institutional aggression

Question 1

what is institutional aggression

Answer 1

aggressive or violent behaviour that takes place within a formal organised setting or context e.g. prison

Question 2

what are the 2 theories of institutional aggression

Answer 2

• dispositional explanation (importation model)
• situational explanation (deprivation model)

Question 3

who proposed the dispositional explanation/importation model

Answer 3

Irwin and Cressey

Question 4

what does the importation model (dispositional explanation) suggest about how aggression in prisons is caused

Answer 4

• inmates who enter prison bring with them a subculture of criminality so we are more likely to engage in interpersonal violence
• aggression is not the product of the situation itself but of the characteristics of individuals who enter such institutions i.e. aggressive, angry, bully people outside the prison bring these behaviours into the prison with them so are aggressive

Question 5

according to the importation model, how does the aggressive behaviour they bring into the prison help the inmates whilst they are in prison?

Answer 5

to negotiate their way through the unfamiliar and frightening prison environment in which existing inmates use aggression to establish power, status, influence and access to resources

Question 6

what mediating factors influence criminality according to the importation model

Answer 6

• violent values
• attitudes
• norms
• history of learning experiences
• gender
• ethnicity
• class

Question 7

who was the situational explanation of aggression (deprivation model) proposed by

Answer 7

Clemmer

Question 8

What does the deprivation model suggest about how aggression in prisons is caused?

Answer 8

• it is the harsh characteristics of the prison itself that accounts for prison violence as prisoners feel extreme stress and frustration
• in prisons, there are specific deprivations (things that inmates lose) that are linked to increase in violence

Question 9

examples of things prisoners lose (deprivations)

Answer 9

• loss of freedom
• loss of independence
• loss of goods and services
• loss of safety and security
• loss of heterosexual intimacy
• loss of personal space from overcrowding
• boredom
• discomfort
• loneliness
• high temperatures

Question 10

how do deprivations lead to aggression

Answer 10

• as inmates experience ‘pains’ of imprisonment, they engage in violence as a reaction to the hurt that they feel
• Deprivation of material goods increases competition amongst inmates which is linked to aggression due to the frustration aggression hypothesis
• nature of prison regime is unpredictable and regular lock ups control behaviour which creates frustration, reduces stimulation by other interesting activities and reduced access to goods
• so also leads to aggression (frustration-aggression hypothesis)

Question 11

evaluation points for deprivation model of institutional aggression

Answer 11

• real world application from Wilson
• undermining evidence from Camp and Gaes
• undermining evidence from Henley et al
• supporting/undermining evidence from Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando and Dobbs and Ward

Question 12

evaluation points for importation model of institutional aggression

Answer 12

• supporting evidence from Camp and Gaes
• supporting evidence from DeLisi et al
• supporting/undermining evidence from Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando and Dobbs and Ward

Question 13

real world application of deprivation model from Wilson et al

Answer 13

• Early 1990s – David Wilson – test deprivation model at HMP Woodhill
• Reduced temperature, noise, crowding; less ‘prison-like’ units, view outside
• Assaults virtually eradicated (Wilson, 2010)
• Supports situational variables as cause of aggression (cause–effect)
• Supports internal validity – fewer losses → less ‘pain’ → less aggression
• Supports external validity – real-world application
• Ethical issues → unlikely widespread → limits utility

Question 14

undermining evidence for deprivation model from Camp and Gaes

Answer 14

• Camp & Gaes (2005) – 561 male inmates, similar criminal histories
• Randomly placed: low-security vs high-security Californian prisons
• No significant difference in violent misconduct (33% vs 36%)
• Supports importation model – characteristics imported into prison
• Undermines deprivation model – if valid, harsher high-security environment should have produced higher aggression
• Similar aggression levels → environment less important predictor

Question 15

supporting/undermining evidence for both model from Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando and Dobbs and Ward

Answer 15

• Both importation & deprivation models supported and challenged by evidence
• Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando (2002) – importation better explains inmate–inmate violence; deprivation better explains inmate–staff aggression
• Dobbs & Ward (2004) – interactionist model
• Deprivation on entry + imported characteristics → violence
• Supports/undermines both models
• Interactionist model more valid – explains wider range of evidence & experiences
• Fuller, more realistic explanation – institutional aggression has multiple causes
• Reduces determinism of importation model – aggression not inevitable

Question 16

undermining evidence for deprivation model from henley et al

Answer 16

• Henley et al. (2002) – 256 aggressive male & female inmates, Mississippi (conjugal visits allowed)
• No link between conjugal visits and reduced aggression
• Undermines deprivation model
• Conjugal visits should remove a ‘loss’ → less ‘pain’ → less aggression
• No reduction in aggression → situational factors may not strongly affect prison violence
• Deprivation model not fully valid explanation

Question 17

supporting evidence for importation model from Camp and Gaes

Answer 17

• Camp & Gaes (2005) – 561 male inmates, similar criminal histories/predispositions
• Randomly allocated: low- vs high-security Californian prisons
• No significant difference in violent misconduct (33% vs 36%)
• Supports importation model – aggression due to imported characteristics
• Random allocation controls situational factors → strengthens validity as explanation of institutional aggression

Question 18

supporting evidence for importation model from DeLisi et al

Answer 18

• DeLisi et al. (2011) – inmates with negative backgrounds (childhood trauma, anger, substance abuse, gang involvement) vs control group
• ‘Negative’ inmates → more suicidal activity, sexual misconduct, physical aggression
• Supports importation model
• Imported characteristics explain higher aggression
• Supports validity as explanation of institutional aggression