Dispositional & Situational Explanation Revision Notes for AQA A-Level Psychology

Dispositional & Situational Explanation

Institutional aggression in prisons represents a significant issue within the criminal justice system. Prison violence occurs at much higher rates than in the general population, with institutions like Feltham Prison recording 300 violent incidents in just six months. To understand why this aggression occurs, psychologists have developed two main theoretical approaches: dispositional and situational explanations.

infoNote

Understanding institutional aggression is crucial for developing effective prison management strategies and rehabilitation programmes. The high rates of violence in prisons not only affect prisoner welfare but also impact staff safety and the broader goals of the criminal justice system.

Understanding the two approaches

Dispositional explanations focus on the individual characteristics that prisoners bring into the prison environment. This approach suggests that certain people are naturally more aggressive and violent, and they carry these tendencies with them when incarcerated.

Situational explanations examine how the prison environment itself creates conditions that promote aggressive behaviour. This perspective argues that the institutional setting, rather than individual personality traits, is the primary cause of violence.

chatImportant

The key distinction between these approaches lies in their focus: dispositional explanations look inward at the individual, while situational explanations look outward at the environment. Understanding this difference is essential for grasping how each theory attempts to explain prison violence.

Dispositional explanation

Importation model

The importation model, developed by Irwin and Cressey (1962), proposes that prisoners import their aggressive tendencies from their life outside prison. According to this theory, individuals who display violence in prison would likely behave similarly in their home environment.

This model suggests several factors influence aggressive behaviour both inside and outside prison:

Biological factors: Genetic predisposition, testosterone levels, and serotonin imbalances may contribute to aggressive tendencies
Learned behaviour: Previous experiences, including criminal history and exposure to violence, shape behavioural patterns
Substance abuse: Dependencies on alcohol or illegal drugs can worsen aggressive behaviour and may not be adequately addressed in prison settings
Gang culture: Prisoners who were involved in gangs before incarceration bring these cultural influences into the prison environment

Prison sub-cultures

Irwin and Cressey identified three distinct prison sub-cultures that influence inmate behaviour:

Criminal/thief sub-culture promotes a criminal 'code of honour' where inmates avoid informing on fellow prisoners. This group values honour, trust and loyalty. Members tend to be experienced criminals who understand prison life, and whilst aggression exists within this group, it is less dominant than in the convict sub-culture.

Convict sub-culture operates through a strict power hierarchy focused on dominance and control. This group is most likely to engage in aggressive behaviour as violence is seen as necessary to maintain power over other inmates. Members often come from deprived backgrounds and may have strong connections to gang culture from outside prison.

Conventional sub-culture consists of individuals who are typically first-time offenders trying to avoid the other two sub-cultures. These prisoners generally maintain connections with prison staff and are the least likely to display aggressive behaviour.

Research evidence

lightbulbExample

Research Study: Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando (2002)

These researchers investigated whether the importation model could explain prison violence. They compared this theory with environmental factors and reached an important conclusion:

Finding: The importation model was most effective in explaining violence between inmates
Additional finding: Environmental factors better explained violence against prison staff

This suggests that different types of prison violence may have different underlying causes.

lightbulbExample

Research Study: Kane and Janus (1981)

Kane and Janus found strong correlations between prisoners' backgrounds and their likelihood of violent behaviour in prison:

Key findings:

Inmates with lower education levels were significantly more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour
Those with more serious criminal records showed higher violence rates
Prisoners with longer periods of unemployment demonstrated increased aggression

Additional discoveries:

Younger offenders showed higher rates of prison aggression
Non-white prisoners demonstrated elevated aggression levels, potentially due to gang culture influences and marginalisation of ethnic minority groups

Evaluation of dispositional explanation

Strengths:

The model recognises individual differences between prisoners rather than treating them as a homogeneous group
Sub-culture research provides detailed understanding of how different prisoner types behave
The approach suggests that rehabilitation programmes should consider prisoners' home environments and backgrounds
Research evidence shows clear links between pre-prison experiences and institutional aggression

Weaknesses:

DeLisi (2004) found stronger support for gang culture influences than the broader importation model when studying 831 US male inmates
The model cannot fully explain why some individuals with violent backgrounds do not engage in prison aggression
Limited applicability - studies like Poole and Regoli (1983) found that pre-institutional violence only predicted aggression in juvenile, not adult correctional facilities
The theory may oversimplify complex interactions between individual and environmental factors

Situational explanation

Situational explanations focus on how the prison environment creates conditions that promote aggressive behaviour. Three main environmental factors contribute to institutional aggression:

Organisational factors include the rules and regulations that govern prison life. The strict expectation that all prisoners must follow institutional rules can create frustration and prompt aggressive responses when individuals feel unable to comply or disagree with authority.

Physical factors encompass the often cramped, uncomfortable conditions within prisons. Limited space, poor living conditions, and threatening environments contribute to stress and aggressive behaviour among inmates.

Staff characteristics play a crucial role in prison dynamics. The attitudes and behaviours of prison officers can either escalate or de-escalate tense situations. Personality conflicts between staff and prisoners, or perceived unfairness in rule enforcement, can trigger aggressive responses.

Deprivation model

The deprivation model represents a specific situational explanation developed by Sykes (1958). This theory suggests that prison aggression results from the loss of key needs that individuals normally satisfy in everyday life.

infoNote

The deprivation model is particularly influential because it provides specific, measurable factors that contribute to prison violence. Unlike more general theories, Sykes identified exact types of deprivation that could be addressed through policy changes.

Sykes identified five types of deprivation that contribute to institutional aggression:

Deprivation of liberty restricts prisoners' freedom of movement and choice. Unlike outside prison, inmates cannot go where they please or make basic decisions about their daily activities. This forced dependence can create feelings of rejection and lead to antagonistic and aggressive behaviour.

Deprivation of autonomy removes prisoners' independence and control over their lives. Every aspect of daily routine is regulated, from meal times to bedtime, leaving inmates feeling helpless and powerless. This loss of control often manifests as frustration and aggression.

Deprivation of goods and services severely limits access to material possessions and basic amenities. Modern examples include restrictions on mobile phone access, which many prisoners previously used extensively. The inability to contact family and friends creates anger and resentment that can escalate to violence.

Deprivation of heterosexual relationships prevents prisoners from maintaining intimate relationships with partners of the opposite sex. This frustration extends beyond physical needs to include emotional intimacy and companionship, contributing to increased tension and aggressive behaviour.

Deprivation of security creates an environment where prisoners cannot guarantee their physical safety. The constant threat of violence from other inmates generates stress and may lead to preemptive aggressive behaviour as a form of self-protection.

Real-world applications

lightbulbExample

Practical Application: Mobile Phone Policy

The deprivation model helps explain practical prison management issues. For example, the ban on mobile phones in prisons creates significant frustration among inmates who previously relied on constant communication with family and friends.

Solution implemented: Some prisons, like Lowdham Grange in Nottingham, have addressed this by installing landlines in cells, allowing controlled communication that reduces aggression and violent incidents.

This demonstrates how understanding the deprivation model can lead to practical solutions that improve prison conditions.

Evaluation of situational explanation

Strengths:

The model provides practical insights for prison management and reform
Environmental modifications can potentially reduce aggression levels
The deprivation model offers specific, testable predictions about prison conditions
Research supports links between prison conditions and aggressive behaviour

Weaknesses:

The model cannot explain why some prisoners adapt to prison conditions without becoming aggressive
Individual differences in response to deprivation are not well addressed
Some aspects of the theory reflect outdated prison conditions and may not apply to modern correctional facilities
The approach may underestimate the role of pre-existing personality factors in determining behaviour

chatImportant

A key limitation of both approaches is that they often treat dispositional and situational factors as mutually exclusive. In reality, prison violence likely results from complex interactions between individual characteristics and environmental conditions.

bookmarkSummary

Key Points to Remember:

Dispositional explanations focus on individual characteristics prisoners bring to prison, particularly through the importation model and prison sub-cultures
Situational explanations emphasise how prison environments create aggression through organisational, physical, and staff factors
The importation model suggests prisoners import violent tendencies from outside, supported by research showing links between background factors and prison aggression
The deprivation model identifies five key losses (liberty, autonomy, goods/services, relationships, security) that contribute to institutional violence
Both approaches have merit - research suggests dispositional factors better explain inmate-on-inmate violence while situational factors better explain violence against staff
Practical applications of these theories can lead to improved prison management strategies and reduced violence rates

Dispositional & Situational Explanation (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes