Institutional Aggression - Revision/Essay

Discuss psychological explanations of institutional aggression (8+16marks)

done without notes - information may be wrong or vague....

One type of institutional aggression occurs within groups in prisons. There are many theories as to why aggression in prisons occurs.
One theory is the Importation Model. Irwin + Cressey 1962 state that prisoners bring their social histories and personality traits into prison with them, meaning that they are not blank slates when they enter the institution. Allender + Marcell state that pre-prison gang membership is a significant predeterminate of aggressive conduct whilst in prison. Research from Huff 2008 shows that if you are a gang member, you are 10x more likely to committ murder and 3x more likely to assault someone in public. Therefore if you are violent as part of a gang outside of prison, you will also be violent in prison, showing how insitutional aggression is caused by importation.

However, the Deprivation Model suggests that it is not the individual's traits that have been imported that causes instituional aggression, it is the oppressive and stressful conditions of the institution that result in aggressive conduct. For example, psychologists suggests that lack of autonomy, lack of liberty and lack of privacy all contribute significantly to aggression towards prison staff and peers. Zimbardo echoes this idea by stating that it is not the bad apple that causes it to rot, it is the bad barrel where the apples are contained in. Factors such as temperature, noise and space all affect the level of aggression seen in prisons.

A type of insitutional aggression that occurs between groups is genocide. Staub 1999 outlines the stages of genocide.
1) difficult social conditions leading to
2) scapegoating of a vulnerable social group
3) dehumanisation and devaluation of the group occurs
4) moral considerations are not applicable as the group aren't considered human
5) presence of bystanders allow killing to occur
These stages can be identified in genocide cases such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The Hutu tribe spoke about the Tutsi people as 'cockroaches' on hate radio - this is an example of dehumanisation. Milgram uses obedience to authority to explain the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis in the second world war.

There is research support for the importation model. Harer + Steffensmeier found that in prisons, black inmates were generally more violent than white inmates but white inmates had more issues with drugs and alcohol. These findings parallel findings in society outside of prison, suggesting that personalities and violent traits are indeed imported into prison because prison statistics mirror statistics of society. Therefore the importation model is a good explanation on institutional aggression in prisons.

There is further support for the importation model from Poole + Rigole who state that the best predictor of violence in prison in juvenile criminals is the extent of violence they showed before they got convicted. This clearly supports the importation model and discredits the deprivation model by suggesting that the environment of a prison makes no real effect on aggression whatsoever. Therefore the importation model may be superior to the deprivation model in explaining institutional aggression in prisons.

However, the deprivation model does have real world application. David Woodhill worked in HMP Woodhill for an experiment. He created a unit in which there was classical music, increased space for inmates and where the temperature was not stifling hot. The reduction of deprivations virtually eradicated aggression towards staff and other inmates. This clearly indicates that deprivations are strongly linked with aggression conduct in prisons. However due to political pressure arguing that criminals should not be treated so well, the unit was closed down shortly afterwards.

Despite this support for the deprivation model, Nijman 2008 found that in psychiatric hospitals, increased space and decreased temperature had no effect on the level of aggression shown, suggesting that deprivations do not cause aggression. However it is difficult to apply these findings because there are major differences between inmates of psychiatric units and ordinary prisons. Therefore whilst deprivations may not cause aggression in psychiatric institutions, it may still apply to prisons.

A positive criticism of both the importation and the deprivation model is that it can fully explain institutional aggression when used together. Jiang + Giorlando state that the importation model can explain aggression towards other inmates and the deprivation model explains aggression towards prison staff. Therefore this shows that when combined, the two models provide a comprehensive explanation of the types of aggression that occur in prisons.

However, research does contradict the importation model by opposing the theory of gang membership. Research suggests that pre-prison gang membership does not make you any more likely to act aggressively in prison than those who were not part of a gang prior to being convicted. This clearly suggests that the importation model is limited in its explanation of institutional aggression, implying the deprivation model is better.

However these findings can be explained by the fact that the prison's most violent inmates are often kept in isolation away from other inmates to reduce aggression. Fischer found that this reduces aggressoin by up to 50%. Therefore whilst pre-prison gang membership may make you more violent in prison through the importation model, prisons recognise this and are able to combat it by introducing isolation for most violent inmates.

Finally, there are issues with Staub's 1999 stages of genocide. In the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the intervention of bystanders (the UN) actually hastened the perpetrators in their killing, resulting in 8000 deaths per day for 100 days. Similarly, Milgram's explanation of the holocaust as a result of obedience is very limited. It ignores the fact that by the second world war, anti-semitism was an engrained policy in the mind of many germans, and that aspects of the holocaust were a result of the genuine belief that the Jews were 'untermenschen' or 'sub-human'. This therefore shows that with genocide, there are many political and ideological factors that contribute to the mass killing of a social group.