1966
DOI: 10.1002/1097-4679(196604)22:2<244::aid-jclp2270220241>3.0.co;2-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Frequency and severity of rule infractions as criteria of prison maladjustment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1980
1980
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the most widely accepted approaches to this subject is to examine how often prisoners are in trouble or are caught breaking prison rules. The documented violation of prison rules provides a measure long associated with adjustment (Wolf, Frienek, and Schaffer 1966).…”
Section: Measures Of Institutional Adjustmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the most widely accepted approaches to this subject is to examine how often prisoners are in trouble or are caught breaking prison rules. The documented violation of prison rules provides a measure long associated with adjustment (Wolf, Frienek, and Schaffer 1966).…”
Section: Measures Of Institutional Adjustmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jaman also found that other socioeconomic factors such as being a school drop-out and having an unstable preprison work Flanagan 1 PRISON MISCONDUCT 31 history were related to greater involvement in institutional infractions. Sacks (1942) reported that disciplinary offenders were more intelligent than other prisoners, but Wolf, Frienek, and Schaffer (1966) found no relationship between intelligence measures and rates of involvement in institutional misconduct. Fox (1958) described the disciplinary offender as less mature and less stable than well-adjusted prisoners, but Watman (1966) found no significant relationship between two measures of impulsivity and the discipline record of inmates.…”
Section: Other Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these variables are not sufficiently predictive of institutional misconduct tojustify their use as classification factors. The implications of the findings for the study of social control mechanisms in prisons are discussed.The prisoner's conduct record within the institution has traditionally been viewed as an indicator of adjustment or maladjustment to the prison situation (Wolf, Frienek, and Schaffer, 1966). Moreover, the disciplinary infraction record has been identified by some observers as a predictor of postrelease recidivism risk.Both of these premises have been questioned in recent research (see O'Leary and Glaser, 1972;Lipton et al, 1975; Gottfredson and Adams, AUTHORS NOTE: Z would like to thank Michael Gottfredson, John L a d , and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Empirically identified predictors of prison misconduct are many (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007; Cunningham, Reidy, & Sorensen, 2008; Dabbs, Carr, Frady, & Riad, 1995; Dabbs, Frady, Carr, & Besch, 1987; Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld, & Patrick, 2008; Gaes & McGuire, 1985; Kerley, Hochstetler, & Copes, 2009; Sorensen & Cunningham, 2009; Thomas & Foster, 1973; Walters & Schlauch, 2007; Wolf, Freinek, & Shaffer, 1966; Wright, 1991). Some predictors can be seen as more easily controlled than others.…”
Section: Theories Of Prison Misconductmentioning
confidence: 99%