institutional aggression

• Support - evidence of Dispositional

  • Camp & Gaes (2005) = 561 male inmates w/ similar criminal histories and predisposition to aggression ; split in low and high security
  • prison features less important and inmate characteristics more important – same violent background and different conditions of prisons yet same occurrence of aggressive behaviour; field experiment – naturally occurring characteristics allocated to different prison security levels
  • therefore more valid conclusions than correlational studies or natural experiments
• Limitation - Alternative explanation of importation model [disposition]

  • Dilulio (1991) = importation model inadequate explanation as it ignores roles of prison officials and the running of prisons – ACM [administrative control model]
  • ACM - poorly managed prisons more likely to have severe inmate violence eg homicide and rioting; poor management such as weak leadership, few educational opportunities and thriving culture of unofficial rules
  • therefore importation fails to consider situational factors that contribute to prison quality and thus associated prison factors
• Limitation - Contradictory research to the deprivation model/situational factors

  • Hensley (2002) = 256 mixed inmates in 2 Mississippi prisons that allow conjugal visit [partners can have sex] 
  • there’s no link between these visits and reduced aggressive behaviour –deprivation model suggests deprivation of heterosexual relationships increases likelihood for aggressive behaviour in prisons though Hensley’s study didn’t show this effect.
  • therefore some situational factors don’t affect prison violence – low external validity
• Limitation - interactionist model

  • Dobbs & Waid (2004) = interactionist model = imported personality combines with prison environment to lead to aggressive behaviour that will influence the prison’s culture
  • inmates in prison 1st time will suffer deprivation but will not necessarily lead to violence unless or until it combines w/ their individual characteristics 
  • therefore more valid and reliable – tends to both ends of ‘nature-nurture’ spectrum by combining situational and dispositional explanations
• Support - evidence for deprivation model

  • Cunningham (2010) = 25 inmate homicide Texas prions analysed = motivations linked to Clemmer’s identified deprivations
  • arguments over drugs, homosexual relationships and personal possessions – individual-level factors as reliable predictors of aggression independent of the prison environment
  • therefore these are factors predicted by the model that make aggression more likely –these findings support its validity