Bullying among Prisoners

Jane Ireland

• Publisher: Willan
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781134036820
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book aims to present key aspects of the prison-based bullying research which has taken place over the last few years. It is a field in which there has been considerably increased interest. One of the main features of this book is the recognition that much previous bullying research has been descriptive in nature, with little underlying theory to assist its development as an area of academic interest. In addressing this need this book will serve as an indispensable resource for students, academics and professionals with interests in this field. Chapters in the book address the following areas: need for innovation in prison bullying research, statistics on bullying, combining methods to research prison bullying, bullying behaviour among women in prison, bullying and suicides in prisons, developmental antecedents of prison bullies and/or victims, applying evolutionary theory to prison bullying, applying social problem solving models to prison bullying.

Part I

---

Introduction

Chapter 1

---

Bullying among prisoners: the need for innovation

Jane L. Ireland

Defining prison bullying

Early definitions of bullying described it as a subsection of aggression, an abusive behaviour sharing characteristics belonging to violence and aggression, yet defined by its own ‘special’ characteristics (e.g. Olweus 1996). In recent years, the exact definition of bullying has come under close scrutiny by researchers with the only consensus being on the difficulties in determining an agreed definition that can be reliably measured.

It remains true to say that the majority of research into bullying has been based within schools. Early prison researchers were influenced by the school-based literature and this had a bearing both on how bullying was measured and how the results were analysed. The most significant influence from school research, however, has been the use of school-based definitions of bullying as a basis for conducting prison studies (e.g. Beck 1992; Connell and Farrington 1996). Interestingly, prison researchers have been less influenced by the bullying research occurring within workplace settings, although this may be a consequence of the workplace literature focusing, particularly early on, on sexual harassment and not the range of behaviours known to comprise bullying.

School-based definitions were summarized by Farrington in 1993 who indicated that in order for a behaviour to be classed as bullying it must contain physical, psychological or verbal attack, involve an imbalance of power; the victim must not have provoked the bully; the aggression has to have occurred more than; once and the bully must intend his or her actions, specifically intending to cause fear or distress. Not all these elements are universally accepted, however. The only consistency in the more recent school-based literature has been on the criteria of repeated behaviour and imbalance of power (Smith and Brain 2000).

Within prisons, it has been argued aggression does not have to be repeated in order to be classed as bullying with the fear of being subjected to aggression as opposed to the actual incidence considered of more importance in determining whether bullying has occurred (Ireland 2002a). Some behaviour common in prison settings may also not be based on an overt imbalance of power. ‘Baroning’, an extortion-based activity where goods are provided to prisoners at a high rate of interest by another prisoner (a ‘baron’), is not obviously based on an imbalance of power since the victim enters this relationship voluntarily. Such behaviours are commonly identified as bullying by prisoners and staff (with views that such behaviour is ‘accepted’ or ‘justified’ bullying), and yet would not be considered bullying if standard school-based definitions were strictly applied (Ireland 2002a).

Concerns regarding the inclusion of ‘intent’ in definitions of prison bullying have also been raised; it is argued that ‘accidental’ bullying, whereby someone may perpetrate bullying without fully considering the consequences of his or her actions, does exist (Ireland and Ireland 2003). This may apply in particular to perpetrators of the more indirect and subtle forms of aggression (i.e. gossiping, spreading rumours, etc.) that are not routinely identified as aggression. Early school-based definitions such as those summarized by Farrington (1993) did not recognize indirect forms of aggression. Such indirect types of aggression can be reliably identified, and have been recognized as a reliable subsection of aggression since the pioneering work of Kai Björkqvist (e.g. 1994). Such aggression is known to occur more frequently among older adolescents and adults and is a particularly favoured form of aggression in prison settings where bullies can impact negatively on victims and yet reduce their chances of being caught by the authorities (Ireland 2002a).

Since approximately 1999, prison researchers have begun to opt for much broader definitions of bullying, particularly those driven by victim perceptions. In an earlier book (Ireland 2002a), I argued that any definition of bullying applied to a prison needs to account for the view of the victim and also the specific environment in which the bullying is taking place. Prisons are arguably hostile settings where aggression can represent an adaptive solution to a problem. It should not therefore be a surprise that bullying is reportedly higher in such environments than in schools and the workplace. Within prison settings victims may also be reluctant to come forward and identify their abusers. Underlying this is a fear of being exposed to ‘justified’ bullying by prisoners who feel that by reporting bullying victims they have ‘grassed’ to staff and therefore broken one of the subcultural rules forming part of the ‘inmate code’. In a prison setting, therefore, researchers exploring bullying need to adopt broader definitions. An example of such a definition is as follows:

An individual is being bullied when they are the victim of direct and/or indirect aggression happening on a weekly basis, by the same perpetrator or different perpetrators. Single incidences of aggression can be viewed as bullying, particularly where they are severe and when the individual either believes or fears that they are at risk of future victimization by the same perpetrator or others. An incident can be considered bullying if the victim believes that they have been aggressed towards, regardless of the actual intention of the bully. It can also be bullying when the imbalance of power between the bully and his/her victim is implied and not immediately evident (Ireland 2002a: 26).

Exploring the difficulties in defining bullying and how this influences the research field is, however, a separate chapter on its own and it is not the remit of the current chapter to provide a detailed discussion of this issue. the current chapter aims to provide a brief overview of the prison bullying research to date, to identify any gaps in research and to provide a rationale for the importance of advancing theory in this area of study.

Overview of prison bullying research

It remains the case that bullying between prisoners is an under-researched field of study, particularly in comparison to the attention given to bullying in other settings. The focus of prison research has been on adult offenders and young offenders (18–21 years), with few studies exploring juveniles (14–17 years), and only one study to date directly comparing young, juvenile and adult prisoners within the same dataset (Hafiz and Ireland in press). Research has also largely focused on men, although the numbers of studies on women are increasing (a review of the latter can be found in Ireland 2001a).

Since 1999, there has been increased attention from researchers into prison bullying, with a marked increase in published papers and the first book on the topic appearing in 2002 (Ireland 2002a). Between 1999 and 2004, a total of 18 studies have been published (e.g. Ireland 2002b; Palmer and Farmer 2002; Ireland and Ireland 2003; Ireland and Archer 2004; Ireland and Power 2004), with only seven published before this date (e.g. Connell and Farrington 1997; Power et al. 1997; Biggam and Power 1998).

Measuring bullying

Researchers have assessed prison bullying utilizing a variety of measures including semi-structured interviews (e.g. Connell and Farrington 1996), questionnaires (e.g. Ireland and Archer 1997), official records (Power et al. 1997) and focus groups (Ireland and Hill 2001; see also Spain, Chapter 4, this volume; Dyson, Chapter 5, this volume). Until recently, all these measures were influenced by the methods of measurement routinely used in schools and utilized the term bullying, asking prisoners directly about their involvement and/or experience of such behaviour (i.e. asking participants ‘Have you bullied/been bullied?’).

The majority of the studies published between 1999 and 2004, however, have focused on behaviours indicative of bullying as opposed to measuring ‘bullying’ as assessed by more traditional school researchers. In the most recent studies researchers present participants with a range of discrete behaviours, avoiding use of the term ‘bullying’ itself, and instead asking participants to indicate whether or not they have engaged in and/or experienced certain behaviours (e.g. ‘I have been hit or kicked by another prisoner’, ‘I have called other prisoners' names about their offence or charge’). The development of such behavioural checklist methods was a response to the recognition that the term ‘bullying’ is an emotive one that can lead to an underestimation of the behaviour, with prisoners generally not identifying a range of subtle (indirect) behaviours as bullying (Ireland and Ireland 2003). Behavioural checklists circumvent this problem. The most commonly used is the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC; Ireland 1999a). This checklist was revised in 2002 (DIPCR; Ireland 2002c) to encapsulate a wider range of behaviours, including a further category of potential aggression, namely ‘coercive’ aggression, in which an individual is made to engage in, or encourages others to engage in, specific tasks (e.g. ‘I have been forced to do other jobs/chores that belong to other prisoners'). Further developments to the DIPC are in progress and these will be outlined later.

Estimates of bullying

Proportions of prisoners reported to bully others have been as high as 67 per cent in some studies (e.g. Falshaw 1993), with an average estimate of 21 per cent. This average is based on 16 studies reporting perpetration figures, conducted between 1986 and 2002 (Ireland 2002a). Victim estimates have been as high as 57 per cent in some studies (Livingston et al. 1994) with an average of 23 per cent, based on 18 studies between 1986 and 2002 (Ireland 2002a). These estimates are, however, based on asking prisoners directly if they have bullied others and/or been bullied themselves. Broader measures of bullying, where prisoners are asked to indicate behaviours they have engaged in and/or experienced (avoiding the term bullying), have produced consistently higher estimates. If behaviours indicative of being bullied are used the average estimate, based on six studies conducted between 1997 and 2002, was 52 per cent, with an average estimate of 53 per cent for behaviours indicative of bullying others (Ireland 2002a).

Trying to determine reliable estimates of bullying based on previous studies is, however, difficult given the different methodologies and samples adopted, and the small proportion of peer-reviewed, published studies on prison bullying. Of the 18 studies outlined by Ireland (2002a), for example, only six appeared in peer-reviewed journals, with others either dissertations or in-house surveys.

Nature of bullying

The types of bullying reported by prisoners have included both direct and indirect forms of aggression, with more recent research exploring coercive bullying (e.g. Ireland 2005). Early research focused on the more direct forms of behaviour, notably theft-related, physical, sexual and verbal bullying (e.g. Connell and Farrington 1996). Such behaviours were termed ‘direct’ since the aggressive intent is overt and easily identified as aggression by those either observing or hearing the behaviour. Since 1997, however, the focus has moved from direct aggression to an exploration of the range of behaviours that constitute bullying, specifically the more covert or indirect forms of aggression. As indicated earlier this includes behaviours such as gossiping, spreading rumours and ostracizing. They represent behaviours where the aggressive intent is unclear and/or the identity of the perpetrator is unknown. Such behaviours have been found to occur as frequently, if not more so, than direct aggression among prisoners (e.g. Ireland 1999a, 2002a; Ireland and Monaghan in press).

It has been argued that the extent of indirect bullying reported by prisoners can be explained in two ways. First, developmental models of aggression such as that proposed by Björkqvist et al. (1992) suggest direct forms of aggression are used to a greater extent by younger age groups, with older age groups utilizing more indirect aggression. Björkqvist et al. (1992) argue that as age increases so does an individual's use of more subtle and indirect forms of aggression. Their use of indirect aggression does not replace that of direct; rather it complements their aggressive repertoire. Evidence for this has been found in prison research comparing young with adult offenders, with adults demonstrating a preference for indirect aggression. Research comparing young with juvenile offenders, however, has suggested that such theories do not transfer consistently to all prison populations. Ireland (2002d), for example, found juveniles did report higher levels of overall direct bullying behaviour than young offenders, but this was only consistent in relation to behaviours indicative of ‘being bullied’. Both juveniles and young offenders reported similar levels of indirect bullying behaviour, findings inconsistent with this developmental theory.

The second explanation as to why indirect bullying is prevalent in prisons relates to the environment where the bullying is occurring. In prison the use of aggression carries with it penalties enforced by staff, such as days added on to sentences and/or a loss of privileges. Bullying that is covert in nature is less likely to be detected. Indirect aggression therefore becomes a sophisticated way of victimizing your peers in that it combines a high cost for the victim (with indirect aggression known to have severe consequences for victims in terms of harm), with a low cost for the bully in terms of enforced penalties. As stated by Ireland and Monaghan (in press):

In a prison setting, indirect aggression is particularly effective in that the perpetrator is able to impact negatively on the victim by virtue of the fact that the victim cannot escape from the environment, yet they are also able to reduce their chances of getting caught by employing more covert means. Direct aggression, on the other hand, carries a higher chance of being caught and the perpetrator risks retribution. It is possible that in a prison setting … offenders have come to reco...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half title
• Full title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures and tables
• Preface
• Notes on contributors
• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: Research
• Part III: Advancing Theory
• Index