Dispositional explanations argue that prison violence is partly carried into the institution by the inmates themselves. This approach focuses on pre-existing traits, values, and social histories that make aggressive behavior more likely in custody.

Understanding institutional aggression

Institutional aggression is aggression that occurs within an institution such as a prison. In this part of the course, the emphasis is on aggressive acts between inmates and sometimes aggression directed at prison staff.

A dispositional explanation argues that aggression is mainly shaped by characteristics of the individual. Applied to prisons, this means inmates may enter custody already more likely to behave violently.

The importation model

The main dispositional account is the importation model developed by Irwin and Cressey.

Irwin and Cressey argued that prisoners do not enter prison as blank slates. Instead, they import patterns of behavior learned in the outside world. If a person has been socialized into a violent subculture, has a history of conflict, or sees aggression as a way of gaining respect, those tendencies may continue in prison.

This explanation suggests that prison aggression is not created only by imprisonment itself. Some inmates are already more likely than others to respond aggressively because of their personality, attitudes, and social background.

What inmates may import

Different prisoners bring different risk factors into the institution, including:

• Violent norms and values learned in families, peer groups, or neighborhoods where aggression is common.

• Gang membership, which may continue inside prison and lead to organized hostility, loyalty conflicts, or status-based violence.

• Personality characteristics such as impulsivity, hostility, suspiciousness, or a strong need for dominance.

• Previous criminal experience, especially if aggression has been rewarded in the past.

• Demographic factors linked to violence rates, such as being younger, which is often associated with higher levels of risk-taking and conflict.

These imported characteristics can affect how inmates interpret other people’s behavior. A neutral comment may be seen as a threat, and aggression may be used as either self-protection or a way of gaining status.

Inmate subcultures

Irwin and Cressey also suggested that prisoners may bring different subcultural identities into prison. They described broad inmate types such as:

• Criminal inmates, who identify with a professional criminal lifestyle.

• Convict inmates, who become closely involved with prison life and the inmate code.

• Conventional inmates, who have a more law-abiding background and less commitment to criminal values.

This helps explain why inmates do not all behave in the same way. A prison population is socially mixed, so levels of aggression may vary depending on the kinds of people entering the institution.

Research support

Research has provided support for dispositional explanations.

Harer and Steffensmeier found that patterns of prison misconduct were related to inmates’ backgrounds, suggesting that personal and cultural differences influence aggressive behavior in custody. This supports the idea that violence is partly imported into prison rather than produced entirely by the prison environment.

There is also support from studies of gang-affiliated inmates, who tend to show higher levels of prison misconduct than non-gang members.

This is important because gang values, rivalries, and expectations are clearly brought in from outside the prison. Such findings fit the importation model well.

Another strength is that the explanation accounts for individual differences. If two prisoners are housed in the same institution but only one becomes violent, dispositional factors provide a useful reason. The prison environment may be the same, but inmates differ in what they bring with them.

Evaluation of dispositional explanations

Strengths

A major strength is that the explanation has real-world application. If some prisoners are more at risk of violent misconduct because of prior history, gang links, or personality factors, prisons can use screening, classification, and targeted support to reduce danger. This makes the theory practically useful as well as descriptive.

It is also a more realistic account than any explanation that treats all inmates as the same. Prisons contain people with very different histories, and the importation model recognizes this variation.

Limitations

However, dispositional explanations can be reductionist because they focus heavily on the individual and may underplay the importance of the prison context. Even if a prisoner has aggressive tendencies, these do not automatically produce violence in every setting. Aggression may depend on how those tendencies interact with the institution.

The evidence base also has limitations. Much prison research uses official records of misconduct, but these may not capture all aggressive incidents equally. Some prisoners are watched more closely than others, and some types of aggression are more likely to be reported or punished. This can make it hard to know how accurately the findings reflect true aggression levels.

A further criticism is that dispositional explanations may become too deterministic. They can imply that violent inmates are almost destined to be aggressive because of their background or personality. In reality, behavior can change, and many inmates do not act aggressively all the time.

Finally, the explanation does not fully account for changes in aggression across time or between prisons with apparently similar inmate populations. This suggests that imported characteristics are important, but they may not be sufficient on their own to explain institutional aggression.