Psychological Determinants of the Prison Experience

Abstract

This article applies the tec.~nology of psychological classification to explore the effects of personality characteristics on prison adjustments and experiences. Bivariate and multivariate analysis assess the comparative effects offour personality types (committed criminal, neurotic, situational, and character disordered) on official disciplinary infractions, staff ratings of interpersonal behaviors, and self-reports of • stress, aggressive behaviors, nonviolent infractions, and victimizations. The effects of other predictors, including age, race, marital status, employment status, prior prison time, prior prison revocations, and sentence length are also considered. Results indicate that inmates who were diagnosed as character disordered and those who had extensive prior prison experienceiiwere more likely than others to have been cited for prison infractions. Young, White inmates and those who had never been revoked during prior sentences were more likely to report victimizing experiences. Inmates most likely to score high on the stress measure were White and neurotic anxiolls, whereas character-disordered inmates scored atypically low. Finally, older, White, situational inmates were viewed most favorably as staff rated the quality of their interpersonal relationships with other inmates. Over 30 years ago, in hls extensive review of the criminological literature, George VoId (1958) observed that personality and other psychological characteristics contribute very little to our understanding of the etiology of crime. Most studies, according to VoId, had found that the personality and psychological characteristics of offender populations were similar to those observed in nonoffender populations; simply put, psychological attributes did not sufficiently differentiate offenders from non-offenders. For the next four decades, other reviews offered similarly terse and narrow assertions (e.g., Schuessler & Cressey, 1950; Tennenbaum, 1977). Indeed, Data for this project were obtained through a. grant awarded to' too University of Cincinnati

Angry Inmates Are Violent Inmates: A Poisson Regression Approach to Youthful Offenders

“…Consistent with the importation model of inmate behavior, prior research has shown that criminal history is strongly related to institutional misconduct (Berg & DeLisi, 2006;Byrne & Hummer, 2007Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007;DeLisi, 2003;DeLisi & Muñoz, 2003;Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997;Myers & Levy, 1978;Trulson, 2007;Van Voorhis, 1993). DEPENDENT VARIABLES Four types of misconduct were included that span multiple dimensions of externalizing behaviors as is conventional in penological research (DeLisi et al, , 2009Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008, p. 452;Trulson et al, 2010;cf.…”

Revisiting the Special Sensitivity Hypothesis: The Prison Experience of White-Collar Inmates

“…Most recent research on inmate social life, adjustment, and prisonization has focused almost exclusively on general prison populations without consideration for inmate social and economic status (see, Adams, 1992;Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997;MacKenzie, Robinson, & Campbell, 1989;Toch & Adams, 1989;Van Tongeren & Klebe 2010;Van Voorhis, 1993, 1994Walters, 2005;Wooldredge, 1999;Wright, 1988Wright, , 1991Wright, , 1993Wright, Salisbury, & Van Voorhis, 2007;Zamble, 1992;Zamble & Porporino, 1988). As a result, we have had no way of knowing how white-collar inmates in federal prison adjust to their incarceration, despite the suggestion by criminologists, judges, and the public that prisons can be dangerous and depriving environments for this subset of offenders.…”

The correctional melting pot: Race, ethnicity, citizenship, and prison violence

“…Theoretically, variables that are risk factors for offending in society at large should correspond to risk factors for prison misconduct. To date, criminologists have found that defendants with more extensive arrest and incarceration histories, prior involvement with gangs or security threat groups, serious substance abuse problems, or previous use of violence were among the most difficult-to-manage inmates (Cao, Zhao, & Van Dine, 1997;DeLisi, 2003;DeLisi, Hochstetler, & Murphy, 2003;Flanagan, 1983;Gaes, Wallace, Gilman, Klein-Saffran, & Suppa, 2002;Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997;Harer & Langan, 2001;McCorkle, 1995;Schrag, 1954;Thomas & Cage, 1977;Van Voorhis, 1993).…”