the importation model mean?

Answer 1

Any factors relating to personality that people bring into the prison, including previous experience, norms, attitudes, beliefs, history of violence etc.

Question 2

Name the model used to describe the dispositional explanation

Answer 2

Importation

Question 3

Is the dispositional explanation based on nature or nurture?

Answer 3

Both

Question 4

Who did DeLisi research in his study?

Answer 4

Prisoners with negative backgrounds

Question 5

Why did DeLisi study these PPTs?

Answer 5

To see the behaviours they were importing into the prisons.

Question 6

Describe DeLisi’s findings.

Answer 6

The more negative a prisoners background, the more likely they were to engage in aggressive behaviour such as sexual misconduct, suicidal behaviours etc

Question 7

What is the name of the model used to describe the situational explanation for aggression?

Answer 7

Deprivation

Question 8

What is the deprivation model?

Answer 8

Factors related to the prison itself

Question 9

How do prisoners cope with the harsh environment of the prison?

Answer 9

They resort to aggression

Question 10

What might inmates be deprived of in the prison that leads to aggression?

Answer 10

Material goods, heterosexual relationships, freedom, drugs etc

Question 11

What are lock ups?

Answer 11

Where prisoners are put into cells unpredictably as a means of controlling behaviour.

Question 12

Briefly describe Steiner’s research and findings.

Answer 12

Investigated factors predicting aggression in 512 US prisons. Inmate on inmate violence was more common in prisons where most staff were female and where there was more overcrowding.

Question 13

Explain the strength of research support for the importation model.
Describe the profile of the 561 PPTs Camp and Gaes studied.
The PPTs were split. Describe the 2 conditions they were placed in.
Within 2 years, was any significant difference found between conditions? What percentages?
What conclusions did researchers make about features of the prison environment and their influence on aggressive behaviour?
Why is this strong evidence for the importation model?

Answer 13

Camp and Gaes studied 561 male inmates with similar criminal histories and predispositions to aggression. Half were randomly placed in low security Californian prisons and half randomly placed in high security prisons. Within 2 years, there was no significant difference between prisons in the number of prisoners involved in aggressive misconduct. (33% and 36%). The researchers concluded that features of the prison environment are less important predictors of aggressive behaviour than characteristics of inmates. This is strong evidence for importation due to random allocation of inmates.

Question 14

Explain the strength of good methodology for the importation model.
Why are prisoners aggressive according to importation?
Why is prison aggression thought to be inevitable?
However, how might free will play a role in aggression?
What other factors are involved in playing a role in aggression?

Answer 14

Prisoners are aggressive because of the negative dipsostions they import into prisoners. They have little control over their dispositions and this implies that prison aggression is inevitable. This suggests that it is not the fault of the prisoners. However, it could be argued that aggression in prisons is a result of prisoners exercising their free will. Cognitive factors also play a role. Aggression in prisoners is therefore inevitable and is the responsibility of the individual.

Question 15

Explain the strength of good methodology for the importation model.
What did Cunningham analyse in his study?
The perpetrators motivations for their violent behaviour was linked to deprivations identified in who’s model?
What did many of the homocides follow?
What were arguments found to be over?
How does this support the model?

Answer 15

For example, Cunningham analysed 35 inmate homicides in Texas prisons over 9 years. The perpetrators motivations for their violent behaviour was linked to deprivations identified in Clemmers model. Many homicides followed arguments between cell sharing inmates where boundaries were judged to have been crossed. Important arguments were found to be over drugs, sexual activity and personal possessions. These factors are identified by the model, supporting its validity.

Question 16

Explain the limitation of contradictory research for the deprivation model.
What does the model suggest about the impact of a lack of heterosexual contact on aggression?
Hensley studied male and female inmates in 2 prisoners that allowed conjugal visits - what are conjugal visits?
What did Hensley find no link between these visits with?
Therefore, what do situational factors actually tell us about prison violence?

Answer 16

The model suggests that a lack of heterosexual contact should lead to high aggression in prisons. However, Christopher Hensley studied male and female inmates of 2 prisons in Mississippi that allowed for conjugal visits. There was no link between involvement in these visits and reduced aggressive behaviour. This suggests that situational factors do not substantially affect prison violence.