Discuss Psychological Explanations of two or more forms of Institutional Aggression (8 +16 marks)

Institutional aggression can be defined as aggressive behaviour that occurs within a place of confinement such as prison, and is motivated by social forces, rather than anger or frustration. One psychological explanation of institutional aggression is institutional aggression within groups. This form of aggression can be explained using the importation model which involves interpersonal factors. Research by Irwin and Cressey (1962) suggests that prisoners bring their own social histories and traits with them into prison. This then influences their adaptation to the prison environment. They also argue that prisoners are not simply ‘blank slates’ when they enter prison. Due to this, many of the normative systems developed in the outside world would be ‘imported’ into the prison.
Harer and Steffensmeier (2006) offer some research support for the importation model. This particularly applies when evaluating individual factors such as age, education level and race. Their study involved collecting data from 58 US prisons where they found that black inmates had significantly higher rates of violent behaviour. However, these people displayed lower rates of alcohol-related and drug-related misconduct than white inmates. Despite this, there is a problem of sample bias with Harer and Steffensmier’s study. This is because only US prisons took part. This means that the results are not representative of the wider population and therefore cannot generalised to other prisoners in different countries as they may not behave in the same way. As well as this there is the issue of gender bias within the study. This is because the prison used would have only contained men. Consequently, the results cannot be used in order to discover whether institutional aggression within groups is displayed in a similar way amongst females as well as males.
The deprivation model can also be used in order to explain how institutional aggression occurs within groups. Paterline and Peterson (1999) suggest that the deprivation model can demonstrate that prisoner or patient aggression is the product of the stressful and oppressive conditions of the institution itself. For example, the institution may have an issue of crowding, which is assumed to increase fear and frustration levels, and staff experience.
There is considerable research evidence to support the claim that peer violence is used to relieve the deprivation imposed by institutional cultures, such as prisons. This comes from McCorkle et al (1995) who established that overcrowding, lack of privacy and the lack of meaningful activity all significantly influence peer violence. In addition to this, Wilson (2010) tested the deprivation model in the real world. He reasoned that if most violence occurred in environments that are hot, noisy and overcrowded, then this could be avoided by reducing these situational factors. Wilson conducted this study by setting up two units for violent prisoners that were less claustrophobic and ‘prison like’ and gave a view to the outside. The noises associated with prisons were reduced by disguising them with background music and the temperature was lowered. These changes virtually eradicated assaults on prison staff, therefore showing that it is the situational factors within an institution that can lead to increased aggression.
A second form of institutional aggression takes place between groups. This is because the term ‘institution’ may account for a whole section of society that is defined by ethnicity, religion, or any other significant feature. Violence occurs between groups when one institutions relationship with another is characterised by hatred and hostility. An example of this form of institutional aggression is the genocide which took place where six million Jews were murdered by Nazis during World War Two. Staub (1999) outlined five stages of genocide that define how difficult social conditions can rapidly escalate into victimisation of a specific target group. The five stages in the process of genocide are: difficult social conditions, this leads to scapegoating of a less powerful group, which then leads to negative evaluation and dehumanisation of the target group, in consequence to this, moral values and rules become inapplicable and many people are killed, finally bystanders are passive during this process.
Dehumanisation materializes as institutional aggression develops between groups. This means that although humans usually have moral inhibitions about killing fellow humans, this is lost when the target group is dehumanised. Due to this, members of the group are viewed as worthless animals and so are not worthy of moral consideration. An example of this is that whilst the Rwandan genocide was taking place, the influential Hutu – controlled ‘hate’ radio station RTLM encouraged listeners to murder their Tutsi neighbours. They referred to these people as ‘cockroaches’ in order to make them seem meaningless.
There is evidence from many conflicts that demonstrates the destructive consequences of dehumanisation. For example the Jews in the Holocaust were victims. In addition to this, O’Brien (2003) suggested that dehumanisation can also explain why violence occurs against immigrants as they are viewed as ‘out-group’ members of society by the majority. This means that institutional aggression occurs between groups when minority groups are made to be seen as worthless.
Another reason why institutional aggression between groups occurs is because individuals feel pressured into being obedient towards authority figures. Milgram (1974) proposed that the Holocaust was primarily the result of situational pressures that forced Nazi soldiers to obey their leaders regardless of any personal moral repugnance. This means that soldiers felt compelled to kill innocent, unnamed people because people with more power were telling them to do so, therefore, institutional aggression was created between the two groups due to demands of higher orders.
However, psychologists such as Mandel (1998) reject Milgram’s claims that obedience to authority was sufficient to explain the behaviour of the holocaust perpetrators. This is because he believes that Milgram’s research does not take into account other possible causes and is therefore monocasual. Goldhagen (1996) agrees with Mandel’s argument by suggesting that the main causal factor in the atrocities was a form of anti-Semitism so deeply entrenched in the German people at the time that they implicitly condoned the elimination of many innocent Jews. Accordingly, institutional aggression between groups could be due to other factors than simply the fact that soldiers were obedient to authority.
Word Count: 1,010