Institutional aggression

Institutional aggression

1. Dispositional

   • Practical applications:
     • The theory has some practical values as id it is underlying problems, such as alcohol/drug dependency, that cause prisoners to demonstrate high levels of aggression then these prisoners can be dealt with on an individual basis.
     • However some psychologists suggest that this is not a cost effective or efficient way of dealing with aggression in institutions and that there are factors within the prison itself which can be adjusted to have more impact.
   • According to Irwin and Cressey (1962) aggression occurs in institutional settings because of pre-existing characteristics of the prisoners. This theory therefore implies that aggression is not caused by the situation and that the prisoners would be behaving in the same way if they were living in wider society. It is the characteristics that the prisoners bring with them that effect how they adapt to prison life.
   • Individual differences
     • The importation model has been praised doe providing a more complex account as to why aggression occurs within institutions. It does not assume that all the inmates will be influenced in the same way but instead acknowledge factors such as age, culture and membership to subcultures. This therefore means that it accounts for individual differences and is likely to be accepted as a plausible explanation of aggression in institutions.
   • Supporting research
     • The model has been supported by various studies which have found significant relationships between outside gang membership, race and educational level and the level of institutional aggression shown. Kane and Janus (1981) found that non-whites and younger inmates are more likely to be aggressive in prison.
   • Nature VS Nurture
     • Some explanations see aggression as a product of innate personality traits that are imported into prisons and thus due to nature. Other explanations see the environment of the prison setting as contributing to aggression and thus highlighting the role of “nurture”.
   • Gender bias
     • Studies into institutional aggression can be seen as having gender bias as they have almost exclusively focused mainly on male prisoners are may very well have different profiles to female prisoners.

2. Situational

   • Practical applications
     • This theory of the cause of institutional aggression has practical applications for institutions as if it is known that factors such as overcrowding and the staff members themselves lead to aggressive behaviour occurring then steps can be takne o improve these aspects and therefore reduce the overall levels of aggression within institutions. The same principles can be applied to other institutions such as hospitals/schools.
   • Conflicting results
     • Some studies have suggested that increasing personal space has had no effect on the levels of aggression in psychiatric institutions. Also other empirical evidence conducted on prisoners does not seem to support the hypothesis that there is a direct correlation. This therefore lowers the validity of the theory and means that no firm conclusions regarding the cause of institutional aggression can be established without further research in this area.
   • Consistent levels of deprivation
     • This theory does not explain why riots suddenly occur from time to time without any institutional factors changing.

3. Mills et al (1998)

   • Mills et al studied 207 male inmates who had been recently admitted to a prison in Canada. They measured the prisoners' levels of aggression based on whether or not they had been reported to have committed an act of serious misconduct and they compared these findings with their scores on the Alcohol Dependence Scale.
   • Research by Mills et al supports the importation model as they found that those who had a substantial alcohol dependency were more likely to have committed serious misconduct. This suggests that the characteristics the prisoners have brought in with them, alcohol dependency, could explain the higher rates of aggression.

4. Sykes (1958)

   • According to Sykes aggression arises via various forms of deprivation that prisoners experience on a day-to-day basis. Based on research he developed that is known as the deprivation model.
     • Deprivation of liberty
       • Prisoners experience a loss of civil rights, loss of respect and being referred to by a number as opposed to their name.
     • Deprivation of autonomy
       • Prisoners no longer have the same choices or decisions to make regarding their daily activities and these decisions are all made for them.
     • Deprivation of security
       • Many prisoners are often scared of fellow inmates which adds to their anxieties.

5. Zimbardo (2007)

   • Research by zimbardo emphasised that the situation an individual as in can have a powerful influence on their willingness to harm others. In this Stanford Prison Experiment he found that institutional factors such as lack of external constraints and pressure from peers led to aggression towards inmates. His findings show support for the deprivation model as it suggests that the situation an individual is in directly influences aggressive behaviour in institutions.

6. Kane and Janus et al

   • found that long periods of unemployment, lower levels of education and a more serious criminal record correlated positively with a greater likelihood of aggression while imprisoned. This shows pre-existing factors within prisoners affect levels of aggression displayed within the prison settings supporting the importation model theory

7. Haslam and Reicher

   • reported in the BBC prison study which was a study based on Zimbardos prison experiment; participants behaviour was better understood in terms of social identity theory, which saw behaviour occurring due to in-group and out-group reference points (us and them) In this study they believed participants behaviour could not be explained as being due purely to allotted roles alone
   • Methodological issues
     • Much prison aggression has little explanation for it making it difficult to conduct research and draw firm conclusions.