Outline and evaluate explanations of institutional aggression
by
kateyandlegmailcom (student)
Outline and evaluate explanations of institutional aggression:
The Importation Model claims that some people who enter prison do so already possessing certain characteristics (i.e values, attitudes and experiences) that predispose them toward interpersonal violence within prisons. Cheeseman (2003) said that said that men in prison have a certain way of behaving and that they apply that behaviour to that new institutional setting, leading to institutional aggression. Therefore according to this explanation of institutional aggression, interpersonal violence is not a product of the institution itself but rather of the characteristics of those violent individuals who enter such institutions. This is summarised by Toch (1997) who stated “All prisoners inherit their sub cultural sediments from the street corners that supply them with clients”. Statistics suggest that young inmates have a more difficult time adjusting to prison; therefore they are more likely to have confrontations with other inmates and with prison staff, and are more likely to view violence as an appropriate way to deal with conflicts within prison. Research in the USA has shown that Black inmates are more likely to be associated with interpersonal violence than White inmates. This model argues that this is due to the fact Black prisoners enter prison from impoverished communities with higher rates of violent crime. As a result they are more likely to bring into prison the cultural norms that condone their violent behaviour.
The Deprivation model claims that it is the characteristic of the prison itself rather than the prison population that accounts for violence in prisons. Proponents of this model argue that it is primarily the experience of imprisonment that causes extreme stress and frustration for inmates and this, in turn, leads to violence against other inmates or members of prison staff. Sykes (1958) commented on those factors that are part of the prison experience for inmates and that might be expected to contribute to interpersonal violence as a response. They include liberty, autonomy, services, heterosexual relationships and security. Social ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The Deprivation model claims that it is the characteristic of the prison itself rather than the prison population that accounts for violence in prisons. Proponents of this model argue that it is primarily the experience of imprisonment that causes extreme stress and frustration for inmates and this, in turn, leads to violence against other inmates or members of prison staff. Sykes (1958) commented on those factors that are part of the prison experience for inmates and that might be expected to contribute to interpersonal violence as a response. They include liberty, autonomy, services, heterosexual relationships and security. Social psychological research also suggests that other factors that are a common part of the prison experience would also be more likely to contribute to violence among inmates. These include heat, noise and overcrowding. For example, the crisis in UK prisons has forced many inmates to share cells and this is linked to an increase in interpersonal violence.
Lastly, dehumanisation is used to explain institutional aggression between groups. Zimbardo (2007) argues that people are more likely to be aggressive when they dehumanise or label others in a way that removes the moral constraints that usually inhibit violent behaviour against other human beings. For example, in an experiment by Bandura et al (1975) participants overheard an assistant refer to students from another school as ‘animals’, while in another condition, these students were referred to as ‘nice’. When later required to deliver what they thought were real electric shocks to the other students, higher shocks were given in the ‘animal’ condition. Institional aggression resulting from dehumanisation is evident in real-life conflicts as well. For instance the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the influential Hutu-controlled ‘hate radio’ station RTLM encouraged other Hutus to turn against their Tutsi neighbours by referring to them as ‘inyenzi’ (cockroaches).
The Importation Model and The Deprivation Model are arguably deterministic. The former states that people who enter prison will bring aggressive characteristics in with them, leading to the institutional aggression. The model claims that membership of a gang prior to confinement will increase chances of violence. The model therefore does not take into account an individual’s free will or choice, making it deterministic. However, research by DeLisi et al. (2005) shows the importation model to be wrong to be so deterministic. DeLisi et al found no evidence that being in a gang before hand had any effect. To add, not everyone who enters prison does so for a violent crime and not everyone is aggressive whilst in prison which highlights further how this model is too deterministic as clearly free will is involved. In addition, The Deprivation Model is deterministic. This model suggests that prisoners’ behaviour is influenced by factors beyond their immediate control or input, which overlooks the role of free-will and decision-making. This model is arguably wrong to be so deterministic as research implies that prisoners might exert a degree of choice as to whether to display aggression. For instance, McCorkle et al. (95) demonstrated that there was little evidence to support the link between overcrowding and violence, which would imply that forms of deprivation do not necessarily lead to aggression. In fact despite constant deprivation, the researchers reported that riots were in fact rare. Therefore, the deprivation model’s assumption that the hardship of prison life leads to aggression is too deterministic, as research has shown that prisoners do have some choice as to whether to act aggressively.
Explanations of institutional aggression are reductionist. Each model on its own focuses on only one factor that results in institutional aggression therefore making it too simplistic due it overlooking other important factors. Keller and Wang’s study demonstrates this idea effectively. Keller and Wang (2005) found that there were more assaults on staff in maximum-security prisons than lower security prisons. These findings could be attributed to the fact that in maximum-security prisons the prisoners are the most dangerous who have committed the worst crimes and therefore the importation model could account for the increase in violence. Yet on the other hand Keller and Wang’s findings could also be explained by The Deprivation Model. Being a Maximum-security prison, prisoners would have much less freedom and autonomy, which could result in higher levels of frustration that would then lead to institutional aggression. Therefore by focusing on one model to explain Keller and Wang’s findings of institutional aggression other equally important and valid explanations are being overlooked, making it reductionist.
The dehumanisation explanation of institutional aggression is arguably nurture based. It could be argued that it is due to the experience of being in a war that leads to the dehumanisation of whole groups of people, which would clearly highlight the element of nurture in dehumanisation. Yet, on the other hand it could be argued that dehumanisation is a product of evolution, which would therefore make it nature based. From the in-group vs. out-group evolutionary explanation of aggression, it can be seen that forming groups that act aggressively towards unfamiliar, different out-groups is an adaptive response. Dehumanisation can relate to this, as by forming the idea of “us” and “them” this could lead to whole groups making derogatory, negative comments about entire groups in order to distinguish that group from them. Therefore the dehumanisation explanation of institutional aggression could be either nature based or nurture based as a strong argument is presented for both sides.