Do personality characteristics and beliefs predict intra‐group bullying between prisoners?

Abstract

This study assesses how beliefs about aggression and personality can predict engagement in intra-group bullying among prisoners. A sample of 213 adult male prisoners completed the DIPC-SCALED (bullying behavior), the EXPAGG (beliefs toward aggression), and the IPIP (a five-factor measure of personality). It was predicted that bullies would hold greater instrumental beliefs supporting the use of aggression than the other categories, with perpetrators reporting lower scores on agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, and higher scores on neuroticism (i.e. low scores on emotional stability) than the remaining sample. Bullies and bully-victims endorsed greater instrumental aggressive beliefs than the victim category. Only one perpetrator group, bullies were predicted by reduced levels of agreeableness and increased levels of neuroticism, whereas bully/victims were predicted by decreased levels of neuroticism. Limitations of this study and directions for future research are discussed.

Interpersonal relationships among inmates and prison violence

“…It focused on whether the presence of friendships in prison affected one type of aggression -prison violence. Aggression can take many forms in a prison environment (Trammell's 2009a, Turner andIreland 2010). Future research should examine various forms of aggression among both men and women in order to provide a comprehensive picture on inmates' prison experiences and feasible strategies for reducing aggression and violence in prisons.…”

“…In order to get along with peers, inmates had to follow a code that acknowledged the utility of aggression, even violence, and discouraged prosocial associations with authority figures (Sykes and Messinger 1960, Irwin and Cressey 1962, Wellford 1967). The inmate code remains a topic of interest in recent research (see for example, Winfree et al 2002, Crewe 2005, Trammell 2009b); however, recent studies of modernday male prisons frequently focus on aggression and violence directly, not the code itself (see for example, Kerley et al 2005, Sorensen and Cunningham 2009, Turner and Ireland 2010. For example, Turner and Ireland (2010) examined the relationship between individual personality characteristics and bullying among incarcerated men.…”

“…The inmate code remains a topic of interest in recent research (see for example, Winfree et al 2002, Crewe 2005, Trammell 2009b); however, recent studies of modernday male prisons frequently focus on aggression and violence directly, not the code itself (see for example, Kerley et al 2005, Sorensen and Cunningham 2009, Turner and Ireland 2010. For example, Turner and Ireland (2010) examined the relationship between individual personality characteristics and bullying among incarcerated men. Most men in their sample reported engaging in various aggressive bullying behaviors.…”

“…Most men in their sample reported engaging in various aggressive bullying behaviors. Additionally, bullies were more likely than the bullying victims to believe that planned violence was an acceptable and useful problem-solving technique (Turner and Ireland 2010). As an additional example, Kerley et al (2005) examined whether the strength of male inmates' religious beliefs impacted the frequency of verbal and physical fights inmates experienced.…”

Exploring Individual Factors Associated with Critical Incidents in a Secure Psychiatric Setting: A Preliminary Study

“…"I am the life of the party", "I feel little concern for others", "I am always prepared", "I get stressed out easily" and "I have excellent ideas". The IPIP has proven to be of good reliability, with subscales ranging from .73 to .82 (Turner & Ireland, 2010). The SPSI-R comprises 52 items, scored on a 5-point Likert scale, aimed at measuring various aspects of social problem solving.…”