Intent to Aggress in Forensic Settings

424 Pages·2015·2.5 MB·English

by  Information Systems Service

Intent to Aggress in Forensic
Settings

by

Polly Turner

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire

February 2015
DECLARATION

I declare that no material contained in the thesis has been used in any other
submission for an academic award and is solely my own work

Signature of candidate

Type of award
PhD

School
Psychology

ii
ABSTRACT

This PhD examines the role of individual and environmental characteristics in the
intent to aggress, resulting in the development of a model to understand the intent
to aggress in forensic settings. Study one focused on individual characteristics of
aggressors in a prison sample of adult men (n=200). The study confirmed the
importance of personality traits and beliefs in engagement in aggression in forensic
settings. Aggressors reported low levels of agreeableness and high neuroticism
and greater aggressive supportive beliefs, although the variance explained by
personality traits and beliefs was low. Study two therefore aimed to examine other
factors potentially of relevance, specifically environmental factors. Staff from two
Young Offender sites (n=103), one closed and one open, participated. The results
confirmed the influence of the physical and social aspects of the secure setting
over attitudes and responses to aggression; the more secure physical environment
was found to associate with negative attitudes towards prisoners and pro-
aggressive attitudes. Attitudes were thus found to be important factors in the
response to aggression. The final study aimed to combine both individual
characteristics (e.g., beliefs, fear and personality) and environmental factors in a
single study using prisoners (n=427) and staff (n=78) from one category B
establishment housing adult men. Examination of emotion was lacking from study
one and was therefore included in study three. The results confirmed the
importance of beliefs via a moderating effect of fear. Greater perceptions of the
threat in the forensic setting differentiated between aggressors and those not
involved in aggression. The findings of the three studies were combined with
existing theoretical frameworks and suggested two different pathways to increased
aggression and one for the inhibition of aggression. These three pathways are
presented via the Model of Intent to Aggress in Secure Settings (MIA-SS).
iii
CONTENTS

Page
CHAPTER 1: Setting the Scene ................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: Understanding aggression
2.1 Structure of the chapter..................................................................... 5
2.2 Defining aggression .......................................................................... 5
2.3 Forms of aggression ...................................................................... 10
2.4 Theories and models of general aggression ................................... 28
2.5 Concluding comments .................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 3: Understanding aggression in forensic settings
3.1 Structure of the chapter .................................................................. 45
3.2 Occurrence of aggression in forensic settings .............................. 45
3.3 Models of aggression in forensic settings ...................................... 51
3.4 Concluding comments .................................................................... 62
CHAPTER 4: Individual differences in aggression
4.1 Structure of the chapter................................................................... 64
4.2 Cognition: Attitudes, beliefs and attributions .................................. 64
4.3 Personality and aggression ............................................................ 83
4.4 Concluding comments .................................................................... 96
CHAPTER 5: Forensic environment and aggression
5.1 Structure of the chapter................................................................... 98
5.2 The influence of situational variables on aggression ...................... 99
5.3 Forensic social environment: The influence on
prisoner behaviour ...................................................................... 101
5.4 Forensic social environment: Staff attitudes ................................. 106
5.5 Forensic physical environment: ..................................................... 117
5.6 Concluding comments .................................................................. 122
CHAPTER 6: Addressing the Research Problem
6.1 Structure of the chapter................................................................. 123
6.2 Aggression in forensic settings ................................................... 123
6.3 Individual differences ................................................................... 124
6.4 The influence of the forensic environment ................................... 125
6.5 Aims ............................................................................................. 127
6.6 How the PhD will address these aims ........................................... 131
CHAPTER 7: Study 1: Individual differences in aggressors in prison
7.1 Structure of the chapter................................................................. 133
7.2 Participants ................................................................................... 135
7.3 Materials ...................................................................................... 136
7.4 Procedure .................................................................................... 138
7.5 Data screening ............................................................................. 139
7.6 Associations amongst variables .................................................. 145
7.7 Summary of results ...................................................................... 158
iv
7.8 Discussion ..................................................................................... 159
7.9 Limitations of this study ................................................................ 168
7.10 Issues for further research ........................................................... 169
CHAPTER 8: Study 2: The influence of the environment
8.1 Structure of the chapter................................................................. 172
8.2 Participants ................................................................................... 174
8.3 Materials ....................................................................................... 177
8.4 Procedure ..................................................................................... 181
8.5 Data screening .............................................................................. 182
8.6 Exploratory analyses of attitudinal measures employed .............. 184
8.7 Associations amongst variables .................................................... 191
8.8 Summary of results ....................................................................... 201
8.9 Discussion ..................................................................................... 202
8.10 Limitations of this study ................................................................. 210
8.11 Issues for further research ........................................................... 211
CHAPTER 9: Study 3: The role of individual and environmental factors in
the intent to aggress
9.1 Structure of the chapter................................................................. 213
9.2 Participants ................................................................................... 215
9.3 Materials ....................................................................................... 217
9.4 Procedure .................................................................................... 220
9.5 Data screening .............................................................................. 221
9.6 Exploratory analysis of environmental measure ........................... 228
9.7 Associations among variables ....................................................... 232
9.8 Categories involved in aggression and victimisation .................... 239
9.9 Path and moderation analysis ....................................................... 249
9.10 Summary of results ....................................................................... 252
9.11 Discussion .................................................................................... 254
9.12 Limitations of this study ................................................................. 262
CHAPTER 10: General Discussion
10.1 Structure of the chapter................................................................. 264
10.2 Discussion of overall findings ........................................................ 264
10.3 The Model of Intent to aggress in Secure Settings: MIA-SS ........ 279
10.4 Limitations of the research ........................................................... 286
10.5 Implications of the research ......................................................... 288
10.6 Directions for future work .............................................................. 288
10.7 Final conclusion ........................................................................... 291

REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 293

APPENDIX 1: Questionnaires used for study one .................................. 314
APPENDIX 2: DIPC-Scaled items used for ‘direct aggression’ scale ...... 330
APPENDIX 3: Questionnaires used for study two ................................... 332
APPENDIX 4: Questionnaires used for study three ................................. 344
v
APPENDIX 5: Additional information relating to moderator analysis
in study three ........................................................................................... 374
APPENDIX 6: Publication of study one .................................................. 379
APPENDIX 7: Publication of study two .................................................... 390

LIST OF TABLES
7.1 Descriptive statistics for the sample .............................................. 136
7.2 Overall means and reliability table for DIPC-Scaled, EXPAGG
and IPIP ....................................................................................... 142
7.3 Correlations across DIPC-Scaled, EXPAGG and IPIP ................. 144
7.4 EXPAGG mean scores according to aggressor category ............ 147
7.5 Self reported IPIP scores across aggression categories .............. 149
7.6 Summary of logistic regressions predicting
category membership ................................................................... 152
7.7 Correlations between direct aggression, personality and
beliefs about aggression .............................................................. 154
7.8 Regression of direct aggression onto personality and
beliefs about aggression .............................................................. 156
7.9 Correlations between indirect aggression and personality
and beliefs about aggression ....................................................... 157
8.1 Descriptive statistics for the sample .............................................. 175
8.2 Reported daily experience of forms of aggression across
site and sex .................................................................................. 176
8.3 Overall means and reliability table for ATP and PAS ................... 183
8.4 Correlations across ATP and PAS ............................................... 184
8.5 Factor structure of the Attitudes Towards Prisoners (ATP) Scale 186
8.6 Factor structure of the Prison Aggression Scale (PAS) ............... 189
8.7 Mean attitudes and exposure to aggression according to
workplace ..................................................................................... 193
8.8 Mean self reported attitudes for sex and age ............................... 195
8.9 Correlations between intervention approach and attitudes .......... 197
8.10 Correlations between exposure to aggression and attitudes ........ 199
8.11 Regression of attitudes based on workplace setting,
sex and exposure to aggression .................................................. 200
9.1 Descriptive statistics for the prisoner sample ............................... 216
9.2 Descriptive statistics for the staff sample ..................................... 217
9.3 Overall means and reliability table for DIPC-R, ESCQ,
TIPI and TAB-R (Prisoner sample) .............................................. 224
9.4 Overall means and reliability table for DIPC-R ESCQ
and TAB-R (Staff sample) ............................................................ 225
9.5 Correlations across DIPC-R, TIPI, ESCQ and TAB-r
for prisoner sample ...................................................................... 227
9.6 Correlations across DIPC-R, ESCQ and TAB-R for staff sample . 228
9.7 Factor structure of the ESCQ: Prisoner sample ............................ 230
9.8 Frequencies of reported perpetration and victimisation ............... 234
9.9 TIPI, TAB-R and ESCQ scores according Aggressors,
Victims and Not Involved .............................................................. 235

vi
9.10 TIPI, TAB-R and ESCQ mean scores according to
aggressor category ...................................................................... 241
9.11 Summary of logistic regressions predicting category membership .....
................................................................................................... 244
9.12 Mean attitude and environmental perceptions by sex .................. 246
9.13 Mean environment perceptions for prisoners and staff ................ 248

LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 An Integrated Model of Emotion Processing and Cognition in
Social Information Processing (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000) ............ 34
2.2 General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson & Carnagey, 2004) ... 38
3.1 Multifactor Model of Bullying in Secure Settings
(MMBSS; Ireland, 2012) ................................................................. 57
7.1 Structure and aims of Chapter seven ........................................... 134
8.1 Structure and aims of Chapter eight ............................................ 173
9.1 Structure and aims of Chapter nine ............................................. 214
9.2 Initial path analysis diagram ......................................................... 250
9.3 Revised path analysis diagram .................................................... 251
10.1 Model of Intent to Aggress in Secure Settings (MIA-SS) ............. 281

vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Professor Jane Ireland must first be acknowledged and thanked. I would not
have embarked on a PhD without her. Her guidance and encouragement has
been invaluable. I wish to also thank the rest of my supervisory team, Dr Carol
Ireland, Dr Niki Graham-Kevan and Professor John Archer, for their advice and
direction when I needed it most. Thanks also to Dr Pamela Qualter and Dr
Vaithehy Shanmugam for their statistical analysis support.

I wish to dedicate this thesis to the unfaltering support and encouragement of
my family and all my close friends, without whom I could not have completed
the journey. Specific thanks go to Phil and my parents for your patience and
perseverance. I wish to also acknowledge my dear friend Emily who has been
alongside me each step of the way, who is near the end of her own PhD
journey.

I wish to thank the organisations for hosting the research. There were many
people, at all levels of the organisations, who offered me advice and support to
conduct the research. Finally, the research would not have been possible
without the participants who gave their time and effort to complete the
measures. It is my hope that the outcome of the research can inform practice to

reduce aggression in forensic settings.

viii
Chapter 1

SETTING THE SCENE

The aim of this thesis is to examine the factors influencing decisions to use
aggression in a forensic context and the factors underpinning the intent to
aggress. Intent has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “having ones mind
fixed on some purpose” (Oxford Dictionary, 1994). Thus intent to aggress would
be conceptualised as purposefully acting aggressively rather than merely
behaving in a manner which inadvertently causes harm to others (Kinsella &
Tinsley, 2004). In terms of the intent to aggress, it is the individual and
environmental factors outlined that are significant in existing general aggression
models (e.g., Anderson & Carnagey, 2004; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Huesmann,
1998; Slotter & Finkel, 2011) and associated forensic literature (e.g., Ireland,
2012; Steinert & Whittington, 2013) which will form the focus of this thesis.

Traditional models of aggression such as the Unified Social Information
Processing Model of Huesmann (1998) and the General Aggression Model
(GAM; Anderson & Bushman, 2002) outline specific individual differences
proposed to underpin aggression. Each model highlights the importance of
cognitions, such as beliefs and attitudes, supportive of the use of aggression.
Each model suggests a role for affect in the influence over selection of scripts,
defined as a series of behavioural steps. These models move away from the
notion of anger being the primary emotion contributing to aggression and
consider all emotional experiences to be influential (Anderson & Carnagey,
Page 1 of 397
2004; Huesmann, 1998; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). However, the general
aggression models do not attend to the specific role of the environment.
Aggression is a significant concern in forensic settings and it seems remiss to
neglect the characteristics of the secure setting. Research has shown specific
aspects of the physical and social climate in forensic settings to influence rates
of aggression (Bierie, 2012; Gadon, Johnstone & Cooke, 2006). General
aggression models do not account for such factors and thus are limited in their
ability to explain the choice to aggress in the forensic setting.

Early criminological models such as the Deprivation Model (Goffman, 1961)
argued that the prison setting (i.e., the environmental characteristics of the
prison) was responsible for violence in the prison. It was proposed that those
housed in the oppressive conditions of prison would be likely to use aggression
when faced with removal of freedoms and privileges. The Deprivation Model
developed based on the notion of prisons as closed social system (Morgan,
2002) and thus study was focused on the environment to understand the
behaviour within it. Whilst this enabled research to identify influential aspects of
the physical and social environment it neglected the role of individual
differences of those housed in forensic settings.

This exclusive focus on the setting, however, does not account for the important
individual characteristics common amongst those housed in secure settings.
Not all those housed in prisons choose to act aggressively and thus equal
attention needs to be paid to individual characteristics.

Page 2 of 397