Institutional Aggression

Institutional Aggression

1. The SLT can be used to explain institutional aggression. It is defined by "the display of violent behaviour within institutions.

2. Bullying is an example of institutional aggression; when we start school, we begin with a low social status and wish to make it to the top. We do this by imitating any high status models (the bullies) and therefore, we adopt the aggressive ways.

   • Rigby and Slee (1993) found evidence to support this claim. They investigated young boys in a school Australia who were considered class bullies. These 'bullies' were highly admired and popular. This suggests that these characteristics are those that others aspire to, therefore this evidence supports the idea that bullies can be role models.
     • However, this theory demonstrates a culture bias. The sample was only restricted to Australian students. Other cultures around the world may not experience this type of aspirational aggression. This implication of this is that the findings are on generalizable to Australia and other similar cultures. This weakens the internal validity of the theory, as findings that have been used to support it, have been flawed.

3. The importation model can be used to explain institutional aggression within prisons. The model claims that Inmates enter prisons with certain characteristics, and these characteristics influence their adaptation to the environment. Irwin and Cressy (1962) say that inmates do not enter prison with a clean slate, and many of their behaviours are imported into the prison environment. The importation model also explains how gang membership is a contributing factor in prison misconduct

   • Allender & Marcell (2003) found that those inmates part of gang prior to conviction, were more likely to engage in prison misconduct. This suggests that gang membership influences institutional aggression, thus supporting the importation model theory, strengthening its validity.
     • Contrary to this claim, evidence from other studies have found no correlation between pre-prison gang membership and violence in prison. This reduces the reliability of the theory, as there is little consistency in the findings used to support the importation model. However, whilst this may seem like contradictory evidence, critics argue this can be explained by stating that violent gang members may be isolated from the majority of the prison population, reduces the opportunity for violence.

4. The deprivation model provides an alternative explanation for institutional aggression. This states that situational factors contribute to institutional aggression. The situation factors include: Overcrowding, experience of staff and cleanliness. Overcrowding is associated with fear and frustration which may lead to aggressive behaviour.

   • McCorkle et al found evidence to support the deprivation model. They found that situational factors such as overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity, all increased peer aggression. This supports the deprivation model as it shows that situational factors effect aggression.
     • However, not all research agrees with these findings. Nijman et al (1999), found no improvement of levels of aggression even when there was increased personal space. This suggests that other factors contribute to institutional aggression, reducing the external reliabilty of the theory.

5. Deindividuation theory can be used to explain institutional aggression. This theory states that when we are in groups, we lose our sense of self awareness. When individuals lose their sense of awareness, e.g. by being in a crowd, they do not feel responsible for their actions. Zimbardo suggests that when the crowd is larger we lose our sense of individuality and sense of guilt, and therefore we act aggressively.

   • Research support for Deinduviduation theory comes from Zimbardo's prison experiment. He carried out an experiment, in which participants played the role of guards and prisoners. The guards were deindividuated by their sunglasses and uniforms, and prisoners deindividuated by their numbers and loss of clothes and names. Zimbardo's found that the loss of identity and feeling of anonymity increased the guards aggression towards the prisoners. The prisoners were targets of aggression, as they were viewed as no longer being human. These findings support the deindividuation theory, increasing the internal validity.
     • This study was extremely unethical, so much so that it was terminated on the second week out of six. Zimbardo did not receive informed consent, as the participants were deceived of the aim. They also did not protect participants from harm. This study does not comply with the BPS ethical guidelines, which means it cannot be replicated in this day and age. This means that the reliability of the findings cannot be tested, so we are unsure of the effects of deindividuation in other cultures and time periods. Because the findings used to support deindividuation are flawed, the theory is also flawed.
       • The study was a lab experiment, and therefore participants were tested in artificial conditions. This means that it lacks ecological validity, as the findings cannot be generalised to real life situations. The implication of this is that these deindividuation model can only be used to apply in this setting, not in real life.