Irwin & Cressey (1962) proposed the importation model. This explanation focuses on the personality
characteristics that prison inmates take into the prison with them. For example inmates with values,
attitudes, experiences, and social norms that tend towards violent behaviour towards other people
will be more likely to engage in interpersonal violence than inmates with less violent personalities
and experiences.
Often it is younger inmates that tend to behave violently as they are more likely to find it harder to
adjust to prison life, and may therefore engage in more conflicts with others, and are more likely to
view aggression as an appropriate way of dealing with conflict.
This model argues therefore that it is not the situational pressures of the prison (or other institution)
that causes aggression, but rather the personalities of the individuals within it.
Irwin & Cressey recognised the importance of the prisoner subcultures and identified three different
categories:
The criminal subculture: the prisoners follow the norms associated with being a thief or criminal.
Prisoners act according to values of this subculture such as not betraying each other or being
trustworthy amongst other criminals.
The convict subculture: The prisoners have been raised in a prison system, they look for positions
of power or influence within the system. This group is most likely to turn to aggression. They are
influenced by deprivation prior to being imprisoned and bring values of that subculture inside with
them.
The 'straight' subculture: They tend to be one-time offenders and were not part of a criminal
subculture before going inside. They reject both other groups within prison and identify more with
prison officers and staff. They tend not to be very aggressive whilst in prison.
Adams (1981) found that in American prisons, black inmates were more likely to be associated with
violent acts than white inmates. The argument for this is that black prisoners tended to come from
poorer backgrounds with higher rates of crime, and so imported their cultural norms into the prison.
Poole and Regoli (1983) found that pre-institutional violence was a good predictor of aggression in
juvenile correction institutions.
Keller and Wang (2005) found that prison violence is more likely to occur in facilities with highersecurity (and therefore who had committed more violent crimes) inmates, than those with lower
security inmates, again supporting the idea that the inmates had brought violent behaviour into the
institution with them.
This model does not take into account situational factors such as the fact that the inmates might be
frustrated by the lack of freedom, choice and family relationships.
This model does not take into account factors like racism which could act as a trigger for violent
behaviour.
Furthermore aggressive behaviour in prisons could be due to the fact that the inmates feel unsafe,
showing aggression could be a strategy to ward off other prisoners therefore an attempt on their
part to feel secure.
This model does not take into account the influence of mental health problems and addiction to
drugs and alcohol. MIND, charity for people with mental disorders, found that over 70% of the
prison population has mental health problem or addiction problems, this in itself could be the cause
of violent behaviour in the institutions. This is supported by the fact that in the UK the rate of suicide
in the population is fourteen times higher than in the rest of the population.
Unlike the importation model, the deprivation model argues that it is the situation inmates find
themselves in within the prison that causes violent behaviour.
This suggests that members of institutions, such as inmates within a prison, are deprived of things
such as freedom, home comforts, and social networks, and that this deprivation causes frustration
that in turn leads to violent behaviour towards other inmates, the building itself, and staff. The
model is an extension of the frustration-aggression hypothesis.
Harer and Steffensmeier (1996) suggest that inmates behave in a way that is caused by the
difficulties they have adjusting to the ‘pains of imprisonment’. The ‘pains of imprisonment’ include
loss of freedom, loss of heterosexual relationships, and isolation from the community, boredom,
discomfort and loneliness. An example of this is that when prisons are overcrowded, there is a
greater loss of comfort and personal space, which in turn leads to higher levels of interpersonal
violence.
McCorkle et al (1995) sampled 371 US prisons and found that stress among inmates, such as feelings
of loneliness and isolation, are relatively constant among inmates in all prisons, whereas serious
outbreaks of violence such as riots are actually relatively isolated. They argue that the way a prison
is managed is a greater predictor of serious violence than overcrowding and stress among inmates.
Situational factors can be applied to the Abu Ghraib jail where Iraqi prisoners were tortured,
ridiculed and dehumanised by American soldiers. These soldiers had not had any training for their
role and the instructions given by their superior seem to have been vague and contradictory. The
importance of the situational factors was recognised by the judge in this case and some high ranking
people lost their job as a result.
This model does not account for the influence of social identity for example in Zimbardo’s Stanford
prison experiment the results could be better explained as a in-group out-group (them and us)
situation where the guards identified to their group and saw the prisoners as the out-group and
acted accordingly.
These models do not take into account deindividuation. In large institutions such as prison there are
large number of people, both the prisoners and the guards wear uniforms so are difficult to identify
this leads to a loss of inhibition and personal responsibility which in turn make it more likely that
aggression will be expressed. This is the case in normal prison but it was very obvious in Abu Ghraib
where the prisoners had bags placed over their heads. However, deindividuation is more likely to
be a facilitating factor rather than the cause of aggression.
When exposed in the media, a dispositional explanation is commonly offered but this is often a case
of scapegoating and does not lead to change whereas a more in depth analysis taking into account
the problems of the institution is more likely to lead to change and prevent further incidents of
violence.