Institutional Aggression

HideShow resource information

Institutional Aggression within Groups: Prison

THE IMPORTATION MODEL

INTERPERSONAL FACTORS

  • Irwin and Cressey - prisoners bring own social histories + traits into prison - influences their adaptation to prison environment.
  •  - Prisoners = not 'blank slate' when enter prison
  •  - Many of normative systems developed on outside = imported into prison

GANG MEMBERSHIP

  • In prison evironments - gang membership related to antisocial behaviour (violence)
  • Gang members disproportionately engaged in acts of prison violence
  • Pre-prison gang membership = important factor in prison misconduct.
  • Street gang members = high level offenders than non-members
  • Huff - US gang members = 10x more likely to commit murder + 3x more likely to assault someone
1 of 7

Institutional Aggression within Groups: Prison P2

THE DEPRIVATION MODEL

SITUATIONAL FACTORS 

  • Prisoner's aggression product of stressful + oppressive conditions of institution
  • Conditions = crowding, increase fear + frustration levels, staff experience and length of service.
  • Hodgkinson et al. - trainee nurses - more likely suffer assault than experienced nurses.
  • More experienced officers = less likely suffer assault.

THE 'PAINS OF IMPRISONMENT'

  • Sykes - Specific deprivations of inmate maybe linked to increase in violence
  • Deprivations = loss of liberty, autonomy + security
  • Potential threat to personal security - increased anxiety levels even there isn't significant threat.
  • Cope with pain of imprisonment differently
  • - Withdraw through seclusion in their cell
  • - Rebel in form of violence against prisoners/staff
2 of 7

Institutional Aggression within Groups: Prison Eva

THE IMPORTATION MODEL:

  • Some research support - indiviudual factors (age, education level, race)
  • Harer + Steffensmeiser -  data from 58 US prisons
  •  - black inmates = signifcantly higher violent behaviour rating
  • = Low alcohol/drug related misconduct rates
  • Patterns parallel racial differences in behaviours in US society = supporting

GANG MEMBERSHIP

  • DeLisi et al. - challenges pre-prison gang membership leads to violence in prison
  • Inmates w/ prior street gang interaction = no more likely to engange in prison violence
  • Lack of correlation b/c violent gang member isolated from general inmate population - restrict opportunity for violence
  • Fischer - Isolating known gang members in special unit reduces rate of serious assault by 50%
3 of 7

Institutional Aggression within Groups: Prison Eva

THE DEPRIVATION MODEL

  • Evidence to support peer violence used to relieve deprivation from prison
  • McCorkle et al. - overcrowding, lack of privacy/meaningful activity = signif. influence peer violence.
  • However, not consistent in findings
  • Research in psychiactric institutions - increased personal space didn't decrease level of violent incidents among patients.

COMBINING DEPRIVATION AND IMPORTATION MODELS

  • Jiang and Fischer-Giorlando - support for both models as prison violence explanation.
  • Deprivation model - better explains violence against staff
  • Importation model - better explains violence against inmates
  • Poole + Regoli - challenges deprivation model
  • Best indicator of violence among juvenile offenders = pre-institutional violence regardless of situational factors  in institution.
4 of 7

Institutional Aggression within Groups: Genocide

STAGES IN PROCESS OF GENOCIDE (STAUB):

  • 1. Difficult social conditions
  • 2.  Scapegoating of a less powerful group
  • 3. Negative evaluation + dehumanisation of target froup
  • 4. Moral values + rules becoming inapplicable. Killing begins
  • 5. Passivity of bystanders (UN) enhances process

DEHUMANISATION:

  • Moral inhibitions about killing humans changes if target group = dehumanised
  • Humans --->worthless animals ----> not worthy of moral consideration
  • Rwandan Genocide - Hutus reffered to Tutsi as cockroaches

OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY (Milgram)

  • Holocaust result of situational pressures force Nazi soldiers obey leaders regardless
  • Argued so many particapants able to give painful shock to victim b/c authority figure said so, Nazi regime = no problem making soldiers kill innocent poeple.
5 of 7

Institutional Aggression within Groups: Genocide E

IMPORTANCE OF BYSTANDERS

  • Bystander intervention doesn't always end institutional aggression
  • Important difference - the effect of  intervention on duration + severity of violence
  • International/civil conflict - intervention by outside agencies (UN) can shorten conflict BUT it can also hasten perpetrators to step up genocidal policy within that period of time
  • Rwandan genocide - 800,000 died in 100 days.

DEHUMANISATION - REAL WORLD APPLICATION

  • Explain violence against immigrants
  • Personality  = important role  - Social dominance orientation (SDO)
  • High SDO qualities  = endorse social hierachy, see world as competitive jungle
  • High SDO - dehumanise outgroup members (foreign refugees)
  • Media depiction of refugees  causes greater contempt + lack of sympathy for refugees in high SDO people
  • Negative attitudes --->rationalised through legitmising myths -----> Indicator to high SDO ppl. these groups deserve hostility  = lesser humans


6 of 7

Institutional Aggression between Groups: Genocide

OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY

  • Mandel - rejects Milgrim's claim (obedience to authority = sufficient to explain Holocaust behaviour)
  • Milgrim's account  = Monocausal + doesn't match historical record
  • Goldhagen - main causal factor = form of anti-Semitism deeply entrenched in Germans ---> Implicitly condoned eliminatiob of innocent Jews.
7 of 7

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Aggression resources »