Bullying Among Prisoners

Evidence, Research and Intervention Strategies

Jane L. Ireland

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9781583911860
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317710899
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Forensic Psychology
• Index: Social Sciences

Bullying in prisons can have severe consequences both for those directly involved and for the prison regime as a whole, yet the subject has been curiously neglected in the literature. In 1993, the Prison Service introduced their first anti-bullying strategy, and since then there has been a great deal of research on the subject. Bullying Among Prisoners summarises this research, and seeks to answer some important questions.
Bullying Among Prisoners identifies problems in defining and measuring bullying, along with proposing guidelines on how research in this field should be conducted. The book covers:
* what bullying is
* how and why it occurs
* the effects of bullying
* practical strategies for preventing bullying.
By outlining a series of interventions that can be employed to address bullying, this book will prove an invaluable resource for all those working directly with the perpetrators and victims, not only in prisons but also in a range of settings such as regional secure units and special hospitals.

Chapter 1

---

Bullying in prison: the research field to date

---

Why study bullying among prisoners?

The issue of bullying among prisoners is an important one. According to Levenson

Many prisoners are assaulted, regularly threatened or harassed. The physical safety of some prisoners, especially sex offenders, can only be achieved by segregating them for their own protection. Violence and bullying are endemic in most prisons and young offender institutions.

(Levenson 2000: 1)

By studying bullying among prisoners our knowledge and understanding of this type of behaviour can be increased, the victims of bullying protected and the security of the prison improved (Connell and Farrington 1996). There are also implications for classifying offenders in terms of need and risk assessment (Connell and Farrington 1996): if bullies and victims can be reliably identified then this will undoubtedly inform any such assessment. The effects of bullying on the prison as a whole can be varied and include an increase in the level of suicide, self-harm, stress, drug use, drug trading, escapes, absconds, failures to return from home leave, prisoner complaints, assaults, prisoners requesting transfers or to be placed under the protection of staff, and increased levels of damage to prison property (Home Office Prison Service 1999). Levenson (2000) argued that bullying also reduces the likelihood that prison staff will be able to work productively with prisoners to help them to address their offending behaviour and prepare them for release.

The types of bullying that prisoners are subjected to can be severe and include physical abuse, ranging from ‘slaps’, punches and the deliberate burning of victims with cigarettes, to batteries being placed in socks and used as weapons with which to ‘beat’ someone. Bullying also includes cold water being poured over bedding or excrement placed in it, or prisoners being forced to become the ‘personal servants’ of the bully. ‘Practical jokes’ or ‘horseplay’ are common, for example victims are thrown into cold baths, have their eyebrows shaved and/or their hair cut (Brookes 1993). Livingston and co-workers (1994) also report bullies name-calling, making threats, spreading rumours, deliberately ignoring or frightening others, and forcing prisoners to cause trouble. Brookes and colleagues (1994) report instances where victims have deliberately been given smaller helpings of food, have had property stolen from their cells and glass placed into their soap. Incidents of sexual abuse have also been reported including masturbating another prisoner or shaving a prisoner's pubic hair whilst the victim was tied to a bed (McGurk and McDougall 1986).

The effects of such actions on the victims cannot be underestimated. The following account comes from a woman who wrote the following on the back of a questionnaire addressing bullying.

When I first came in I gave out tobacco and rizlas to people who asked me. I found I was short at the end of the week. This last week I refused and my life has been made hell. I've been continually harassed for my canteen day and night, usually by the hardcore people I shared the dormitory with: if not them they have been getting other people to ask me on their behalf and when I refuse abuse me verbally and lie about me. When in the dormitory I made the mistake of saying I was gay and have been ostracised by the very couple who have been sleeping together in bed! I have come off my medication to get out of here – not sleeping much, around three hours per night. I just want to be left alone to serve my time and leave prison never to return. I cannot relate well to people and need medication: going through hell yet I have tried very hard to fit in and appear normal. I don't want to cause trouble but it's very difficult not to retaliate verbally and I feel like I'm near to cracking up.

Another account comes from a male young offender who wrote the following letter to prison officers in January 2000.

I have been getting bullied off lads on this unit for about eight weeks. They have been saying things like ‘I shagged your mum’ and betting lads on the wing half an ounce of tobacco that they wouldn't be able to batter me. Nearly all the lads on the unit have been taking this offer up and having a go at me. Every day for the past eight weeks they have been getting on my case by calling my mum names and saying to other lads that I have been calling their mum things like ‘fat slag’ etc. They have done this so that the other lads will batter me. They have told me that I had better string myself up because they are never going to leave me alone. One of the lads is in court on the same day as me, and in the same court. He told me that he's going to batter me there and I think that he would. PS. I'm really scared what might happen now when I go to court with him and what he might do. Even if he doesn't do it at court he might do it at reception. I don't want anything like that to happen.

Defining aggression

Before presenting a definition of bullying, it is worth focusing briefly on aggression research in general, particularly the different types of aggression and how these may relate to a discussion of bullying. Geen argues that the term ‘aggression’ is not a scientific one and is ‘taken from everyday English and used to describe a number of functionally different behaviours that have in common the infliction of harm upon another person’ (1998: 1). A number of different varieties of aggression have been suggested (Dodge 1991). One of the most useful distinctions between these, and one which may prove relevant to a discussion of bullying behaviour, is the notion of reactive and proactive aggression (Dodge 1991). There is compelling evidence that supports the validity of the distinction between these two types of aggression (Dodge and Coie 1987). Reactive aggression occurs when an individual overreacts to minor provocations. In such a situation the individual is generally viewed as short-tempered and volatile. Reactive aggression has also been referred to as ‘angry aggression’ and can be described as a fear-motivated response (Weisfeld 1994), one that includes defensive postures in response to threats. Proactive aggression involves more planning on the part of the perpetrator and is used instrumentally to obtain a goal through bullying, dominating or coercing others (Dodge 1991).

Another useful distinction between types of aggression is that of direct and indirect aggression. Direct aggression includes the most observable forms such as physical or verbal abuse, forms in which the identity of the aggressor is known. Indirect aggression is subtle and includes spreading rumours, and ostracising or gossiping about an individual. It represents a form in which the aggressor may remain unidentified (Lagerspetz et al. 1988). Björkqvist and colleagues (1992a) conceptualise styles of interpersonal aggression as falling along a continuum of development, with direct forms of aggression used at an early age to be largely replaced during adolescence and adulthood by indirect aggression.

What is bullying and how does it relate to aggression?

Aggressive relationships between individuals can be categorised into two distinct types: ‘symmetrical’ or ‘high-conflict’ relationships in which each member aggresses towards and is victimised by the other member, and ‘asymmetrical’ or ‘low-conflict’ relationships in which one member adopts the role of aggressor and the other the role of victim (Perry et al. 1992). Bullying represents the latter category of aggressive relationship (Olweus 1996) and is a distinct form of aggression that can either be direct or indirect in nature (Rivers and Smith 1994). It can also be described as a proactive form of aggression in which an individual manipulates and dominates others in order to obtain a goal, whether this is material or social. It can also include an element of planning and organisation on the part of the perpetrator, thus fitting the definition of proactive aggression. I would suggest, however, that particularly in a prison environment, not all bullying is highly organised and some can represent a ‘reaction’ to being bullied. Individuals who fall into the bully/victim category (i.e. those who report both ‘bullying others’ and ‘being bullied’) may be reacting to their own victimisation by aggressing towards others. The provocation in this situation is their attempted victimisation by others. It may not necessarily matter if the intended victim of the bully/victim is someone who has aggressed towards them – the fact that they are showing some form of aggression towards others suggests that they are attempting to assert and maintain their dominance (Ireland 1999a), and in this way avoid being labelled as a ‘victim’, thus preventing any future victimisation (Connell and Farrington 1996). In this situation the reaction of the bully/victim could be conceptualised as a fear or defensive response.

Thus, I would argue that bullying behaviour is not necessarily proactive, but can also include elements of reactive aggression depending on the motivation of the aggressor and the social constraints of the environment in which it takes place. It would seem that ‘pure’ bullies, namely those who only bully others and are not victims themselves, are more likely to represent proactive aggressors, whereas bully/victims are more likely to represent reactive aggressors. Dodge (1991), however, argues that the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression is only a relative one and it is possible for reactive aggression to contain proactive elements and vice versa. This can be related to bullying behaviour as follows: although bully/victims may be displaying reactive aggression there may also be a proactive goal, namely a way of communicating to the rest of their peer group that they will not readily submit to being bullied and are thus not targets for future victimisation.

As a specific form of aggression, bullying has proven difficult to define (see Chapter 2 where I discuss definitional issues in more detail). In a review of the literature Farrington (1993) reported that there was widespread agreement among researchers that in order for a behaviour to be classed as bullying it must represent a repeated and unprovoked act of aggression that includes physical, verbal or psychological attack, an imbalance of power and an intention to cause fear or harm to the victim. This definition has not been applied, however, by all researchers and there does not appear to be any universally accepted definition of bullying (Farrington 1993). Randall, for example, describes bullying much more simply as ‘the aggressive behaviour arising from the deliberate intent to cause physical or psychological distress to others’ (1997: 4), with Smith describing it as a ‘systematic abuse of power’ (1994: 12), stating that it is most likely to occur in social groups where there are clear power relationships, and low supervision. Power relationships are present in any social group ‘by virtue of strength or size or ability, force of personality, sheer numbers, or recognised hierarchy’ (Smith 1994: 12), and this power can be abused. Smith further argues that the exact definition of what constitutes abuse depends on the social and cultural context: if the abuse is systematic then ‘bullying’ is a valid term by which to describe it.

There are also problems in devising a definition that encapsulates the whole range of direct and indirect aggressive behaviours considered representative of bullying. In one of the first studies that I conducted, for example, I used a behavioural checklist with prisoners that described a total of thirty-three discrete behaviours indicative of bullying others, twenty-four relating to direct aggression and nine to indirect (Ireland 1999a). These behaviours included stealing prisoners' tobacco, starting fights, trying to turn prisoners against one another, calling prisoners names, and intimidating and threatening prisoners. Attempting to include all of these behaviours into one narrow and overly specific definition is virtually impossible.

Despite a lack of agreement regarding the specific criteria applied to bullying, two criteria are now widely used by researchers, namely that in order for a behaviour to be classed as bullying it must include repetition of the aggressive act and involve an imbalance of power (Smith and Brain 2000). Again, although these criteria are widely applied, this does not mean that they are universally accepted (Smith and Brain 2000), with some researchers preferring to use much broader definitions that make no reference to these elements.

However, bullying has only recently been recognised as a distinct form of aggression in academic studies and this could explain the lack of a standard definition of bullying. Indeed, Birkett comments that

Bullying is not new: for centuries children have been persistently calling each other names, stealing each other's toys, and sending former friends to Coventry. But the recognition of bullying as a distinct phenomenon, to be analysed and academicised, is relatively recent.

(Birkett 1998: 24)

Attempts to define bullying have been hindered by an apparent ‘hierarchy’ of bullying behaviours ranging from ‘least damaging’, to ‘most damaging’, with verbal methods of bullying being seen as least damaging and physical methods as most damaging. Such a view is captured by a father whose 17-year-old son was accused of ‘bullying a schoolgirl to death’ who said ‘you know how kids are … they never physically hurt her. They just called her names – Fatty and Smelly, and things like that’ (Birkett 1998: 32).

It is also important to note that the term ‘bullying’ is not one that is universally used. Smith describes it as an English term that ‘appears to have originated in the sixteenth century from the middle Dutch word “boele”, meaning lover: this became “fine fellow” and “blusterer” and eventually its present meaning’ (2002: in press). Interestingly Smith (2002) notes how the original more positive meaning of the word is retained in the phrase ‘bully for you’ indicating an expression of ‘approval at a daring action’. Other cultures have used other terms to convey an action similar to bu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Bullying in prison: the research field to date
• 2 Defining and measuring bullying in a prison environment
• 3 The extent and nature of bullying
• 4 Why does bullying occur among prisoners?
• 5 Characteristics of bullies and victims
• 6 Reactions to bullying
• 7 Strategies: 1 preventing bullying
• 8 Strategies: 2 reacting to bullying
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index