Evaluation of Dispositional & Situational

Q: Research Support for the Dispositional Explanation

__Camp and Gaes (2005)__ concluded that features of the prison environment are significantly less important predictors of aggressive behaviour than characteristics of inmates.

Q: Research Support for the Situational Explanation

__Dilulio (1991)__ proposed the administrative control model (ACM) which predicts that poorly managed prisons are more likely to experience the most serious forms of inmate violence. __Cunningham et al. (2010)__ support the deprivation model.

Test yourself on Evaluation of Dispositional & Situational

After reading these notes, test your knowledge with free interactive questions on Seneca — used by over 10 million students.

Research Support for the Dispositional Explanation

Camp and Gaes (2005) concluded that features of the prison environment are significantly less important predictors of aggressive behaviour than characteristics of inmates.

Method

Camp and Gaes (2005) studied at 561 male inmates with similar criminal histories and predisposition to aggression.
Half were placed in low security Californian prisons.
The other half in the second highest category of prisons.

Results

33% of prisoners in a low security prisons and 36% in the higher category prisons were involved in aggressive misconduct within two years.
This is a difference that was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The researchers concluded that features of the prison environment are significantly less important predictors of aggressive behaviour than characteristics of inmates.
They therefore support the dispositional approach.

Evaluation

This is strong evidence because the study is a field experiment with a random allocation of inmates in prisons of different security levels.
This allows more valid conclusions than correlation studies or natural experiments.

Research Support for the Situational Explanation

Dilulio (1991) proposed the administrative control model (ACM) which predicts that poorly managed prisons are more likely to experience the most serious forms of inmate violence. Cunningham et al. (2010) support the deprivation model.

ACM

Dilulio (1991) claims that the importation model is an inadequate explanation of aggression because it ignores the roles of prison officials and factors relating to the running of the prison.
He proposed the administrative control model (ACM).
This states that poorly managed prisons are more likely to experience the most serious forms of inmate violence, including homicides and rioting.

Environmental factors

Poor management is characterised by several factors including:
- Weak and indecisive leadership,
- A thriving culture of informal and unofficial rules,
- Staff who remain distant from inmates,
- Few opportunities for education.

Situational approach

According to the ACM, these factors are more influential in determining aggression than inmate characteristics.
Individual level factors are reliable predictors of aggression independent of the prison environment, but research shows that some situational variables are also influential.

Cunningham et al. (2010)

Cunningham et al. (2010) analysed 35 inmate homicides in Texan prisons.
They found that motivations were linked to some of the deprivations identified by Clemmer.
Particularly important where arguments over drugs, homosexual relationships and personal possessions.

Validity of deprivation model

As these are factors predicted by the model to make aggression more likely, these findings support its validity.

Evaluation of Deprivation, Importation and Interactionist Models

The deprivation model predicts that a lack of freedom and heterosexual contact should lead to high levels of aggressive behaviour in prisons.

The deprivation model

The deprivation model predicts that a lack of freedom and heterosexual contact should lead to high levels of aggressive behaviour in prisons.

Hensley et al. (2002)

However Hensley et al. (2002) studied 256 male and female inmates of two prisons in Mississippi USA where inmates are allowed conjugal visits.
They found no link between involvement in these visits and reduced aggressive behaviour and concluded that situational factors do not affect prison violence.

Importation and deprivation

Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando (2002) suggested that:
- The importation model is a better explanation of violence between inmates.
- The deprivation model is more useful in understanding inmate aggression against prison staff.

Interactionist model

Dobbs and Waid (2004) argue in favour of an interactionist model.
Inmates entering prison for the first time will suffer deprivation.
However deprivation does not necessarily lead to violence unless or until it combines with the individual characteristics imported into the prison by inmates, which influence the prison culture.