AGGRESSION SPECIFICATION

Institutional aggression in the context of prisons: dispositional and situational explanations.

EXPLANATIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION:

WARNING: Students may be inclined to reference the Stanford Prison Experiment when discussing institutionalised aggression in academic contexts. It's important to distinguish between using Philip Zimbardo's underlying theory as a framework for understanding situational explanations of aggression and merely describing the experiment itself. While Zimbardo's theory provides a valuable lens for examining how environmental and situational factors can influence behaviour within institutions, the Stanford Prison Experiment should be utilised as supporting evidence (A03) rather than a direct explanation of the theory (A01). Suppose Zimbardo's work is mentioned in outlining core theories (A01). In that case, the focus should be on his contributions to understanding the impact of situational variables on behaviour rather than the specifics of the experimental research. This distinction ensures a deeper engagement with the theoretical underpinnings of institutionalised aggression and a more nuanced analysis of the factors contributing to such behaviours.

WHAT IS AN INSTITUTION?

In a broad sense, an institution often refers to established organisations or systems within society that play significant roles in shaping behaviours and norms. These include schools, hospitals, prisons, religious bodies, and governmental entities. Each institution serves a specific function and operates under a set of rules and guidelines that govern the behaviour of individuals within it.

In sociological and psychological studies, especially concerning institutional aggression, the focus shifts towards understanding how these formal structures influence or facilitate a range of behaviours, including aggression. For instance, in prisons, aggression can manifest through gang violence, bullying among inmates, or conflicts between staff and inmates.

TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS

• Prisons

• Hospitals

• Army bases

• Police force

• Terrorist organisations

• Mental institutions

• Universities

• Offices

• Schools

• Training centres

• Sororities

• Fraternities.

TYPES OF VIOLENCE IN PRISONS

PHYSICAL VIOLENCE: This is the most prevalent form of violence in prisons, encompassing fights, assaults, and other acts that cause physical harm to individuals. About 8% of deaths that occurred behind prison or jail walls were related to prison violence and were found to be related to either homicide or suicide.

SEXUAL VIOLENCE: A significant concern within prisons, sexual violence includes rape and sexual coercion among inmates. It is estimated that approximately 20% of prisoners experience some form of violence while incarcerated.

The Prison Reform Trust reported that in 2020, there were over 2,000 reported incidents of sexual assault in prisons in England and Wales. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the US collects data on sexual victimisation in prisons through the Survey of Sexual Victimisation (SSV). According to the BJS, in 2018, there were an estimated 24,661 incidents of sexual victimisation reported by male inmates in adult prisons and jails.

GANG SYSTEMS IN US PRISONS

The gang system in American prisons often operates along racial lines, with various gangs organized primarily around racial identity. These gangs provide a sense of protection, belonging, and camaraderie for their members, but they also contribute to violence, intimidation, and conflict within the prison environment. Some of the most prominent racial-based gangs in American prisons include:

1. Aryan Brotherhood: A white supremacist gang that originated in California prisons in the 1960s. It promotes white power and violence against other racial groups, particularly African Americans.

2. Black Guerrilla Family: Founded by African American inmates in California prisons in the 1960s, it seeks to overthrow the existing social order and promotes black nationalism. It has a significant presence in many state and federal prisons.

3. Mexican Mafia (La Eme): Originating in California's prison system, this Hispanic gang primarily focuses on controlling drug trafficking and other criminal activities both inside and outside of prison. It often aligns with the interests of Mexican-American inmates.

4. Nuestra Familia: A rival Hispanic gang to the Mexican Mafia, Nuestra Familia was established in California prisons in the 1960s. It primarily recruits Northern California Hispanic inmates and opposes the influence of the Mexican Mafia.

5. Texas Syndicate: Another Hispanic prison gang, the Texas Syndicate, was formed in the Texas prison system in the 1970s. It operates similarly to the Mexican Mafia and Nuestra Familia but has a distinct presence in Texas prisons.

These gangs exert significant influence within the prison system, often controlling illicit activities such as drug trafficking, extortion, and violence. They also contribute to racial tensions and conflicts both inside and outside of prison, posing significant challenges to prison management and inmate safety.

INSTITUTIONALISED AGGRESSION

KEYWORDS

• Dispositional factors = personality

• Importation model (similar to disposition) = what a prisoner brings to the prison (personality, language, roles, values).

• Situational factors = any factor, such as an environmental factor or the equipment a person uses, contributing to the conditions to which a person acts or reacts.

• Deprivation model = what prisoners are deprived of in prison

The quest to comprehend the roots of such aggression has led to developing two primary theoretical frameworks: the importation and deprivation models. These frameworks offer insights into why aggression occurs in prison settings, attributing the causes to individual characteristics and environmental factors.

THE MAJOR MODELS

DISPOSITIONAL MODELS focus on the individual traits and backgrounds of inmates. They examine how an individual's personality and interpersonal factors contribute to aggression without distinguishing between nature and nurture as the root causes. This perspective looks at personal history, personality traits, and previous behaviours as predictors of how someone might act in prison.

The importational model is dispositional; these terms can sometimes be used in nuanced ways, but here's a clearer breakdown.

THE IMPORTATIONAL MODEL is a specific example of a dispositional model. It argues that inmates "import" their behaviours, attitudes, and social roles from the outside world into the prison environment. According to this model, the roots of aggression and other behaviours seen in prisons lie in the individuals' characteristics and their life experiences before incarceration.

The 'Importation Model' is just one of numerous dispositional theories that seek to explain institutionalised aggression.

SITUATIONAL MODELS Conversely, Situational factors are viewed through a nurture-based lens, considering the environment as the main catalyst for aggressive behaviour. Theorists such as Milgram and Zimbardo are proponents of this perspective. Situational triggers for aggression include environmental stressors like poor staffing, noise, heat, and overcrowding. The 'Deprivation Model' will be explored as a significant theory alongside other environmental variables that influence aggression within institutions.

SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS

Situational explanations attribute prison aggression to the environment and conditions within the institution. The Deprivation Model suggests that aggression stems from the stressful and oppressive conditions within prisons, such as overcrowding, lack of privacy, minimal recreational opportunities, and rigid security measures. These conditions can lead to frustration and aggression among inmates.

This perspective emphasises the role of the prison setting in shaping inmate behaviour, suggesting that even individuals without a predisposition to violence can become aggressive in certain contexts.

KEY ASPECTS INCLUDE:

• Power Dynamics: The hierarchical structure within prisons, including the power imbalance between guards and inmates, can also contribute to aggression. The enforcement of rules and the use of authority can provoke resistance and violent responses from inmates.

• Staff characteristics – gender, experience level, relationship to and interactions with prisoners..

• Environmental Stressors: Factors such as noise levels, temperature, and lighting in prisons have been identified as contributing to aggressive behaviour. Poor living conditions and the stress of confinement can exacerbate tensions among inmates. Also, the security level

THE DEPRIVATION MODEL Sykes (1958)  

One of Sykes' most notable works is "The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison," published in 1958. In this book, he introduces the Deprivation Model, which posits that the aggressive behaviour seen in prisons is largely a result of the deprivations that inmates experience. These deprivations include the loss of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy, and personal security. Sykes argued that these deprivations lead to the development of a prison subculture that arises not from the inmates' outside influences but from the conditions within the prison itself.

For Sykes, aggression was seen as a way of gaining some sense of control over the social order imposed upon them in prisons.

THE FIVE DEPRIVATIONS

LOSS OF LIBERTY (FREEDOM)
Incarceration imposes strict regimes, isolating individuals from the community and severely restricting their autonomy. This includes enforced idleness leading to boredom, adherence to petty rules, and significant limitations such as the inability to vote. Inmates are often deindividuated, referred to by number, and required to wear uniforms, stripping them of their identity and autonomy.

LACK OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Prisoners face restrictions on purchasing goods or accessing services, significantly affecting their quality of life. Deprived of amenities like television, employment opportunities, exercise, or educational pursuits, inmates are confined to a basic existence within their cells, contributing to feelings of failure and despair.

LACK OF HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
The absence of opportunities for heterosexual relationships leads to sexual frustration, loneliness, and feelings of inadequacy. The prison subculture's potential normalisation of homosexual rape, contrasted with societal stigmas, adds to the emotional and psychological challenges faced by prisoners.

LOSS OF AUTONOMY (PRIVACY)
Overcrowding and shared cells infringe on inmates' privacy and autonomy, heightening fear and frustration. The lack of privacy, especially for basic hygiene practices, highlights the dehumanising aspects of prison life, exacerbating the loss of personal rights.

LACK OF SECURITY (FEELING SAFE)
The constant threat from other inmates and guards erodes any sense of personal safety. The prevalence of male rape, bullying, bribery, and violence contributes to a pervasive atmosphere of fear and anxiety, undermining the well-being and security of inmates within the prison environment.

Although Sykes' original work primarily focused on the deprivations experienced by inmates, subsequent research and interpretations of his theory have expanded to include these factors as crucial elements that influence prison life and inmate behaviour.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: Environmental conditions within the prison can exacerbate the pains of imprisonment. Overcrowding can lead to increased competition for resources, heightened stress, and more frequent conflicts, directly impacting the loss of security and autonomy. Similarly, excessive noise and uncomfortable temperatures can worsen the physical and psychological deprivations of imprisonment, contributing to a more hostile and challenging environment.

MANAGEMENT STYLE: How a prison is managed can significantly impact the level of deprivation inmates feel. An overly restrictive management style might exacerbate the pains of imprisonment by further limiting inmates' autonomy and access to goods and services. Conversely, a management style that prioritises rehabilitation and inmate welfare might mitigate some of these deprivations.

STAFF CHARACTERISTICS The demographics and experience levels of prison staff can influence their interactions with inmates and their ability to maintain order and provide support. Staff characteristics can impact the deprivation of autonomy and security, as experienced and well-trained staff may be better equipped to handle conflicts and provide a more stable environment.

PERCIEVED AND REAL DEPRIVATIONS: Sykes' theory explicitly deals with the deprivations of imprisonment as central to understanding inmate behaviour. Adding perceived deprivations (such as fairness of rules and treatment by staff) and more tangible, physical deprivations (like inadequate living conditions) further elucidates the range of factors contributing to the prison experience and the development of prison subcultures.

All of these create the tensions that will ultimately result in violence and aggression.

RESEARCH

Overcrowding and Aggression: Empirical studies have directly linked prison overcrowding with increased aggression and violence among inmates. For example,

Paulus et al. (1975) conducted a study investigating the relationship between overcrowding in prison settings and levels of aggression among inmates. Their findings supported Sykes' assertion that environmental stressors, such as the deprivation of personal space, contribute to inmate violence. As overcrowding increased, so did the levels of aggression observed among the inmates.

Impact of Restrictive Conditions: Haney's (2003) research on the psychological impact of solitary confinement sheds light on Sykes' deprivation model. The findings suggest that extreme deprivation of social contact and autonomy, as experienced in solitary confinement, leads to increased psychological distress and aggression, illustrating the deleterious effects of environmental conditions on inmate behaviour.

Prison Subcultures and Coping Mechanisms: Research by Clemmer (1940) and later expanded by Sykes on the development of prison subcultures as a response to environmental deprivations has been supported by ethnographic studies within prisons. These studies observe how inmates create norms and hierarchies to cope with the loss of autonomy and liberty, aligning with Sykes’ observations on the adaptations inmates make to prison life.

Riots and Collective Unrest: Useem and Kimball's (1989) analysis of prison riots across multiple states in the U.S. found that riots were more likely to occur in overcrowded facilities with poor living conditions. This supports Sykes’ view that situational pressures, such as the deprivation of goods and services and adequate living space, play a crucial role in collective inmate behaviour. However, significant instances of violence, such as riots, are comparatively rare and isolated occurrences within the prison system. Whilst inmates may endure ongoing stressors, the escalation to large-scale violence is not a frequent phenomenon, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of aggression within prison settings.

Dilulio's 1987 research highlights that a significant amount of aggression within prisons can be attributed to ineffective management strategies, characterised by failed management, high staff turnover, and a lack of discipline among staff members. This research underscores the importance of stable and effective prison management in mitigating aggression. It suggests that the environmental and situational factors within the prison, influenced heavily by management practices, play a critical role in the prevalence of inmate aggression. This aligns with broader discussions within the deprivation model about how institutional conditions and management styles contribute to the behaviours and cultures that develop within prison settings.

McCorkle and his colleagues found limited support for the hypothesis that overcrowding in prisons correlates with heightened levels of violent behaviour among inmates. Contrary to expectations based on the deprivation model, their research suggested that overcrowding alone was not a significant predictor of violence within prison settings. Instead, they identified a stronger association between the behaviour of guards towards prisoners and the occurrence of aggression. This suggests that the management and treatment of inmates by prison staff may play a more influential role in shaping levels of aggression than environmental factors such as overcrowding.

Other research by McCorkle showed that certain stressors experienced by inmates, such as feelings of loneliness and isolation, remained relatively consistent across different prison environments.

Folger and Skarlicki (2001) researched the role of fairness in management practices, investigating why managers sometimes fail to uphold fairness principles. Through their study, they conceptualized fair treatment as a dependent variable and explored behaviours employees perceive as violations of interactional justice, such as interpersonal distancing by managers. Their findings indicated that situational variations, rather than dispositional factors, significantly influenced managerial behaviour regarding fairness. They examined emotional and cognitive explanations to understand the sources of impact on managers' behaviours under different circumstances. Their research suggested that external pressures and situational demands often lead managers to deviate from fair practices.

Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment provides compelling evidence supporting the situational model of aggression. Despite participants being psychologically stable before the experiment, they exhibited violent behaviour when placed in a simulated prison environment. This demonstrates that ordinary individuals can engage in aggression under specific situational conditions, validating Zimbardo's conclusion regarding the influence of situational factors on behaviour.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT THE WORST SITUATIONAL VARIABLE IN PRISONS

Solitary confinement exemplifies a situational hypothesis regarding institutionalised aggression. In this context, the situational hypothesis suggests that the aggressive behaviour exhibited by prisoners in solitary confinement is primarily a result of the extreme environmental conditions they experience rather than inherent individual traits or predispositions towards violence.

The practice of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons, affecting an estimated 80,000 individuals, predominantly men, has come under scrutiny due to its potentially traumatic effects on the brain. These individuals spend up to 23 hours a day confined to small, windowless cells, with minimal human contact apart from brief interactions with prison guards. Neuroscientists, lawyers, and activists are advocating for the abolition of solitary confinement, citing its cruel and unusual nature.

While most prisoners in solitary confinement are held for one to three months, a significant portion, nearly a quarter, endure isolation for over a year. The minimum duration is typically 15 days, with reasons for placement ranging from preventive measures, often indefinite, to punishment, which may have a predetermined endpoint. Some states have enacted legislation restricting solitary confinement, particularly for mentally ill and juvenile offenders, and have imposed limits on its duration.

The United Nations has recommended banning solitary confinement for periods exceeding 15 days, arguing that prolonged isolation constitutes torture. These efforts reflect a growing awareness of the adverse effects of solitary confinement and the need for reform in correctional practices.

Prolonged social isolation can lead to severe physical, emotional, and cognitive consequences. Research indicates a 26 per cent increased risk of premature death due to heightened stress responses, elevated cortisol levels, high blood pressure, and inflammation associated with social isolation. Moreover, loneliness amplifies the risk of suicide.

Environmental factors, including social isolation and sensory deprivation, profoundly influence the brain's structure and function. Chronic stress, stemming from isolation, can harm the hippocampus, affecting memory, spatial orientation, and emotion regulation. Socially isolated individuals often suffer from memory loss, cognitive decline, and depression, exacerbating hippocampal cell death. Sensory deprivation and disrupted circadian rhythms further contribute to psychosis and genetic disruptions.

"The Last Days of Solitary," a documentary by Storyville, delves into the psychological impact experienced by men who are subjected to solitary confinement as punishment for misbehaviour in general prison wards. The documentary paints solitary confinement as a cruel and unnecessary punishment with severe adverse effects on prisoners, which manifest rapidly. Many individuals resort to serious self-harm after spending weeks alone, developing suicidal thoughts and severe depression.

One study that explores the role of solitary confinement as a situational variable in aggression was conducted by Haney (2003). Haney's research delves into the psychological impact of solitary confinement, shedding light on its potential contribution to aggressive behaviour among inmates. The findings suggest that the extreme deprivation of social contact and autonomy experienced in solitary confinement leads to increased psychological distress, which may manifest as aggression. This study underscores the significance of environmental conditions, such as solitary confinement, in shaping inmate behaviour within correctional facilities.

EVALUATION OF THE SITUATIONAL HYPOTHESIS OF AGGRESSION

Proving the precise cause of aggression in prisons is challenging, particularly when considering the multitude of situational variables at play. Factors such as overcrowding, heat, noise, and loss of liberty often co-occur, making it difficult to isolate the specific influence of each factor on aggression.

RESEARCH THAT CONTRADICTS THE DEPRIVATION MODEL

Findings from several studies suggest that there may not be a direct link between overcrowding and aggression in prison environments. For instance, Megargee (1976) discovered a negative correlation between the frequency of aggressive prison incidents and the amount of living space available per prisoner. This implies that as living space decreases due to overcrowding, aggression tends to decrease. One possible explanation is that prison management implements strategies to compensate for overcrowding, which could limit opportunities for inmate interactions and subsequently reduce aggression.

Similarly, Poole and Regoli (1983) conducted research across four young offender institutions. They found that pre-conviction violence was a stronger predictor of aggression within the institutions than overcrowding and other stresses associated with the prison environment. This finding aligns with the importation model, which suggests that inmates bring their pre-existing characteristics and experiences into the prison, influencing their behaviour more than situational factors such as overcrowding. Thus, these studies support the importation model's perspective over the deprivation model in explaining aggression within prison settings.

Cullen and Sundt (1990) conducted a longitudinal study examining the relationship between various environmental factors, including overcrowding, and prison inmate violence. Contrary to the predictions of the situational model, they found that environmental stressors, such as overcrowding, were not significant predictors of inmate violence. Instead, they observed that individual characteristics, such as prior criminal history and gang affiliations, were stronger determinants of aggressive behaviour.

Similarly, Steiner and Wooldridge (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between prison crowding and inmate violence. Their analysis revealed mixed findings, with some studies showing a positive correlation between overcrowding and aggression, while others found no significant association. This inconsistency suggests that overcrowding may not consistently predict aggression across different prison environments.

APPLICABILITY TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS

The deprivation model's applicability extends beyond prison settings and can shed light on aggression in other environments, such as schools and hospitals. In these contexts, individuals may resort to aggression to assert control or autonomy when they perceive a lack of control or fairness. For example, students may exhibit aggressive behaviour in schools due to perceived unfairness in disciplinary actions or academic evaluations. Similarly, hospital patients may become aggressive when frustrated by lengthy waiting times or perceive unequal treatment from healthcare providers. In both cases, individuals may resort to aggression as a coping mechanism to address feelings of powerlessness or injustice. This aligns with the core premise of the deprivation model, which emphasizes the role of environmental stressors and perceived deprivation in triggering aggressive behaviour. By addressing underlying issues of fairness, autonomy, and control, institutions can mitigate aggression and promote more positive interactions among individuals.

PRISON RIOTS

A Significant challenge for situational models is their inability to fully account for sudden and seemingly spontaneous events like prison riots without significant environmental changes. While situational models emphasise the role of immediate environmental factors in shaping behaviour, they may overlook deeper underlying dynamics and structural issues that can contribute to collective unrest.

Prison riots, in particular, often involve complex social, political, and economic factors that extend beyond immediate situational influences. A variety of factors, such as overcrowding, poor living conditions, inadequate healthcare, perceived injustices, and tensions between inmates and prison staff, can trigger these events. However, they may also reflect deeper systemic issues such as institutionalised racism, inequality, and lack of access to resources and opportunities. Moreover, the buildup of tension and resentment over time within prison populations can create a volatile environment where seemingly minor incidents or grievances can escalate into large-scale disturbances. Situational models may struggle to fully capture the cumulative effects of long-standing grievances and structural inequalities that underlie such events.

OVEREMPHASIS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Critics argue that situational theories often overlook individual differences and excessively emphasise external environmental factors in explaining aggression. While environmental factors undoubtedly play a role, they may not fully account for the complexities of human behaviour.

NEGLECT OF INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

Situational models sometimes neglect the influence of individual characteristics, such as personality traits, past experiences, and socio-cultural backgrounds, on aggressive behaviour. These factors can interact with situational factors in complex ways, influencing how individuals respond to their environment.

LIMITED PREDICTIVE POWER

Situational models may have limited predictive power in anticipating aggressive behaviour, particularly in complex and dynamic environments like prisons. While they offer insights into immediate triggers of aggression, they may struggle to account for the long-term development and escalation of violence.

LACK OF GENERALISABILITY

Critics argue that findings from situational studies in controlled environments may not always generalise to real-world settings. Prison environments, in particular, are highly complex and variable, making it challenging to draw broad conclusions about the causes of aggression based solely on situational factors.

ETHICAL CONCERNS

Some critics raise ethical concerns about manipulating environmental variables in situational studies, particularly those involving human participants. Deliberately creating stressful or oppressive environments to study aggression raises questions about the ethical treatment of participants and the potential harm caused by such research.

COMPLEXITY OF AGGRESSION

Aggression is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by various biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors. Situational models may oversimplify the complex nature of aggression by focusing exclusively on immediate environmental triggers while overlooking broader contextual and individual factors.

DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS

DEMOGRAPHICS OF MALE PRISONERS IN THE UK AND USA

In both the United Kingdom and the United States, the demographics of men in prisons exhibit several similarities

1. Race and Ethnicity: Similar to the US, ethnic minorities, particularly Black and Hispanic individuals, are overrepresented in prisons compared to their proportion in the general population. In the UK, Black and minority ethnic (BAME) groups constitute a disproportionate share of the prison population.

2. Age: The age distribution of incarcerated men varies, but younger individuals are prevalent, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 35. However, older individuals are also serving sentences in both UK and US prisons.

3. Education and Socioeconomic Status: Many incarcerated men in both countries have lower levels of educational attainment and come from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. Limited access to education, employment opportunities, and social support contribute to their involvement in the criminal justice system.

4. Marital Status and Family Background: Similar to the US, a significant portion of incarcerated men in the UK may come from broken families or have experienced familial instability. Many may also be unmarried or have limited support networks outside of prison.

5. Substance Abuse and Mental Health: Substance abuse and mental health issues are prevalent among incarcerated men in both countries. Many struggle with addiction or co-occurring mental health disorders, which often contribute to their involvement in criminal behaviour.

6. Legal History: Both the UK and the US have individuals in prison with a history of prior criminal convictions or involvement with the criminal justice system. Recidivism rates are significant in both countries, indicating a proportion of the prison population has been incarcerated multiple times.

TYPES OF CRIMES

Violent Crimes: Approximately 30% to 50% of incarcerated men in both the UK and US.

• Drug Offenses: Contribute to around 10% to 30% of the prison population.

• Property Crimes: Typically account for 20% to 40% of incarcerated men.

• Weapons Offenses: Generally less than 10% of the total prison population.

• Driving Offenses: Ranges from 5% to 15% of incarcerated men.

• White-Collar Crimes: Usually less than 10% of the prison population.

• Public Order Offenses: Make up about 5% to 20% of incarcerated individuals.

• Probation or Parole Violations: Generally below 10% of the total prison population

Dispositional explanations focus on the prisoners' innate characteristics, personality traits, and backgrounds. This perspective suggests that aggression in prisons is a result of the violent or aggressive tendencies of the inmates, which are brought into the institution. Key points include:

• Importation Model: This theory proposes that inmates import their personal histories and traits into the prison, influencing their behaviour within the institution. Factors such as previous violent behaviour, gang affiliations, or experiences of abuse can increase the likelihood of aggression.

• Personal Characteristics: Attributes such as age, mental health status, and personality disorders are also considered under dispositional explanations, with younger inmates or those with certain psychological issues being more prone to aggressive behaviour.

• Prisoners bring their social histories and traits; they are not blank slates.

• The Model also says that prison subcultures are formed from what inmates bring into the prison. For example, the inmate prison subcultures have special codes, languages, roles, and values based on the characteristics of the inmates rather than the deprivations.

Other examples of what prisoners can and often do bring with them to prison are drug addicts, alcoholics, petty thieves, sex offenders, violent pasts, social problems, mental health issues, uneducated, etc. These personal problems then affect how prisoners adapt to the prison environment. It is not easy to adapt to a place with no drugs or where their violent pasts and lack of education might lead them to resolve anger issues violently.  The norms prisoners develop outside prison get compounded within the fixed limits of the prison, and the prison or institution becomes a “pressure cooker” for aggression. Inmates with values, attitudes, experiences, and social norms that tend towards violent behaviour towards other people will be more likely to engage in interpersonal violence than inmates with less violent personalities and experiences.

RESEARCH

Poole and Regoli's (1983) study focused on juvenile correctional facilities and examined the behaviour of inmates who had a history of violence outside of the prison setting. They found that these individuals were more likely to exhibit violent behaviour within the correctional facility as well. This suggests that certain demographic characteristics and past behaviours of inmates can predispose them to aggression, both inside and outside of prison environments.

Research conducted by Kane and Janus in 1981 in the United States revealed that individuals who experienced prolonged periods of unemployment and had lower levels of education were more prone to engage in aggressive behaviour. This suggests that socioeconomic factors such as unemployment and educational attainment can be associated with an increased likelihood of aggression among certain populations.

Kane and Janus (1981) also noted that younger prisoners exhibited a higher likelihood of engaging in violent behaviour compared to other age groups. This finding suggests that age and testosterone may be a significant factor in determining the propensity for violence among incarcerated individuals.

Toch (1997) further supports this perspective by asserting that "all prisons inherit their subcultural sediments from the street corners that supply them with clients." This statement implies that the subcultures and behavioural norms within prisons are influenced by the backgrounds and experiences of incarcerated individuals, reflecting the environments from which they originated.

This means that individuals bring their aggressive behaviour to each new setting they find themselves in.

Another significant personal characteristic among prison inmates is drug or alcohol dependency. A study conducted in Canada by Mills, Kroner, and Weekes (1998) found that inmates with higher levels of alcohol dependency were associated with greater levels of aggression. This suggests a correlation between substance dependency and aggressive behaviour among incarcerated individuals.

Adams (1981) observed that in American prisons, black inmates were more frequently associated with violent acts compared to white inmates. This observation suggests that there may be a correlation between race and involvement in violent behaviour within the prison environment. One possible explanation for this association is that black prisoners often come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds with higher rates of crime, leading them to bring their cultural norms and behaviours into the prison setting.

Harer and Steffensmeier (1996) conducted research in US prisons and discovered that black inmates exhibited significantly higher levels of aggression compared to white inmates. Conversely, they found that white inmates were more prone to alcohol and drug use than black inmates. The researchers argued that these behavioural patterns reflected the cultural norms prevalent in black and white societies outside of prison, which were then imported into the prison environment.

However, it's important to note that studying black inmates can be socially sensitive, potentially leading to increased scrutiny from guards and affecting the behaviour of both inmates and staff. Additionally, concluding such research can be subjective, and there may be instances where the racism of guards contributes to aggression among inmates.

Research examining the relationship between prisoner classification levels and levels of violence within prisons does exist, but the findings are not entirely consistent. Some studies have found a positive correlation between higher classification levels and increased violence, supporting a dispositional hypothesis. However, other research has yielded mixed results or found no significant association between classification levels and violence.

Furthermore, Irwin and Cressey emphasized the significance of subcultures within prisons, categorizing repeat offenders as members of subcultures such as 'The Convict subculture,' which are more prone to aggression. Conversely, one-time offenders belong to 'The Straight subculture' and are less likely to display aggressive behaviour. This observation supports the theory that inmates choose whether to be aggressive, thereby aligning with the notion of free will in the Importation Model.

DeLisi et al. (2004) conducted a study analyzing the prison records of 831 male inmates in the USA. Their findings revealed a small but significant correlation between gang membership and prison aggression. This suggests that subcultural values associated with gang membership are imported into the prison environment by gang-affiliated inmates.

Keller and Wang (2005) discovered that prison violence is more prevalent in facilities housing higher-security inmates, who are typically individuals convicted of more violent crimes. This finding aligns with the notion that inmates bring violent behaviour into the institution with them, as it suggests a correlation between the nature of their offences and the likelihood of violence within the prison environment.

EVALUATION OF THE DISPOSITIONAL HYPOTHESIS

A significant weakness of the importation model is its inability to predict which inmates will exhibit aggressive behaviour reliably. According to the model, individuals who were part of violent gangs before their incarceration would be more prone to aggression in prison. However, research by DeLisi et al. (2004) found no evidence supporting the notion that gang membership before imprisonment correlates with violence once incarcerated.

NO CAUSE AND EFFECT

One of the primary limitations of this research on institutionalised aggression is its reliance on correlational data, which prohibits the establishment of a direct causal link between personal characteristics and institutional aggression (IA). Correlation does not imply causation, and while certain personal traits may be associated with IA, other factors may be at play.

BIOLOGY MATTERS TOO

While the importation model recognises individual differences and the presence of subcultures within institutions, it does not adequately account for the role of biological mechanisms in aggression. This omission is a significant limitation, as biological factors, such as genetic predispositions and neurochemical imbalances, can also contribute to aggressive behaviour. Thus, while the importation model offers valuable insights into the diversity of inmate backgrounds and cultures, it falls short of fully accounting for the multifaceted nature of aggression, including its biological underpinnings.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The importation model theory has faced criticism for its perceived lack of practical application in reducing aggression within institutions. Critics argue that it fails to provide specific suggestions or policies for managing aggressive prisoners or reducing prison violence in general. However, the theory's proponents contend that it has significant practical applications. For example, understanding inmates' diverse backgrounds and experiences can inform the development of targeted interventions, such as education courses, drug rehabilitation programs, and therapy initiatives tailored to address the specific needs of different inmate populations. By recognizing and addressing the factors that individuals bring into the prison environment, interventions can be more effective in promoting positive behavioural changes and reducing violence within institutions.

NO NURTURE

Alternative approaches to understanding aggression in institutions, such as the deprivation model, often fail to fully acknowledge the role of situational factors in determining aggressive behaviour. By neglecting the impact of situational factors, these approaches may provide an incomplete understanding of aggression within institutional settings, limiting the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing violence and promoting positive outcomes for inmates.

 EVALUATION BOTH MODELS

Research into institutional aggression (IA) predominantly conducted in prisons raises concerns about sample bias because many inmates have previously exhibited a propensity towards aggression, which may not be representative of the general population.

CULTURAL BIAS: NOT ALL PRISONS ARE THE SAME

Another challenge in the research on institutional aggression arises from its cultural bias, particularly in studies conducted in Western, primarily American, prisons. These settings often differ significantly from prisons in other cultures, particularly collectivist societies, where human rights violations are widespread and conditions are harsh. For instance, Nelson Mandela reportedly had only one visitor in six months during his imprisonment. In contrast, UK prisons provide weekly visits, maintain hygienic living conditions, and offer adequate resources such as beds, washing facilities, and nutritious food for prisoners. Therefore, findings from studies in Western prisons may not be directly applicable to other cultural contexts with different prison conditions and treatment practices.

GENDER BIAS

Research on institutional aggression exhibits gender bias as it predominantly centres on interactions within male-dominated populations such as prison inmates or military personnel. Due to this gender skew, extrapolating findings to female populations becomes challenging. However, statistics regarding institutional aggression are not as prevalent in female prisons.

RACE

Racial and ethnic tensions are prevalent in prisons, with studies indicating that around 50% of US state prison officials have reported racial conflicts among inmates (Knox et al., 1996). These tensions have been implicated in creating racial divides among inmates, leading to increased inmate assaults and even full-scale riots in some facilities. This phenomenon can be seen as supporting both the importation and deprivation models of institutional aggression. Racial prejudice, which contributes to these tensions, can be considered a dispositional factor. However, the situation of finding oneself among a racial group they are prejudiced against can also be viewed as a situational factor contributing to aggression.

APPLICABILITY TO SCHOOLS

Different types of institutions, such as schools and prisons, may not fit neatly into the same aggression theories. For instance, while some aspects of theories like the importation model may apply to schools, where peer influence and academic stressors play a role, they might not fully capture the dynamics of aggression in such environments. Similarly, the deprivation model, which focuses on the lack of basic needs in prisons, may not directly translate to schools where different factors like bullying or competition may drive aggression. In essence, the theories need to be considered about the specific context of each institution.

APPLIED TO THE MILITARY

Both aspects of the Importation model and Deprivation model, along with deindividuation, have been invoked to explain the excesses within Abu Ghraib, a US military base prison used to interrogate insurgents during the Iraq war. According to the Importation model, the individual characteristics and backgrounds of the soldiers involved in the abuses, including their prior experiences, attitudes, and predispositions, would have influenced their behaviour within the prison environment. On the other hand, the Deprivation model suggests that the harsh conditions and stressful environment of Abu Ghraib, including overcrowding, lack of oversight, and the intense pressure to extract information from detainees, may have contributed to the escalation of aggression among the soldiers. For instance, in the case of the Abu Ghraib abuse, American General Myers referred to the perpetrators as "a few bad apples." However, proponents of theories like Zimbardo's would argue that the institutional environment significantly facilitated such extreme acts of aggression.

While some researchers suggest that incidents like the Abu Ghraib abuse were the result of individual misconduct rather than systemic factors, others argue that the institutional context and situational pressures may have contributed to the behaviour. Further exploration of this topic is recommended to gain a comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes of institutional aggression in such contexts.

Other examples of institutional aggression can be observed in various settings, with recent attention drawn to cases involving law enforcement agencies such as the police and military services. Incidents such as the Metropolitan Police's use of aggressive tactics during the G8 summit demonstrations and the abuse of prisoners by American and British soldiers in Iraq have garnered widespread attention. In both scenarios, the institutions involved have attempted to distance themselves from the abuse by attributing it to the actions of a few individuals.

The importation model of institutional aggression considers both the underlying personality of the individuals within an institution as well as their pre-prison environment. In contrast, the deprivation model only focuses on an individual's environment. This reflects a broader psychological debate, the nature-nurture debate, which explores the relative influence of genetic predispositions (nature) versus environmental factors (nurture) on human behaviour and development.

COMBINED PERSPECTIVE

In conclusion, it is probable that both the situational and the dispositional models are needed to explain IA and that single explanations are too simplistic to explain this complex human behaviour. It is possible that both models have something about them, and it could be that violence should be viewed as the product of many interacting sets of variables; institutional aggression in prisons likely involves a combination of both. The interaction between individual characteristics and environmental factors plays a crucial role in manifesting aggression. For instance, an individual's predisposition to aggression might be exacerbated by the stressful conditions of prison life, or conversely, the prison environment might trigger aggressive behaviours in individuals who would not typically exhibit such tendencies outside of this context.

Paterline and Peterson's (1999) study explored the concepts of privatization and adjustment to incarceration, considering both the importation and deprivation models. They found that the harsh conditions of prison life, such as overcrowding and harsh treatment, have a significant impact on inmate adjustment, often outweighing the influence of external attitudes and behaviours brought from outside.

Similarly, research by Shanhe Jiang and Marianne Fisher-Giorlando evaluated the deprivation, importation, and situational models in explaining violent incidents within prisons. Their findings indicated that all three models contribute to understanding different aspects of institutional aggression, with situational factors emerging as particularly influential overall.

Additionally, the study by Mears et al. (1999) highlighted the importance of integrating multiple factors, including personality traits and perceived distress, in explaining inmate adjustment to incarceration. They found that a combined model incorporating both importation and deprivation factors provided a more accurate understanding of inmate behaviour than either model alone.

In summary, recognizing the complex interplay between dispositional and situational factors is essential for understanding and addressing institutional aggression in prison settings. By considering a comprehensive range of influences, including environmental conditions and individual characteristics, strategies can be developed to manage and reduce aggression within prisons effectively.