Institutional aggression refers to aggression within or between groups or institutions. Much of the research on models of institutional aggression has been done in prison environments. The importation model was introduced by IRWIM ET AL which suggests that inmates in prison bring their traits into prison with them. This influences their adaption into the prison environment. People who were more aggressive outside of prison will be more aggressive in prison.
Prisoners may also be affected by living in a subculture were aggression is valued, respected and reinforced, which has led them to be aggressice in many different context. IRWIN ET AL recognised the importance of prisoner subcultures and identified three different categories. THE CRIMINAL OR THIEF SUBCULTURE: Follow the norms associated with being a thief or criminal. Values such as not betraying each other or being trustworthy amongst other criminals are important. Refer to fellow thieves in prison as primary reference group. THE CONVICT SUBCULTURE: Have been raised in prison system. Look for positions of power or influence within the system. Primary reference system is fellow convicts. This group are most likely to turn to aggression. Influenced by deprivation prior to being imprisoned and bring values of that subculture inside with them. THE CONVENTIONAL OR ‘STRAIGHT’ SUBCULTURE: Tend to be one-time offenders. Weren’t part of a criminal subculture before going inside. Rejects both other groups within prison and identify more with prison officers and staff. Tend not to be very aggressive whilst in prison.
CHEESEMAN found that much of the aggressive behaviour acted out in the prison institution is not particular to that institution, but was acted out in wider society by the same individuals. Prisoners bring with them a model of behaviour, which they simply apply to their new institutional setting.
This model is supported by DELIS ET AL who found that there was a relationship between gang membership and prison aggression, suggesting that sub cultural values had been imported into prisons by gang members. They also found that other factors such as race, had a significant influence.
A strength of the importation model is that it considers the influence of subcultures within prison institutions, rather than viewing all inmates as solely influenced by one common set of values. The model can therefore been seen as less of a reductionist and less deterministic.
Most studies only had male participants and therefore is gender biased and may not be representable to the wider population. Most of the studies also took place in America and therefore is culture biased. The model may not be supported in non-western cultures.
Hazing is a form of institutional aggression in which more senior members of a group inflict physical and/or psychological damage on newer group members as part of an initiation ritual. Hazing is a long-standing tradition which senior members of a group are expected to perform, creating social pressure for them and creating the perception that hazing is acceptable. It may also be a display of male toughness in some cultures, used to express dominance over other group members.
Research has supported the idea that hazing is used to establish dominance within groups. McCORKLE found that in prisons, the dominance of weaker inmates were seen as essential to maintaining status, with passive behaviour being interpreted as weakness.
However, problems arise in determining what is and what is not considered ‘aggressive behaviour’ in this area. For example, many people who are exposed to hazing regard it as nothing more than harmless fun. This is a limitation as hazing may not be related to aggression at all.
There is also a significant gender bias in research into hazing. Research suggests that hazing is likely to be caused by notions of male toughness: however, this ignores hazing carried out by females. Hazing by females is often carried out differently to hazing by males, with females more likely to use psychological hazing.
The deprivation model suggests that aggression in prisons and other institutions is the product of the stressful and oppressive conditions of the institution itself. For example, aggression in prisons can be catalysed by deprivation of liberty, lack of autonomy, lack of goods or services. HODGKINSON ET AL found that trainee nurses were subject to more assault and aggressive behaviour than experiences nurses. This is because firstly they did not know the trainee nurses and wanted to be cared for by people they know. Secondly, the prisoners felt it was the trainee nurses fault of the conditions they had to endure as they were new.
CHEESEMAN supported this model, finding that aggression in prisons was often used to reduce stress, rather than for any real goals. This supports the idea that deprivation creates stress, which in turn creates violence. JOHNSON found that prison overcrowding led to an increase in aggression due to competition for resources. Supports model. JIANG studied 431 reports from US men’s prisons and found that the deprivation model was the best at explaining violence against prison staff.
Much prison aggression has unexplained motives, making it difficult to conduct research and draw conclusions. For example, LIGHT reported that 25% of prison assaults had no apparent reason. However, this may be because prisoners often attempt to hide their motives behind aggressive actions (GOFFMAN)
McCORKLE ET AL found that overcrowding, lack of privacy and the lack of meaningful activity in prisons all signigicantly influence violence. However, these factors did not influence the likelihood of major collective acts of aggression such as prison riots, suggesting that the deprivation model may only apply to some forms of aggression.
Aggression in prisons can be controlled by improving conditions, showing that deprivation can increase aggression. For example WILSON changed the deprivation conditions at HMP Woodhill and levels of violence decreased, giving support to the deprivation model. This also presents a useful application of this research: it can be used to reduce levels of violence in prisons by improving living conditions in those prisons.
Just as the deprivation model may not apply to all forms of aggression, it may also not apply to all types of institutions. NIJMAN ET AL found that increased personal space in psychiatric institutions failed to decrease the amount of violence among patients. This suggests that while the deprivation model may be applicable to prison environments, it may not be relevant to violence within psychiatric institutions.