Aggression: Institutional Aggression

Aggression: Institutional Aggression

1. Importation Model - Interpersonal Factors • Irwin and Cressey (1962) – prisoners bring social histories, experiences and traits into prison. » Influences adaptation to prison environment. • Normative systems developed on the outside are imported into prison.

   • AO2: Supported by Harer and Steffensmeier (2006) • Collected data from 58 US prisons. • Found that black inmates had higher rates of violent behaviour. • White inmates had higher rates of alcohol and drug-related misconduct. • Parallels racial differences in the same behaviours in US society.
     • AO3: • May be subject to culture bias - culture may have an effect on inmate’s behaviours as all data was taken from the US. » May conform to social norms and expectations. • May follow behaviours of other prisoners to avoid rejection. » Races may group together. • Age, education level and race may all be contributing factors to whether or not inmates perform aggressive behaviours.

2. Deprivation Model - Situational Factors • Aggression - product of stressful and oppressive conditions. • Hodgkinson et al (1985) – trainee nurses more likely to suffer violent assault than more experienced nurses and officers. » Staff experience and length of service impact upon likelihood of attack. • Suggests that crowding increase fear and frustration among inmates and so they turn to violence and aggressive behaviours.

   • AO2: Supported by McCorkle et al (1985) • Overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity influence peer violence. • Suggests peer violence is used to relieve deprivation imposed.
     • AO3: • Theory that aggression is cause purely due to situational factors is deterministic. • Suggests aggression is determined by institution. • Fails to consider that individuals have free will and choose whether or not to practice violent behaviours.

3. Deprivation Model – Pains of Imprisonment • Specific deprivations experienced may link to increase in violence. » Loss of freedom, autonomy and security. • Threat to personal security increases anxiety levels. » Coping mechanisms can include seclusion or rebelling in the form of violence.

   • AO2: Refuted by Nijman et al (1999) • Increased personal space did not decrease levels of violent incidents among patients in psychiatric institutions. • Suggests other factors influence levels of aggression. » Possibly type of institution.
     • AO3: • Real world applications. • Wilson (2010) at HMP Woodhill – units set up to be less claustrophobic. » View of outside, prison noise masked by radio, temperature lowered. o Assaults eradicated. • Suggests some aspects do reduce aggression in prison inmates, for example having more space.

4. Hazing • Initiation rituals and requirements for new members of groups. • May be painful and psychologically stressful. • Create common bond among members. » Feel part of a select group. • Symbolically takes away ‘childhood weakness’ in males.

   • AO2: Supported by McCorkle (1992) • Domination/exploitation of weak/passive inmates seen as essential to maintaining status. • Suggests dominance and need to feel approved of plays role in aggression against other inmates.
     • AO3: • “Hazing” is subjective and therefore hard to define. • Survey found 1 in 5 reported behaviour that met researcher’s definition of hazing. » Only 1 in 20 reported experiencing hazing. • Suggests that hazing cannot be generalised as an explanation of institutional aggression because people have different interpretations of what it is.