Institutional Aggression in the Context of Prisons

• Dispositional Explanation

  • Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual's personality (i.e. Their disposition)
  • Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations
• Situational Explanation

  • Any explanation that identifies the causes of behaviour as existing within the environment, which may include other people
  • Such explanations are contrasted with dispositional explanations 
• Dispositional Explanation: The Importation Model

  • Irwin and Cressey (1962) argued that inmates bring with them (import) into prisons a subculture typical of criminality
  • This includes: beliefs, values, norms, attitudes, learning experiences and personal characteristics (e.g. Gender, race and class)
  • Inmates import these to negotiate their way through the unfamiliar prison environment 
• Importation model:

  • Inmates use aggression to establish power, status and access to resources, as this is what they would have done before they entered prison too
  • Aggression is the result of individual characteristics of inmates and not of the prison environment
• Research into Importation Model

  • DeLisi et al. (2011) studied juvenile delinquents in California institutions who imported several negative dispositional features
  • For example, childhood trauma, anger, histories of substance abuse and violent behaviour
  • Their behaviour in prison was compared to a control group with fewer negative dispositional features
  • Inmates with the most imported negative dispositional features were more likely to engage in suicidal activity and sexual misconduct compared to a control group
  • They also committed more acts of physical violence compared the control group
• Situational Explanation: Deprivation Model

  • Clemmer (1958) argued that harsh prison conditions cause stress for inmates who cope by behaving aggressively
  • Harsh conditions include being deprived of freedom, independence, material goods, safety and heterosexual intimacy
• Deprivation model:

  • Deprivation of material goods increases aggressive competition amongst inmates to acquire them 
  • Aggression is also influenced by another situational factor – an unpredictable prison regime that regularly uses ‘lock-ups’ to control behaviour. 
  • This leads to frustration and ultimately aggression as a way of dealing with the frustration and lack of stimulation
• Research into Deprivation Model

  • Steiner (2009) investigated factors predicting inmate aggression in 512 US prisons
  • 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 prison-level factors because they are independent of the individual characteristics of prisoners
  • In this study the factors reliably predicted aggressive behaviour in line with the deprivation model
• AO3:

  • One strength of the importation model is research supports it
  • Camp and Gaes (2005) placed half of their male inmate participants in low-security Californian prisons and half in the second-highest category of prison
  • There was no significant difference in aggressive misconduct between the two groups
  • This suggests that features of the prison environment are less important predictors of aggressive behaviour than characteristics of inmates, which supports the importation model
• AO3:

  • One limitation of importation model is an alternative may be better
  • Dilulio (1991) argues that the importation model is insufficient for explaining institutional aggression, as it overlooks the roles of prison officials and factors related to running prisons. He proposes an administrative control model (ACM)
  • This casts doubt over the validity of the importation model because, according to the ACM, management/running of prisons is more important in determining aggression than inmate characteristics
• AO3:

  • One strength of the deprivation model is research supports it
  • Cunningham et al. (2010) analysed inmate homicides in Texas prisons and found motivations for the behaviours were linked to some of the harsh prison conditions identified by the deprivation model
  • These findings support the validity of the deprivation model because they suggest that the stress caused by harsh prison conditions leads to inmate aggression as a way of coping
• AO3:

  • One limitation of the deprivation model is contradictory research evidence
  • The deprivation model predicts that a lack of freedom and heterosexual contact leads to high levels of aggression in prisons  - however evidence does not support this
  • Hensley et al. (2002) studied inmates of prisons that allowed inmates to have sex with their visitors 
  • There was no link between involvement in these visits and reduced aggressive behaviour
  • This shows situational factors do not necessarily affect prison violence and casts some doubt on the validity of the deprivation model
• AO3:

  • A limitation of both explanations is the interactionist model may be better
  • Dobbs and Waid (2004) argue deprivation does not lead to violence unless it combines with the individual characteristics imported into the prison by inmates
  • This is a more valid and realistic explanation because it reflects the complex nature of institutional aggression, which is unlikely to have just one cause as assumed by the importation and deprivation models