“Bullying” among prisoners

Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 201–215, 2000 Copyright  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 1359-1789/00/$–see front matter

PII S1359-1789(98)00031-7

“BULLYING” AMONG PRISONERS: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH Jane L. Ireland HMYOI Lancaster Farms and University of Central Lancashire

ABSTRACT. This article reviews research on bullying amongst prisoners. It discusses the definitional problems surrounding the concept of “bullying” applied to a prison environment, and the concepts of dominance and inmate subculture in relation to their contributions to understanding bullying among prisoners. It also addresses the nature and the extent of bullying, the characteristics of bullies and their victims, and the reactions of victims to the bullying. The review concludes with a discussion of the methodological limitations of the present research and directions for future research.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. KEY WORDS. Bullying, prisons, dominance, subculture, nature/extent, bullies/victims “BULLYING” REPRESENTS A subsection of aggressive behavior which, although overlapping with aggression, remains distinct from it in that it possesses its own special characteristics. That is, it is a repetitive activity based on an asymmetrical power relationship (Olweus, 1996). Bullying may take many forms, which can be direct and overt in nature, such as physical assaults, verbal abuse, or threats (Ireland & Archer, 1996); alternatively, it may be more subtle and indirect, including gossiping, spreading rumors, ostracizing, and making fun of someone (Ireland, 1997). Bullying can occur within a wide range of different locations, such as schools, the armed forces, prisons, or the workplace (Adams, 1992; Ahmad & Smith, 1994; Ireland & Archer, 1996). Smith (1994) described bullying as a “systematic abuse of power,” and stated 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 recognized hierarchy” (Smith, 1994, p. 12), and this power can be abused. Smith further argued 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. Bullying itself has a number of definitions, but most contain the five key elements described by Farrington (1993): it must (a) involve physical, verbal, or psychological

Correspondence should be addressed to Jane L. Ireland, Psychology Unit, HMYOI Lancaster Farms, Lancaster LA1 3QZ, UK.

201

202

J. L. Ireland

attack, (b) involve an imbalance of power, (c) be repeated, (d) be unprovoked, and (e) intended to cause fear or harm to the victim. However, there remain problems in using this definition of bullying. For example, research has shown that there are a subsection of victims who are provocative, and who actively encourage their own victimization (Stephenson & Smith, 1989). According to the above definition, these individuals fall outside the bullying relationship (Ahmad & Smith, 1994). Indeed, Olweus (1996) states that in order to use the term bullying, there should be an imbalance of power with the victimized person having “. . . difficulty in defending him/herself, and is somewhat helpless against the students who harass” (p. 334). This does not explain why there is a subsection of individuals who are both victims and bullies (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Stephenson & Smith, 1989), nor does it explain why some victims retaliate against their aggressors (Salmivalli, Karhunen, & Largerspetz, 1996). Furthermore, indirect forms of bullying are often absent from definitions of bullying (Smith, 1994). It is only relatively recently that researchers have begun to recognize this indirect, or relational, behavior as a form of aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Largerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988). The problems in defining bullying seem to be especially relevant to the bullying that occurs in a prison environment. Olweus (1996) argued that aggressive actions have to be repeated to be classified as bullying, but with what frequency is uncertain. Connell and Farrington (1996) argued that individuals can only be classified as bullies or victims if they were involved in the behavior about once a week or more often. However, Beck and Ireland (1995) suggested that a broader definition of bullying needs to be applied to a prison setting, whereby a behavior does not necessarily have to be repetitive for it to be described as bullying. It can be argued that specific incidents of bullying behavior can occur in settings such as prisons, where repetition is improbable due to the rapid movement of inmates to new locations, either to and from prisons or to different sectors within a prison (Beck & Ireland, 1995). Olweus (1996) suggests that a serious (single) instance of victimization can be regarded as bullying under special circumstances. However, this raises the question of what is considered a serious instance of victimization and what is not. The concept of seriousness would seem especially relevant to those abusive behaviors specific to a prison environment. Taxing is a behavior in which new inmates have goods taken from them under the pretense of a tax (Home Office Prison Service, 1993; Ireland, 1997). Presumably, this represents a one-off incident of victimization which occurs to an inmate who is new to a prison or wing. As this form of victimization is likely to happen only once, it may be viewed as falling outside of the bullying relationship (Olweus, 1996). However, taxing can be classified as a serious incident of theft, and something that is expected from a prison environment by inmates (Marshall, 1993). This suggests that it is a repeated and commonplace occurrence that all new inmates have to expect. Such an activity can be classified as “. . . a single instance of more serious harassment (and) can be regarded as bullying under certain circumstances” (Olweus, 1996, p. 334). In a study by McGurk and McDougall (1986), initiation ceremonies, such as dormitory death runs, have been described. This is an activity in which the inmate is forced to run the gauntlet of inmates in the dorm, who hit him with pillowcases, some of which contain boots. Similarly, Connell and Farrington (1996) reported that a great deal of bullying took place as part of these initiation ceremonies, and that inmates new to the prison were bullied by those who had been there longest and who had seniority. Inmates did not consider this to be bullying, but rather a rite of passage. However, whether or not victimization continued was dependent upon how the inmate defended himself during this incident. Thus, although these activities might occur only once, they can be classified as serious,

Bullying Among Prisoners

203

with potential of long-term consequences for the inmate, and, therefore, can be described as special occurrences of bullying. Another bullying behavior specific to a prison environment is that of baroning. This is a behavior similar to that of a loan shark, where money, drugs, tobacco, or alcohol are lent to inmates and repayment is demanded with a high rate of interest (Home Office Prison Service, 1993; Ireland, 1997). Baroning, like taxing and initiation ceremonies, could also fall outside the bullying relationship because the victim entered the relationship voluntarily, and, therefore, initially it was not an asymmetrical one (Olweus, 1996). However, baroning is an example of extortion and represents an abusive relationship that extends over a period of time and one in which the inmate who barons has ultimate control over the loan. Punishments advocated for those who fail to pay their loans include physical assaults and threats (Brookes, 1993; Ireland & Archer, 1996). Thus, baroning, like taxing and initiation ceremonies, represents a special form of victimization and thus again would fit the criteria of bullying. The majority of research into bullying in prison fails to provide a definition of the phenomena. For example, in Brookes’ (1993) study, inmates were simply asked “Have you been bullied during the past week?” In this way, the definition of bullying was left up to the inmates. Indeed, research that has avoided using the term bullying has produced much higher victim and bully estimates (Beck & Smith, 1995; Ireland, in press). Such definitional problems can lead to an underrepresentation of bullying, as can the use of the actual term bullying, which holds negative connotations for both victims and instigators. Bullying is often seen as a childish activity limited to school children (Randall, 1997), and inmates may be reluctant to admit to bullying because they do not view it as applicable to them (Ireland, 1997). Connell and Farrington (1996) report that victimization had to be severe before inmates would construe it as bullying, and argue that what incarcerated youths consider to be bullying may not be the same as the definitions applied to school children. In summary, there appears to be a number of problems in applying the present definitions of bullying to an incarcerated sample. The term itself holds negative connotations for bullies as well as victims because it labels their behavior as immature. Use of the term encourages underreporting, which invariably means that no accurate estimate of the extent of bullying can be obtained. Further problems appear to arise from organization and structure of the prison system itself. There also is a lack of consistency about which activities can be classified as bullying. This coupled with the lack of a clear definition for bullying means that any findings drawn from these studies must be interpreted with caution. Undoubtedly, prisons represent unique environments and any definition of bullying applied in such an environment will need to reflect this.

THE SCOPE OF PRESENT RESEARCH Most of the research into bullying has been confined to schools, and has mainly been conducted in Scandinavia (Olweus, 1978, 1991, 1994), England (Rivers & Smith, 1994; Smith & Levan, 1995; Whitney & Smith, 1993) and Australia (Rigby, 1994; Rigby & Slee, 1991). However, research into this phenomena has also been conducted, to a lesser extent, in other countries, such as Japan, where it is referred to as ijime (Kiyonaga, Mugishima, Fumio, Takahasi, & Yoshiakia, 1985; Kiyonaga, Mugishima, & Takahasi, 1986), in Canada (Craig & Pepler, 1993; Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, & Charach, 1993), and the United States (Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1992). In particular, studies in the United States have tended to concentrate on wider concepts of aggression and victimization among peers (Perry,

204

J. L. Ireland

Williard, & Perry, 1990), addressing bullying aggression as a separate concept within these (Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993). Research into bullying in prison has been very limited and has focused on young male offenders (Beck, 1992; Connell & Farrington, 1996; Power, Dyson, & Wozniak, 1997), or adult male offenders (Brookes, 1993; Brookes, Cooper, Trivette, & Willmot, 1994; Livingston, Jones, & Hussain, 1994). Only Ireland (1997, in press) and Ireland and Archer (1996) have examined both male and female adult offenders, and none, apart from Ireland (1997, in press), has examined young female offenders. Furthermore, there is a lack of published research in this area, and, similarly, most of the research has been limited to an examination of the nature and the extent of the problem. Relatively little has been reported on the characteristics of bullies and their victims, and on the reactions of victims to their bullying. Furthermore, much of the research which addresses bullying within prisons has, to the author’s knowledge, been confined to the United Kingdom, with the exception of Connell and Farrington (1996), who addressed bullying among young offenders at an open-custody facility in Canada. Research has been conducted elsewhere addressing issues related to bullying in prison, but these issues have been considered using relatively different concepts, principally violence in prisons. Violence is distinct from forms of physical aggression; whereas physical aggression is concerned with the act itself, violence is concerned with the consequences (i.e., potential injury or death) (Archer, 1994). Most of the studies conducted outside of the United Kingdom have been concerned primarily with violence. Mutchnick and Fawcett (1990) examined violence in American juvenile institutions and McCorkle (1992) examined personal precautions to violence in an American adult male institution. Shields and Simourd (1991) examined predatory relationships among young offenders in a Canadian sample, with predatory relationships defined as those characterized by violence or threats of violence. Studies that have examined victimization amongst prisoners have also tended to concentrate on violence and not bullying: Toch (1992) addressed inmate victimization within American penal institutions. Using the definition of Fisher (1961, cited in Toch, 1992), who viewed victimization as a predatory practice, Toch focused on descriptions of violent behavior. The majority of research conducted outside the United Kingdom has focused on violent behaviors among prisoners as opposed to bullying behaviors. However, there is undoubtedly a degree of overlap between these two types of behavior. For example, Connell and Farrington (1996) stated that predatory behavior, as examined by Shields and Simourd (1991), represents one element of bullying behavior. Indeed, violence, such as predatory behavior, is certainly present in a number of bullying incidents. However, as stated by Olweus (1996), violence can take place without bullying, just as bullying can take place without violence. The best examples of forms of bullying that do not constitute violence would be indirect bullying and theft-related bullying. It appears that violence is a concept that, although overlapping with bullying, remains a relatively distinct form of behavior. Both concepts represent subcategories of aggressive behavior, but are distinct in that each has its own special characteristics (Olweus, 1996). As this review concerns bullying, it will focus on those studies that have dealt specifically with this phenomenon, although in parts it will be necessary to expand the discussion to include research that has examined violence and victimization among prisoners.

Bullying Among Prisoners

205

BULLYING AMONG PRISONERS Any institutional environment, such as a prison, where a climate is created in which individuals remain unable to approach those higher in the hierarchy is particularly prone to bullying behavior (Ireland, 1995). Indeed, prisons have been described by one British researcher as “violent environments” susceptible to bullying behavior (Mandaraka-Sheppard, 1986). Such a view is not unique to Britain, but has also been confirmed elsewhere, including Canada (Cooley, 1993), and the United States, where McCorkle (1992) states, “US prisons have been plagued by high levels of violence” (p. 160). Johnson (1987) argued that aggression between US prisoners is so prevalent that it has in effect been normalized, and is seen as expected behavior. The structure and organization of prison systems may also promote bullying, because maintenance of discipline and authority has been linked to bullying (Askew, 1989). Prisons are essentially closed environments, with few activities available to prisoners who are under protection but with limited supervision. Such a climate may facilitate bullying in which, “The strong can exploit the weak to create their own hierarchies. Bullies can get away with it and victims are afraid to report what has happened” (Home Office Prison Service, 1993, p. 6). Furthermore, prison environments provide prisoners with limited resources, especially in material goods. This promotes a capitalist economic structure, something that increases predatory behavior (MacDonald, 1988). This is expected from the viewpoint of evolutionary theory. Daly and Wilson (1994) argued that both animals and people will protect with violence what essential resources they have, and initiate violence against others when resources and territory are scarce. Furthermore, Gilbert (1994) describes how, in large groups where genetic and attachment relationships between individuals are low and where there is a competitive economic structure, then the exploitation of resources for individual advantage is encouraged. Genetic and attachment relationships within penal institutions are inherently low, encouraging such exploitation of resources through bullying. Societies based on capitalist economic structures purposefully create arenas for conflict and are “. . . concerned only with winners, [with] little interest in those who are disadvantaged” (Gilbert, 1994, p. 371). Bullying is a possible means through which an individual can be regarded as a winner. Any capitalist society may value traits, such as dominance and aggression, with a distaste for feminine traits, such as fear and vulnerability (Gilbert, 1994). The result is a ranking system, with the most dominant and aggressive individuals at the top (bullies), and the most fearful and vulnerable at the bottom (victims). Bullying in prison can be viewed as a product of the environment. It will undoubtedly flourish in penal institutions where emphasis is on maintaining discipline and authority, where supervision is relatively low and resources are limited. Closely connected issues are those of dominance and inmate subculture.

DOMINANCE The concept of dominance is of primary importance when describing bullying between prisoners. Beck (1992) argued that dominance is an encouraged element of imprisonment, with victims likely to remain isolated from the rest of the population, “Hierarchical power structures are likely to be accepted by those who work within prisons as the legitimate power structure also involves hierarchy, from the governor to officer” (p. 6). Furthermore, bullies are seen as having a high dominance motivation (Weisfeld, 1994). They are unique

206

J. L. Ireland

in that they typically target nonresistant victims, and once they have provoked a confrontation or fight of some form they ignore their victim’s submissive displays (Dodge, Price, Coie, & Christopoulos, 1990). Ethological research suggests that dominance hierarchies tend to be more prevalent among males than females, and are found in group-living species where resources are strongly contested. Individuals who fail to compete will fall to the bottom of the hierarchy under such conditions (Weisfeld, 1994). This has many parallels with a prison environment in which prisoners essentially cohabit as a group, resources are scarce, and noncompetitors or pacifists become victims. Although it is recognized that ethological principles were originally derived from nonhumans, researchers suggest that there is enough convergent evidence to conclude that dominance behavior among primates is homologous to that found in humans (Weisfeld, 1994). Research carried out on dominance applied to humans has mostly been confined to samples of children and adolescents. It suggests that dominance based on fighting ability occurs in children, especially boys, and that this finding is consistent across cultures (Omark, Strayer, & Freedman, 1980). However, rank orders based on social influence have also been described (Barner-Barry, 1980). On the basis of gender differences in aggression, males, the more physically aggressive gender (Bjorkqvist, 1994) will be more likely to base their dominance hierarchies on physical ability, whereas females will be more likely to use social manipulation and influence as a basis for their hierarchies (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Largerspetz, 1994). This is likely to occur in gender-segregated contexts, such as prisons, where the opposite gender is not present, with the male bully being more likely to gain dominance through physical means and the female bully through social manipulation. Prisons can actively encourage such a social system, with the ability to dominate the weak essential if acceptance and status are to be gained (Connell & Farrington, 1996). Relationships between prisoners will thus be based on dominance and power, with emphasis given to the creation of these hierarchies. Connell and Farrington (1996) state that bullies are given a high status in prison by both prisoners and staff. Being a victim, however, is seen as much more stigmatizing. This stigmatizing effect seems to be greater for male than female prisoners (Ireland, 1995). The concept of dominance is important in describing relationships between incarcerated individuals. Bullying is probably motivated by a drive to attain acceptance and social status, and the ethos of the prison appears to both encourage and maintain this. The role of dominance cannot, however, be discussed without also addressing the role of the inmate subculture.

INMATE SUBCULTURE Presence of an inmate subculture applies both to male and female prisons (MandarakaSheppard, 1986; Toch, 1992), and is important in explaining bullying in a prison environment. Responses of prisoners to questions concerning bullying or victimization are often influenced by the existence of this subculture, whose unwritten rules include not informing on fellow prisoners (Connell & Farrington, 1996), especially to people in authority. Marshall (1993) reported that victims who do report bullying are ostracized by their fellow inmates. Being seen as an informer is often cited as justification for bullying by other prisoners (Connell & Farrington, 1996). Many inmates fail to report victimization for this reason (O’Donnell & Edgar, 1996). It appears that inmates who are victimized or bullied are offered no means of escape from

Bullying Among Prisoners

207

the abusive relationship. The subculture may accentuate their victimization by enforcing sanctions against reporting to others. The victim does not have the option of reporting to those in authority, or of disclosing the abuse to their peer group, for fear of rejection or retribution.

EXTENT OF BULLYING In the UK, bullying in prison has long been recognized as a serious problem (Beck, 1992) and was implicated in the suicides of four young offenders during 1991 to 1992 in one institution alone (Marshall, 1993). Connell and Farrington (1996) highlight the importance of research into prison bullying in order to “. . . protect victims, for security and control reasons, and to assist in classification of offenders for need and risk assessment” (p. 78). One of the first studies to specifically address bullying was conducted in a British young offender institute by McGurk and McDougall (1986). Using structured interviews, 23 inmates were sampled: 61% reported having witnessed at least one incident of bullying in the week prior to the study, with 22% stating that they had heard about one incident. Beck (1992) sampled 189 inmates in a British young male offenders institute, using selfreports. He found that 21% had bullied others in the previous month, while 29% admitted being victims. Using both individual interviews and a self-report questionnaire, Connell and Farrington (1996), in two pilot studies, surveyed a total of 20 young male offenders from one Canadian institution, a sample which represented the entire population of the institution. The combined results showed that 70% of the sample were involved in bullying, 45% as bullies and 25% as victims. No inmates reported both bullying others and being victimized themselves. Power et al. (1997), using self-reports, surveyed 707 young male offenders from five Scottish penal establishments: 76% reported having seen bullying during their present sentence and in their current prison; 11% of the sample were classified as bullies; 24% as victims; and 5% as both bullies and victims. The research of Beck and Smith (1995) differs from those described above in that it attempted to avoid the definitional problems surrounding the concept of bullying. In this study, a behavioral checklist was developed which sought to capture self-reports of bullying and to avoid the problems of definition, by asking inmates to “identify things that have happened to them,” rather than whether or not they had been bullied. The definition of bullying was thus left up to the researcher and a measure of the discrete behaviors that made up bullying was obtained. Of 397 young male offenders, taken from one British institution, approximately 75% of prisoners reported having been involved in at least one interaction which could be defined as being bullied, with 50% reporting two interactions. Ireland (in press) using a similar self-report behavioral checklist that incorporated a modified version of the one used by Beck and Smith (1995), surveyed a total of 98 young offenders (77 male and 21 female) and 211 adult offenders (158 male and 53 female) from five separate British establishments. Young offenders were significantly more likely than adults to report being involved in at least one interaction defined by the researcher as bullying others, with 70% of young offenders reporting such an interaction, as compared with 52% of adult offenders. Males were significantly more likely than females to report bullying others (61% vs. 47%). Regarding self-reported victimization, 47% of young offenders reported at least one interaction defined by the researcher as being bullied compared to 54% of adults. This difference was not significant. There were no significant differences found between gender: both males and females reported a similar amount of victimization (50% vs. 57%).

208

J. L. Ireland

Brookes (1993) surveyed 56 adult male offenders in a British institution, using a semistructured interview questionnaire: 13% of the sample admitted to having been bullied at least once, with 2% stating that they had been bullied between two and four times, and 2% on over 12 occasions; 14% stated awareness of one bullying incident during the previous week, and 24% in the previous month. No inmates admitted being bullies. Brookes et al. (1994) surveyed a total of 123 adult male prisoners in a single British institution, using a semistructured interview questionnaire: 15% of inmates reporting seeing one incident of bullying in the previous week, with 13% reporting having heard about one incident; 3% reported bullying others; with 8% reporting being a victim of bullying. Livingston et al. (1994) surveyed 47 adult inmates from one British institution, using a semistructured interview questionnaire: 74% of inmates reporting witnessing bullying while at the prison, with 57% of inmates reporting having been bullied and 62% reporting having bullied others. In a study by Ireland and Archer (1996), in which a total of 90 male and 48 female adult offenders was surveyed from four British institutions, 46% of inmates reported having seen an inmate being bullied in the previous week. Males reported seeing more inmates being bullied than did females. Only 6% of the sample admitted to bullying others, while 14% admitted being victimized, significantly more females than males. Only 10.5% of the victims also admitted to being a bully, and this was restricted to the female sample. Both the perceived and actual extent of bullying differs greatly across studies. Apart from the findings of Livingston et al. (1994), it appears that young offenders perceive more bullying than adults, and admit bullying others more than adults. Although the Ireland (in press) study reported no significant difference between adults and young offenders as to victimization, there is evidence from other studies that young offenders do report more victimization than adults. However, in view of the relatively small number of studies, differences between them concerning time periods used to measure bullying (while some studies limited questions about bullying to the previous week or month, others asked about experiences over much a longer period), and that to date only Ireland (in press) has directly compared young and adult offenders, no firm conclusions can be drawn.

NATURE OF BULLYING Bullying in a prison environment can take many forms. In England, the Home Office Prison Service (1993) lists the most frequent types of bullying found in prison as assault (including sexual assault), verbal abuse, name calling (including racist name-calling), teasing, threats of violence, baroning, forcing other prisoners to hand over possessions (including taxing), and coercing inmates going on home leave or receiving visits to bring drugs back with them. Connell and Farrington (1996) reported that all of the young male victims in their study had undergone verbal bullying or threats, with just over half reporting being hit, and less than half reporting being robbed. None of the victims reported being beaten or abused sexually. However, McGurk and McDougall (1986) described specific incidents of bullying that did include acts of sexual abuse, such as masturbating another inmate or shaving an inmate’s pubic hair while they were tied to a bed. They also reported physical abuse, such as throwing a blanket over an inmates head and hitting him with sticks or kicking him; practical jokes, such as placing a cup of water on the pillow of a sleeping inmate

Bullying Among Prisoners

209

and then throwing a boot at him so that he awakes, startled; and intimidation or threats, such as pouring gasoline over an inmates’ feet and threatening to set fire to them. The majority of these bullying techniques were given names by the inmates such as “Whodunits,” “Kestrels,” and “Tetley’s.” In the Ireland and Archer (1996) study, types of bullying predominantly found to occur among male and female adult inmates were, in rank order, physical assaults, taking belongings, verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, gossiping and/or spreading rumors, and ostracizing. Males were significantly more likely than females to report physical assaults, with females significantly more likely than males to report verbal bullying, gossiping, and/ or spreading rumors and ostracizing. Willmott (1997) reports that most of the bullying found in an adult male sample took the form of threats or intimidation, and that physical violence tended to be quite rare. This is consistent with Livingston et al. (1994), who noted that one of the most frequently reported forms of bullying in their study was nonphysical intimidation. Brookes (1993) provided an even more extensive list of bullying among adult males, including kicks and slaps, batteries in socks being used as weapons, sexual abuse and denigration, practical jokes, such as placing excrement in bedding, deliberately damaging victim’s possessions, name-calling, spreading false stories about victims, threatening a victim’s family, and forcing inmates to bring drugs into prison. It is obvious from this brief review that the nature of bullying in prison can take a variety of forms. Use of names to describe some forms of abuse, particularly taxing and baroning, suggests that they are well established and possibly even tolerated to a certain degree by the inmate subculture.

CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTIMS AND BULLIES Research suggests that there are definite types of inmates who are bullied. Brookes (1993) reported that those most likely to be bullied, as perceived by both inmates and staff, include those who do not repay their debts, the weak and vulnerable, those who do not conform to the norms of the inmate subculture, those new to the prison system, sex offenders, those who cannot defend themselves (usually younger inmates), those with few friends, and inmates serving short sentences. Other categories perceived by inmates include codefendants who give evidence against others, small or young-looking prisoners, inmates from outside local areas (Brookes et al., 1994), drug users (Ireland & Archer, 1996), and odd-looking prisoners or those showing unusual behavior (Power et al., 1997). Similarly, Beck (1992) reported that victims were most likely offenders with little prison experience: 35% of freshman inmates reported being victims, compared to 14% of those with an extensive prison career. Connell and Farrington (1996) suggested that young offenders began their prison careers as victims and developed into bullies as their experience with prison life increased and their social network expanded, resulting in more friends among inmates with whom to associate. Power et al. (1997) reported that victims were less likely to be charged with a violent offense than either bullies or those not reporting any bullying or victimization. Very little is known about the bullies themselves. To my knowledge, only the studies conducted by Connell and Farrington (1996), Power et al. (1997) and Ireland (1997, in press) have addressed this directly. Connell and Farrington (1996) reported that the majority of bullies in their young male sample had also been bullies in their previous penal facility: 33% of these bullies also reported bullying others at school. Bullies were slightly younger than victims, and had previously been in custody, whereas none of the victims had. Power et al. (1997) reported that young male inmates who had spent a greater

210

J. L. Ireland

amount of time in prison were more likely to be bullies regardless of prison location, regime, sentence length, or whether or not they were currently on remand (i.e., unsentenced). Ireland (1997) reported that both young and adult inmates involved in bullying behavior held less positive attitudes toward the victims of bullying, and scored lower on some measures of empathy. In keeping with the findings of Power et al. (1997) and Connell and Farrington’s (1996) suggestion that offenders develop into bullies as their experience with prison increases, Ireland (in press) reported that one predictor of bullying behavior was a greater amount of time spent in prisons or similar institutions. Although examining inmate aggressors as opposed to bullies, Shields and Simourd (1991) also showed aggressors to have more extensive institutional and criminal histories, difficulties in associating with peers, psychological problems, and substance abuse problems than victims. O’Donnell and Edgar (1996), in a study of victimization in British adult and young offender institutions, reported that victimizers had been in prison for longer and had a greater number of previous custodies. However, they also reported that the length of time within an institution was not a predictor of being victimized: Young offenders who had been in custody for less than a month were no more likely to be victimized than those who had served 6 months or more. Previous experience of custody also did not reduce the probability of being a victim. In summary, it appears that inmates who get bullied are mainly those who go against the inmate subculture, possibly as a result of their lack of experience with prison and lack of social support from other inmates. Victims also include those who appear weak, vulnerable, or who stand out in some way. However, validity of these victim types has to be interpreted with caution, as they are mainly based on perceptions of inmates. Research also suggests that bullies tend to be those who have spent a greater amount of time in penal institutions, have had experience in bullying others either in prison or at school, hold less positive attitudes toward victims and score lower on some measures of empathy. However, in view of the limited amount of research conducted in this area, it is not yet possible to draw any firm conclusions, particularly about the characteristics of bullies.

REACTIONS TO BULLYING There is a lack of empirical research specifically addressing victims’ reactions to bullying. However, it is known that victims react to their victimization in different ways, either behaviorally, emotionally, or both. As has already been mentioned, bullying has been implicated in the suicides of four inmates in 1 year alone (Marshall, 1993). Similarly, Livingston (1994) reported that young offenders who self-injured were 20 to 25 times more likely to report bullying related-difficulties in the prison setting than young offenders who did not self-injure. Livingston and Chapman (1997) suggest that self-injury serves an instrumental function for the young offender: it enables the victim to avoid further victimization without “informing” on the inmate who is bullying them. Livingston and Chapman (1997) state that, “By self-injuring the young offender can communicate his distress to staff without being specific about the cause, and he can hope for a change of location” (p. 81). In England, the Home Office Prison Service (1993) lists a number of other behaviors that might also indicate that an inmate is being (or has been) bullied. These include escaping or absconding, failing to return following a home visit, either requesting to be segregated from other inmates or breaching discipline in an effort to be segregated,

Bullying Among Prisoners

211

requesting moves or transfers, reporting sick or showing a sudden lowering of mood. Other behaviors include avoiding further conflicts with inmates, crying, approaching staff, trying to get moved, and defending themselves (Beck & Smith, 1995; Ireland, in press). McCorkle (1992) examined the precautions that inmates took in an American adult institution in order to reduce threat of victimization. These were precautions taken either following victimization or when an inmate felt it was likely to occur. They included keeping more to themselves, avoiding certain areas of the prison, spending more time in their cells, avoiding activities, requesting protective custody, getting tough to avoid victimization, keeping a weapon nearby, and lifting weights. A factor analysis of these behaviors produced two factors: passive precaution or aggressive precaution. McCorkle reports that “. . . the more fearful, older, and socially isolated inmates primarily used avoidance behaviors . . . the younger inmates who use the inmate culture as a source of status and privilege tended to employ more aggressive or proactive techniques to deter attacks” (p. 160). Furthermore, those who had more prison experience and who had been threatened or physically assaulted during their sentence were also more likely to use aggressive precaution, a finding that has been confirmed by O’Donnell and Edgar (1996). This research shows that victims can respond to their victimization in several ways. Many inmates prepare themselves against any possible victimization and the precautions they take depend largely on age and level of involvement with the inmate subculture. Research that has directly addressed reactions to victimization is limited. Apart from perceptions, very little is known about the actual characteristics of victims of bullying, let alone their reactions to it.

CONCLUSION In the present article, research into bullying among prisoners was reviewed. Problems concerning both the definitions of bullying and its applicability to a prisoner sample were addressed, and a discussion of how the concepts of dominance and inmate subculture each contributed to a further understanding of the phenomena of bullying was presented. The review also addressed the nature and extent of bullying, characteristics of bullies and victims, and the reactions of victims to the bullying.

Methodological Limitations of the Present Research It is important to recognize that of the limited research that has been conducted researchers have used a variety of different methods such as structured interviews (McGurk & McDougall, 1986), semistructured interviews (Brookes, 1993), and self-reports in the form of a self-complete questionnaire (Power et al., 1997). The type of method used to collect data is important, with Connell and Farrington (1996, 1997) stating how self-reports, in the context of an individual interview, are the most reliable and valid methods of collecting information on bullies and victims. Furthermore, some researchers have avoided using the term bullying, instead measuring the discrete behaviors that make up bullying (Beck & Smith, 1995), whereas others have used the term bullying either with or without a definition of the phenomena (Brookes, 1993; Ireland & Archer, 1996). This undoubtedly influences the results: as has already been discussed the use of behavioral checklists that avoid the term bullying have produced much higher victim and bully estimates than the other methods (Beck & Smith, 1995; Ireland, in press). Researchers have also recognized problems inherent in sampling subjects from different

212

J. L. Ireland

prisons and then attempting to make direct comparisons between them (Ireland, in press). For example, prison establishments differ as to environmental setting: in the McGurk and McDougall (1986) study young offenders shared dormitories, whereas in the Beck (1992) study, young offenders were in separate cell accommodations. This could have had an influence on the levels of bullying reported, and on the nature of the abuse. For example, some forms of abuse described in the McGurk and McDougall (1986) study, notably practical jokes, would be unlikely to occur in prison establishments without dormitories or shared accommodations. Methodological differences between studies makes any direct comparison between them difficult, and limits the number of conclusions that can be made from them. In view of this, any conclusions drawn must be interpreted with caution.

Directions for Future Research Although research into bullying among prisoners is not extensive, it appears from this review that, of the research conducted, the majority has been confined to samples of males, in particular young male offenders (Beck, 1992; Connell & Farrington, 1996). There is a lack of research conducted among incarcerated females, with only the work of Ireland (1997, in press) and Ireland and Archer (1996) addressing adult females and none, apart from Ireland (1997, in press) addressing young female offenders. This coupled with the relatively small number of inmates sampled in the majority of studies, makes any conclusions reached about bullying among prisoners questionable, particularly if applied to the female prisoner population. The majority of research that has been conducted has been of a descriptive nature, focusing in particular on the nature and extent of bullying, and neglecting areas such as reactions to bullying and characteristics of bullies, which may have important implications for bullying intervention programs. Although being able to ascertain the nature and the extent of bullying is undoubtedly important, by itself this simply provides an estimate of need for such programs. Research, at present, fails to provide a detailed picture of which groups to target and how to recognize the symptoms of bullying, both of which are vitally important if intervention programs are to be effective. In order to develop a further understanding of bullying, and thus develop effective intervention programs, research needs to address the motivation behind bullying. Application of the concept of dominance (and to a certain extent that of an inmate subculture) are useful in suggesting possible reasons for engaging in, and maintaining, bullying. However, their usefulness in explaining bullying in a prison environment has not been tested empirically. There is also a need to decide on a specific definition of bullying that can be applied to a prison environment. As this review suggests, present definitions are inadequate when applied to a prison, mainly because they are based on definitions derived from samples of school children (Connell & Farrington, 1996). Definitions of bullying applied to a prison environment need to take into account the special characteristics of that environment, especially the rapid movement of inmates from location to location for security reasons. This invariably means that abusive relationships that are so characteristic of bullying between individuals within a school environment tend to develop and be maintained over a much shorter time when they occur within a prison setting. Furthermore, there are abusive behaviors specific to a prison environment, which would be excluded if present definitions of bullying are rigidly applied. Baroning, in particular, represents a behavior that develops into an asymmetrical relationship and is better de-

Bullying Among Prisoners

213

scribed as a form of extortion. It is easy to see how such an activity is absent from definitions of bullying within a school environment. It is also important to recognize that single incidents of abuse that occur in a prison setting do tend to be severe. Indeed, as this review suggests, such is the culture of the prison that some of these incidents (i.e., taxing and initiation ceremonies) tend to be expected by new prisoners, and hold the potential of long-term negative consequences for the victim. Thus, it must be argued that these single incidents of serious harassment should be regarded as bullying when they occur in a prison environment. Using the term victimization to describe activities such as taxing, baroning, and initiation ceremonies may be unnecessarily arbitrary. Such activities are direct products of the prison environment; they represent examples of severe abuse with the potential of longterm consequences for the victim. Thus they should be included in any prison definition of bullying. Perhaps a more behavioral definition of bullying would be more helpful, a definition that takes into account the characteristics of the environment in which it is being explored. Similarly, the applicability of the term bullying to a prison population needs to be reviewed. It not only is not recognized by the participants of this research, but it also holds negative connotations for both bullies and victims. Those who are victims of bullying are labeled as weak, and those who engage in bullying others have their behavior labeled as childish. If a term is used to describe this particular form of inmate abuse, then it should be one both more suitable and less stigmatizing. Acknowledgments—I would like to thank Professor J. Archer for his constructive and insightful comments on this review.

REFERENCES Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at work: How to confront and overcome it. London: Virago Press. Ahmad, Y., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bullying in schools and the issue of sex differences. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male violence (pp. 70–83). London: Routledge. Archer, J. (1994). Introduction: Male violence in perspective. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male violence (pp. 1–20). London: Routledge. Askew, S. (1989). Aggressive behavior in boys; to what extent is it institutionalized? In D. P. Tattum & D. A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 59–71). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Barner-Barry, C. (1980). The structure of young children’s authority relationships. In D. R. Omark, F. F. Strayer, & D. G. Freedman (Eds.), Dominance relationships: An ethological view of human conflict and social interaction (pp. 87–107). New York: Garland. Beck, G. (1992). Bullying amongst incarcerated young offenders. Unpublished Master’s of Science thesis. Birbeck College, University of London, UK. Beck, G., & Ireland, J. (1995, September). Measuring bullying in prisons. Paper presented at the 1995 Fifth Annual Division of Criminological and Legal Psychology Conference. UK, Newbold Revel, London. Beck, G., & Smith, P. K. (1995, September). An alternative assessment of the prevalence of bullying among young offenders. In G. Beck & J. Ireland (Eds.), Measuring bullying in prisons. Paper presented at the 1995 Fifth Annual Division of Criminological and Legal Psychology Conference, Newbold Revel, London. Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188. Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Largerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 20–30. Brookes, M. (1993). Reducing bullying at HMP Ranby. Psychology Research Report No. 8. UK: East Midlands. Brookes, M., Cooper, R., Trivette, E., & Willmot, P. (1994). Bullying survey at HMP Lincoln. Psychology Research Report. No. 19. UK: East Midlands. Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315–329.

214

J. L. Ireland

Connell, A., & Farrington, D. (1996). Bullying amongst incarcerated young offenders: developing an interview schedule and some preliminary results. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 75–93. Connell, A., & Farrington, D. (1997). The reliability and validity of resident, staff and peer reports of bullying in young offender institutions. Psychology, Crime and Law, 3, 1–11. Cooley, D. (1993). Criminal victimization in male federal prisons. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 4, 479–495. Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (1993). Bullies and victims. Paper presented at the Conference of the Society for Research in Child Development. New Orleans, LA. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1994). Evolutionary psychology of male violence. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male violence (pp. 253–288). London: Routledge. Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Coie, J. D., & Christopoulos, C. (1990). On the development of aggressive dyadic relationships in boys’ peer groups. Human Development, 33, 260–270. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research. Vol. 17 (pp. 381–458). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gilbert, P. (1994). Male violence: Towards an integration. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male violence (pp. 352–389). London: Routledge. Hazlar, R. J., Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5–16. Home Office Prison Service. (1993). Bullying in prison; A strategy to beat it. London: HMSO. Ireland, J. L. (1995). Descriptive analysis of bullying in male and female adult prisons. Bachelor’s of Science dissertation. Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, UK. Ireland, J. L. (1997). Bullying amongst prisoners: A study of gender differences, provictim attitudes and empathy. Master’s of Science dissertation. Department of Psychology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. Ireland, J. L., & Archer, J. (1996). Descriptive analysis of bullying in male and female adult prisoners. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 35–47. Ireland, J. L. (in press). Bullying amongst prisoners: A study of adults and young offenders. Aggressive Behavior. Johnson, R. (1987). Hard time: Understanding and reforming the prison. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Kiyonaga, K., Mugishima, F., Fumio, L., Takahasi, Y., & Yoshiakia, F. (1985). An investigation of the delinquency related to bullying—II: Situations of the delinquency and the attitudes of the subjects towards bullying. Reports of National Research Institute of Police Science, 26, 144–161. Kiyonaga, K., Mugishima, F., & Takahasi, Y. (1986). An investigation of the delinquency related to bullying—IV: Bullying and the response by the junior high school students who committed delinquency related to it. Reports of National Research Institute of Police Science, 27, 180–195. Largerspetz, K. M. J., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11–12 year old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403–414. Livingston, M. S. (1994). Self-injurious behavior in prisoners. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Leeds, UK. Livingston, M. S., & Chapman, A. J. (1997). Bullying and self-injurious behavior in young offenders. Journal of Prison Service Psychology, 3, 78–81. Livingston, M. S., Jones, V., & Hussain, S. (1994). The extent of bullying amongst adult inmates at HMP/YOI Moorland. Psychology Research Report. No. 20. UK: East Midlands. MacDonald, K. B. (1988). Social and personality development: An evolutionary synthesis. New York: Plenum Press. Mandarka-Sheppard, A. (1986). The dynamics of aggression in women’s prisons in England. London, UK: Gower. Marshall, R. E. (1993). The application of psychological principles to the problems of bullying amongst young offenders: A multi disciplinary approach. Journal of Prison Service Psychology, 1, 8–16. McCorkle, R. C. (1992). Personal precautions to violence in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 160–173. McGurk, B. J., & McDougall, C. (1986). The prevention of bullying among incarcerated delinquents. Directorate of Psychological Services Report, Series 2(144), April, London: HMSO. Mutchnick, R. J., & Fawcett, M. R. (1990). Violence in juvenile corrections: Correlates of victimization in group homes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 43–57. O’Donnell, I., & Edgar, K. (1996). The extent and dynamics of victimization in prisons (revised report). Research paper. Center for Criminological Research, University of Oxford. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press. Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and an effective intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 171–190. Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26, 331–359.

Bullying Among Prisoners

215

Omark, D. R., Strayer, F. F., & Freedman, D. G. (1980). Dominance relations: An ethological review of human conflict and social interaction. New York: Garland Press. Pepler, D., Craig, W., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1993). A school-based anti-bullying intervention: Preliminary evaluation. In D. P. Tattum (Ed.), Understanding and managing bullying (pp. 76–91). Oxford: Heinemann Educational. Perry, D. G., Williard, J. C., & Perry, L. C. (1990). Peers’ perceptions of the consequences that victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development, 61, 1310–1325. Power, K. G., Dyson, G. P., & Wozniak, E. (1997). Bullying among Scottish young offenders: Inmates’ selfreported attitudes and behavior. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 209–218. Randall, P. (1997). Adult bullying: perpetrators and victims. London: Routledge. Rigby, K. (1994). Psychosocial functioning in families of Australian adolescent schoolchildren involved in bully/ victim problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 173–187. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes towards victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615–627. Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behavior and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359–368. Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Largerspetz, K. M. J. (1996). How do the victims respond to bullying? Aggressive Behavior, 22, 99–109. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755–1772. Shields, I. W., & Simourd, D. J. (1991). Predicting predatory behavior in a population of incarcerated young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 180–194. Smith, P. K. (1994). What can we do to prevent bullying in school? The Therapist, Summer, 12–15. Smith, P. K., & Levan, S. (1995). Perceptions and experiences of bullying in younger pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 489–500. Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Bullying in the junior school. In D. P. Tattum & D. A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 45–56). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Toch, H. (1992). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Weisfeld, G. E. (1994). Aggression and dominance in the social world of boys. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male violence (pp. 42–69). London: Routledge. Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3–25. Willmot, P. (1997). The development of an anti-bullying strategy at HMP Lincoln. Journal of Prison Service Psychology, 3, 81–86.