Blog

Institutional Aggression

  • THE IMPORTATION MODEL- Interpersonal Factors and Gang Membership
  • Irwin and Cressey (1962) claim that prisoners are not blank slates when they enter prison, they bring in their social histories and personal traits. Allender and Marcell (2003) have found that gang members account for a large number of crimes and also that members of gangs offend at a higher levels that their non- gang counterparts.
  • THE DEPRIVATION MODEL
  • This model argues that prisoner aggression is the product of the conditions that they are in whilst in prison. The main factors were crowding, lack of space and staff experience. Hodgkinson et al (1985) found that trainee nurses are more likely to suffer violent assault than the experienced nurses. Similar results were found in prisons, Davies and Burgess (1988).
  • Evaluation:
  • There is substantial research evidence to support the claim that peer violence brings relief for the deprivation felt in prisons. McCorkle et al (1995) found that overcrowding, lack of privacy and the lack of meaningful activity all significantly influence peer violence. However, research is inconsistent in its findings. For example Nijman et al (1999) found that increased personal space didn’t decrease the level of violent incidents among patients.
  • There is research support for the importation model as an explanation of institutional aggression. For example, Harver and Steffensmeier (2006) collected data from 58 prisons and found that black inmates had high rates of violent behaviour but low rates of alcohol and dug related misconduct than white inmates. However, a drawback to the theory is that most of the research of this nature conducted takes place in the US which make mean that the findings are not generalisable as they may not be applicable to the rest of the world.
  • A benefit of the conducted research is that there are real world applications as they can use the findings to reduce aggression in prisons, as they are aware of some of the possible causing factors. The deprivation model was used at HMP Woodhill (1990s) where David Wilson proposed that if violence occurs under hot, noisy and overcrowded conditions, then by reducing these factors, the violent behaviour will decrease. He created two units for prisoners that were the opposite to the violence causing conditions. Despite the findings that these conditions virtually stopped assault of staff, political pressure meant that they changes weren’t put into place. (Wilson, 2010)

Institutional Aggression- Prisons

Essay Plan (4 + 8)

AO1

  • Importation model: Interpersonal factors. Irwin & Cressey (1962) claim prisoners aren’t ‘blank slates’. Bring social histories and traits. Influences actions in prison.
  • Gang membership factors: Allender and Marcell (2003)- gang members account for large number of the crimes. Huff (1998): members 10x more likely to commit a murder, 3x more likely to assault someone.
  • Deprivation model: Prisoner aggression is due to the conditions. Crowding, lack of space and staff experience.

AO2

P: Research support for the importation model.

E: Harver and Steffensmeier (2006): data from 58 prisons, black inmates had high rates of violence but low rates of alcohol and drug misconduct.

E: However, drawback is that the majority of research is in the US, may not generalisable to the rest of the world.

P: Support for the claim that violence brings relief.

E: McCorkle et al (1995): overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity influence peer violence.

E: However, research findings are inconsistent. Nijman et al (1999): increased personal space didn’t decrease level of violent incidents.

P: Real world application (IDA)

E: Can reduce aggression if they know the causing factors.

E: The deprivation model was used at HMP Woodhill (1990s) by David Wilson: reduced the factors that cause aggression. Used 2 units that were the opposite and found that violence virtually stopped.

E: However, political pressure meant that the changes weren’t put into place. (Wilson 2010)

  • GENOCIDE
  • Stages in the process of genocide: Staub (1999)
  1. Difficult social conditions, leading to…
  2. Scapegoating of a less powerful group, leading to..
  3. Negative evaluation and dehumanisation of the target group leading to..
  4. Moral values and rules becoming inapplicable, and the killing begins
  5. The passivity of bystanders (such as the UN) enhances the process.
  • Dehumanisation (elaboration of 3)
  • Moral inhibitions about killing fellow humans may change if the target group becomes dehumanised. They aren’t seen as individuals but more like animals (worthless) and undeserving of any moral consideration. For example, on a hate radio station, Hutu’s encouraged fellow Hutus to kill their Tutsi neighbours by referring to them as “cockroaches”, dehumanising them.
  • Evaluation:
  • There is research support for the concept of dehumanisation as an explanation of genocide. Using the example of the Rwandan genocide, on a hate radio station, Hutu’s encouraged fellow Hutus to kill their Tutsi neighbours by referring to them as “cockroaches”, dehumanising them. The theory can also explain the modern day problem of violence towards immigrants. Research suggests that personality may play an important role, specifically social dominance orientation (SDO) which is a personality variable which predicts social and political attitudes. People who are high in SDO endorse social hierarchies. Esses et al (2008) has demonstrated that individuals high in SDO have a tendency to dehumanise out-group members, therefore the poor media portrayal of refugees may cause greater contempt in higher SDO individuals and result in poor treatment of them.
  • There is supporting research for the importance of bystanders which Staubs model emphasises as an important role in genocide. By doing nothing, it appears that this just allows the killing to continue or possibly even escalate. However, bystander intervention does not necessarily mean an end to the aggression, as there is an important difference between the effect on duration and the effect on severity. For example, in international conflict, although a intervention can shorten it, it can cause the group to step up their genocidal policy in that time. This was evident in the Rwandan genocide, 800,000 people died in just 100 days. This equates to 8,000 death per day.

Institutional Aggression between Groups: Genocide

Essay Plan (4 & 8)

AO1

  • Staub (1999) – Process of Genocide
  • Difficult social conditions, scapegoating, moral values becoming inapplicable, passivity of bystanders.
  • Dehumanisation, moral inhibitions removed when dehumanised
  • Hutu hate station, referred to Tutsi as cockroaches
  • Milgram: Holocaust was a result of situational pressures from Nazi leaders

AO2

P: Support for dehumanisation & Real world application

E: Rwandan genocide: Hutu radio station

E: Can explain modern day problem: Immigrants treatment (RW application)

E: Social Dominance Orientation. High in SDO, likely to endorse hierarchy

E: Esses et al (2008): those high in SDO have a tendency to dehumanise out-group members, as well as poor media portrayal, contributes to the poor treatment.

P: Research support for the importance of bystanders

E: Staubs model emphasises its importance, doing nothing can result in escalation.

E: However, doesn’t always result in an end. Difference in effect on duration and severity.

E: E.g. Rwandan genocide: 800,000 people died in 100 days

Shows that the international intervention influenced duration, it caused them to step up on severity.