Institutional Aggression

Institutional Aggression

1. AO1

   • Deprivation Model
     • Members of institutions are Deprivation of liberty, autonomy, good and services, heterosexual relationships and security and this causes frustratation which in turn leads to violent, aggressive behaviour.
     • This model states that it is the situational pressures that cause violent behaviour, 'the pains of imprisonment'.
     • Aggression is the product of the stressful and oppressive conditions of the institution.
   • Importation model
     • Irwin and Cressey who looked at the importance of prisoner subcultures; including the criminal,convict and conventional subcultures. Those in the criminal subculture are career criminals who are unlikely to resort to aggression, whereas those in the convict subculture who crave positions of power and are most likely to resort to aggression.
     • This model states it is not the situational pressures that cause aggression but rather the personalities of the individuals within it. For example inmates that tend towards showing violent behaviour outside of prison will be more likely to engage in interpersonal violence that inmates with less violent personalities/experiences.
     • Often younger inmates behave violently as they struggle to adjust to prison life so view aggression as an appropriate way of dealing with conflict.
     • This is supported by the fact that those who were previously in gangs are seen to act more aggressively in prisons.

2. AO2/3

   • Adams (1981) found that in American prisons blacks inmates were more likely to be aggressive than white. Black inmates tended to come from poorer backgrounds and imported these social factors into prison.
     • This is further supported by Harer and Steffensmeirer (2006) who collected data from 58 US prisons and found that black inmates has significantly higher rater of violent behaviour but lower rates of alcohol-related and drug-related misconduct than white inmates. These parallel racial differences in US society and support the importation model.
   • However, DeLisi et al (2004) found that inmates with prior street gang involvement were no more likely than other inmates to engage in prison violence. These results condradict the importation model which suggests gang membership increases aggression and violence in prison.
   • Sykes (1958) concluded that deprivation of good and services brings about a sense of failure to many serving time in prison. This shows the model providing valdid support for aggression as it shows deprivational factors contriibuting to frustation which could lead to aggression.
     • This is supported by McCorkle et al (1995) who found that overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity all significantly influence violent behaviour. This highlights how inmates used aggression to relieve the deprivation imposed by institutional cultures.
   • However, Ninjam (1999) found that increased personal space failed to decrease the level of violent incidents among patients. This is a limitation as the model suggests deprivation of autonomy increases aggression but these results contradict this belief.
   • The deprivation model can be seen as deterministic as it suggests that all institutions should be aggressive yet many are not. This shows how people must therefore be able to choose to act aggressively and this highlights a limitation of the model.
   • This approach can be seen as reductionist as it explains aggression in institutions due to situational or personality factors but ignores the fact that a person may act aggressively due to other factors such as genetic or biological factors. This is a limitation as it oversimplifies human behaviours such as aggression down to one factor.