Institutional Aggression | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
Updated: Sep 20
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 65 to 80 minutes
Institutional aggression A-Level Psychology revision examines why aggression occurs between people living or working within institutions, focusing specifically on prisons. You will compare the importation model, which explains aggression through characteristics prisoners bring into prison, with the deprivation model, which emphasises harsh prison conditions. This lesson brings together earlier ideas about blocked goals and aggressive tension, learned behaviour and group influence, helping you construct balanced explanations rather than assuming that prison violence has one simple cause.
The AQA specification requires knowledge of dispositional and situational explanations of institutional aggression in the context of prisons.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define institutional aggression, dispositional explanations and situational explanations.
Explain the importation model of prison aggression.
Explain the deprivation model and Sykes’ five forms of deprivation.
Apply both explanations to unfamiliar descriptions of prison life.
Compare the assumptions, predictions and practical implications of the two approaches.
Evaluate dispositional and situational explanations using evidence and methodological issues.
Revision Notes đź“š
Institutional Aggression A-Level Psychology Revision Focus
Institutional aggression is aggressive behaviour that occurs within an institution.
In the context of prisons, this can include aggression:
Between prisoners.
By prisoners towards prison staff.
By staff towards prisoners.
Between groups or gangs.
Directed towards prison property.
Expressed through threats, intimidation or physical violence.
The AQA specification focuses on two broad explanations:
Dispositional explanations, which locate the cause within the people entering prison.
Situational explanations, which locate the cause within the prison environment.
These explanations do not simply describe different types of aggression. They make different claims about why institutional aggression occurs.
Dispositional and Situational Causes
A disposition is a relatively enduring characteristic, tendency or set of attitudes associated with an individual.
A dispositional explanation argues that prisoners differ in their likelihood of aggression before they enter prison. Aggressive behaviour reflects characteristics imported from their lives outside.
A situation is the external environment and the conditions surrounding behaviour.
A situational explanation argues that imprisonment creates deprivation, stress, frustration and competition. Prison conditions therefore produce or increase aggression.
Dispositional explanation | Situational explanation |
Cause is mainly located within prisoners | Cause is mainly located within the prison environment |
Aggressive tendencies existed before imprisonment | Aggression develops or increases because of prison conditions |
Known as the importation model | Known as the deprivation model |
Emphasises personal history, attitudes and group affiliations | Emphasises loss, restriction, crowding and competition |
Prisoners bring aggression into the institution | The institution generates aggression |
⚠️ Dispositional does not automatically mean genetic. A prisoner may import learned values, previous experiences or gang norms. These are personal characteristics at the point of entry, even though they may originally have developed through the environment.
The Importation Model
The importation model is a dispositional explanation associated with Irwin and Cressey.
It proposes that prisoners import into prison the:
Values.
Attitudes.
Experiences.
Behavioural tendencies.
Criminal identities.
Group loyalties.
Aggressive norms.
that they developed before imprisonment.
Prison is therefore not seen as the original cause of aggression. Instead, it brings together individuals who may already have histories or characteristics associated with aggressive behaviour.
The Basic Importation Process
The model can be represented as follows:
A person develops values, attitudes and behavioural tendencies outside prison.
Some of these characteristics support or normalise aggression.
The person enters prison carrying these characteristics.
The prison provides contact with rivals, authority figures and other groups.
Pre-existing aggressive tendencies are expressed through institutional aggression.
For example, someone who previously learned that aggression produces status may use similar behaviour to establish status in prison.
The prison setting provides an opportunity for aggression, but the original tendency is imported.
Criminal History
A history of violent or aggressive offending may indicate that a prisoner was already willing to use aggression before entering the institution.
The importation model would predict that prisoners with a history of aggression are more likely to:
Threaten other prisoners.
Assault staff.
Become involved in violent disputes.
Use intimidation to obtain resources.
Respond aggressively to challenges.
Join aggressive prisoner groups.
This does not mean that every person convicted of a violent offence will be aggressive in prison. A criminal record provides evidence of previous behaviour, not certainty about future conduct.
Gang Membership and Group Values
Some prisoners may enter prison with existing gang identities and loyalties.
They may import:
Hostility towards rival groups.
Expectations of retaliation.
Rules about loyalty and respect.
Approval of violence.
A need to defend group status.
Existing disputes with other prisoners.
These values may produce institutional aggression when rival groups meet inside prison.
Evidence involving the importation of gang values is identified in AQA mark schemes as relevant support for the dispositional model.
A possible sequence is:
Pre-existing gang affiliation → imported rivalries and aggressive norms → challenge within prison → aggression towards a rival group
This also connects with learning aggressive behaviour from group members.
The Prisoner Code
Prisoners may enter prison familiar with norms that value:
Toughness.
Loyalty.
Resistance to authority.
Retaliation.
Maintaining respect.
Refusing to appear vulnerable.
These expectations can form part of a criminal or group identity.
Aggression may be used to:
Gain status.
Avoid victimisation.
Demonstrate loyalty.
Defend reputation.
Obtain resources.
Discourage future challenges.
The importation model explains this behaviour through values already held when the prisoner entered the institution.
Age and Previous Experience
Prisoners differ in their previous lives and experiences.
Relevant dispositional factors may include:
Previous imprisonment.
History of violence.
Group or gang membership.
Learned approval of aggression.
Impulsivity.
Attitudes towards authority.
Expectations about prison life.
A prisoner who has repeatedly used aggression successfully outside prison may be especially likely to continue using it inside.
Previous imprisonment may also mean that the person already understands prisoner norms and knows how aggression can be used within the institution.
Aggression as an Imported Strategy
The importation model does not require aggression to reflect uncontrolled anger.
Aggression may be used deliberately to:
Obtain limited resources.
Protect possessions.
Establish dominance.
Avoid being targeted.
Maintain group loyalty.
Control other prisoners.
The prisoner imports the belief that aggression is an effective or necessary strategy.
This may involve proactive aggression, where harmful behaviour is planned and used to achieve an outcome.
Applying the Importation Model
Consider this scenario:
Before imprisonment, Leon was a member of a violent group and had repeatedly assaulted members of a rival group. Several members of both groups are held in the same prison. Leon threatens a rival prisoner and encourages other members of his group to attack him.
A strong application would explain:
Leon already belonged to a violent group before imprisonment.
He imported the group’s values and rivalries into prison.
His previous assaults suggest an existing willingness to use aggression.
Contact with the rival prisoner activates a pre-existing conflict.
Encouraging fellow group members reflects imported loyalty and aggressive group norms.
Prison provides the setting, but the dispositional explanation locates the origin of aggression outside it.
A weak answer would merely state:
Leon is aggressive because of the importation model.
Effective application must identify what was imported.
Strength: Evidence for Imported Characteristics
Evidence connecting prison violence with gang membership or prior aggressive behaviour supports the importation model.
For example, evidence that prisoners retain gang values inside prison suggests that institutional aggression is not created entirely by the prison environment.
This supports the dispositional explanation because:
The aggressive norm existed before imprisonment.
The group conflict crosses the boundary between the community and prison.
Prisoners with different backgrounds may respond differently to the same conditions.
Aggression can be predicted partly from pre-prison characteristics.
DeLisi’s work on the importation of gang values is recognised in the AQA mark scheme as evidence relevant to the comparison between situational and dispositional explanations.
Limitation: The Importation Model May Underestimate Prison Conditions
A prisoner may possess aggressive attitudes without behaving violently in every setting.
Whether aggression is expressed may depend on:
Overcrowding.
Threats from other prisoners.
Availability of resources.
Staff supervision.
Opportunities for meaningful activity.
Access to family contact.
The level of personal safety.
This suggests that imported tendencies alone are insufficient.
A prisoner with an aggressive history may behave peacefully in a well-managed environment, while someone with no violent history may become aggressive under threatening conditions.
The importation model may therefore underestimate the role of the institution in activating or suppressing aggression.
Limitation: Cause and Effect
A relationship between previous gang membership and prison aggression does not establish a straightforward causal connection.
Possible complications include:
Gang-affiliated prisoners may be placed in more restrictive prisons.
Staff may treat prisoners differently because of their history.
Rival gang members may deliberately target each other.
Serious offenders may experience harsher conditions.
Records of aggression may be influenced by greater staff monitoring.
The imported characteristic may contribute to aggression, but prison experiences may also change the prisoner’s behaviour.
The Deprivation Model
The deprivation model is a situational explanation of institutional aggression.
It proposes that aggression results from the difficult conditions and losses associated with imprisonment.
The individual is deprived of important freedoms, relationships, resources and feelings of safety. These deprivations create:
Stress.
Frustration.
Boredom.
Competition.
Fear.
Loss of control.
Hostility.
Aggression may then be used as a way of coping, gaining resources or protecting oneself.
The June 2025 AQA mark scheme describes this model as situation-dependent and explains aggression through harsh prison conditions.
Sykes’ Five Forms of Deprivation
Sykes identified five important forms of deprivation associated with imprisonment:
Deprivation of liberty.
Deprivation of autonomy.
Deprivation of goods and services.
Deprivation of heterosexual or intimate relationships.
Deprivation of security.
These are sometimes described as the pains of imprisonment.
The deprivations overlap, but each makes a distinct contribution to prison stress and aggression.
Deprivation of Liberty
Liberty means freedom to move, choose where to go and organise one’s life.
Prisoners experience severe restrictions on:
Movement.
Daily activities.
Personal space.
Contact with the outside world.
Access to different environments.
Decisions about where they live.
This may create aggression because the prisoner:
Feels trapped.
Resents restrictions.
Experiences frustration.
Becomes hostile towards staff who enforce the rules.
Competes for the limited freedom available.
Overcrowding may intensify the deprivation of liberty because prisoners have even less personal space and greater unwanted contact with others.
Deprivation of Autonomy
Autonomy means the ability to make choices and control one’s own behaviour.
Prisoners may have little control over:
When they wake.
When they eat.
What food is provided.
When they exercise.
Which activities are available.
When they can communicate with others.
What they can possess.
Loss of autonomy may make prisoners feel powerless or treated like children.
Aggression may become:
A way of resisting authority.
An attempt to regain control.
A response to frustration.
A method of influencing other prisoners or staff.
The 2025 AQA question included a prisoner who had little choice over activities, food and television. These details were intended to be linked to deprivation of autonomy.
Deprivation of Goods and Services
Prisoners have restricted access to desirable possessions, activities and services.
Limited goods and services may include:
Books.
Recreational equipment.
Food choices.
Comfortable accommodation.
Educational opportunities.
Entertainment.
Personal possessions.
Scarcity can produce competition.
For example:
Several prisoners want to use one pool table, but only a small number can access it.
Competition over the limited resource may produce threats, intimidation or violence.
Aggression may be used to:
Gain priority.
Control access.
Take possessions.
Defend limited goods.
Establish a hierarchy governing distribution.
Deprivation of Heterosexual or Intimate Relationships
Imprisonment may restrict access to:
Partners.
Family members.
Physical intimacy.
Emotional closeness.
Private relationships.
Regular social contact.
The 2025 mark scheme accepts deprivation of heterosexual or intimate relationships, so the explanation can be applied inclusively to the loss of close and intimate contact.
This deprivation may create:
Isolation.
Loneliness.
Stress.
Frustration.
Loss of emotional support.
Conflict within the prison population.
A prisoner who cannot receive visits because family live far away may experience this form of deprivation.
Deprivation of Security
Prisoners may face threats from:
Violent prisoners.
Rival groups.
Bullying.
Theft.
Intimidation.
Unpredictable conflict.
This creates deprivation of security because the prisoner cannot feel consistently safe.
Aggression may then be used for self-protection.
A prisoner may believe that they must:
Appear tough.
Retaliate against challenges.
Join a protective group.
Carry out a pre-emptive attack.
Establish a reputation that discourages victimisation.
This produces a cycle:
Fear of aggression → defensive aggression → greater threat to others → more defensive aggression
In the 2025 question, the statement that a prisoner had to be tough to survive was a clear application of deprivation of security.
From Deprivation to Aggression
The deprivation model can be organised into the following chain:
Imprisonment removes freedom, choice, resources, relationships or safety.
The deprivation produces stress and frustration.
Scarcity creates competition between prisoners.
The individual experiences anger, fear or loss of control.
Aggression is used to obtain resources, restore control or protect oneself.
Aggression becomes part of institutional life.
This connects directly to the effects of obstructed goals.
A prisoner may have goals involving:
Contacting a partner.
Using recreational facilities.
Making choices.
Feeling safe.
Having personal space.
Prison conditions repeatedly obstruct these goals, creating frustration and increasing the likelihood of aggression.
Applying the Deprivation Model
Consider this scenario:
Mari has no choice over her daily routine and spends most of the day confined to a shared cell. There are few educational activities and prisoners regularly argue over access to exercise equipment. Mari has stopped receiving visits because her family live far away. She has begun threatening other prisoners because she believes appearing weak will make her a target.
A developed application would identify:
No choice over routine as deprivation of autonomy.
Confinement as deprivation of liberty.
Few activities and competition over equipment as deprivation of goods and services.
Loss of visits as deprivation of intimate relationships.
Fear of being targeted as deprivation of security.
Repeated deprivation creates frustration and competition.
Threatening others may be used to regain control or deter attacks.
This is stronger than labelling the whole scenario as “bad prison conditions”.
Reducing Aggression According to the Deprivation Model
If prison conditions produce aggression, changing those conditions should reduce it.
Possible recommendations include:
Reducing overcrowding.
Providing individual cells or more personal space.
Increasing access to activities.
Offering education and training.
Providing sufficient recreational resources.
Allowing prisoners some choice over routines.
Using prisoner representatives in decision-making.
Improving access to visits and communication.
Increasing safety and effective supervision.
Reducing unnecessary restrictions.
AQA’s 2021 mark scheme awarded application marks for recommendations linked to the five forms of deprivation, including greater autonomy, better access to goods, meaningful activities and less crowded accommodation.
A recommendation must be connected to the explanation:
Giving prisoners some choice over activities may reduce deprivation of autonomy. This should reduce frustration and therefore lower aggression.
Strength: Evidence Linking Conditions with Aggression
Research linking prison conditions with violence supports the deprivation model.
AQA mark schemes identify relevant evidence involving:
Prison conditions and violence.
Overcrowding and aggression.
Situational features of institutions.
The relationship between deprivation and frustration.
Steiner’s research into prison conditions and Johnson’s work linking overcrowding with increased aggression are identified as relevant evidence in the 2025 mark scheme.
Such findings support the model because aggression varies with features of the institution rather than depending only on prisoner characteristics.
Strength: Practical Applications
The deprivation model has clear practical value.
It suggests that aggression may be reduced by changing conditions rather than treating prisoners as permanently aggressive.
This could include:
Providing meaningful education.
Increasing opportunities to learn skills.
Improving accommodation.
Reducing competition for scarce goods.
Allowing appropriate personal choice.
Supporting family contact.
Improving prisoner safety.
This is a strength because the explanation generates testable and useful predictions:
If deprivation contributes to aggression, reducing deprivation should reduce institutional violence.
However, improvements may require considerable resources and funding.
Limitation: Cost
Some situational interventions may be expensive.
For example:
Reducing overcrowding may require additional prison accommodation.
Increasing staff numbers creates ongoing costs.
Education and training require specialist staff.
Greater access to activities requires facilities and equipment.
Individual cells require more space.
The cost does not show that the deprivation model is false. It limits how easily its recommendations can be implemented.
AQA’s 2021 mark scheme recognises the cost of improving accommodation and education as a practical limitation of the situational explanation.
Limitation: Cause and Effect
Research into prison conditions is difficult to interpret causally.
Researchers cannot usually assign prisoners randomly to deliberately harsh or safe conditions. Such manipulation would be unethical.
Observed relationships may have several explanations:
Overcrowding produces aggression.
Aggressive prisoners are placed in crowded high-security prisons.
Poor management produces both crowding and violence.
Serious prisoners require more restrictive conditions.
Aggression leads to tighter controls, reducing autonomy.
This is a direction of effect problem.
The deprivation model may be consistent with the evidence without prison conditions being the sole cause.
The Stanford Prison Study as Evidence
The Stanford prison study is sometimes used as evidence that institutional roles and conditions can produce harmful behaviour.
However, it must be applied carefully.
The June 2025 examiner report noted that students who relied on this study sometimes struggled to explain the passivity of the prisoners and instead focused mainly on the guards’ behaviour. This made the evidence less directly relevant to prisoner aggression.
⚠️ A study showing aggression by simulated guards does not automatically demonstrate why real prisoners become aggressive.
When using evidence, ask:
Who behaved aggressively?
Does this match the group named in the question?
Does the study directly test deprivation?
Is the behaviour comparable with aggression in real prisons?
The Administrative Control Explanation
A further situational account argues that prison management and administration are important causes of institutional violence.
Relevant administrative factors might include:
Inconsistent discipline.
Unclear rules.
Poor staff training.
Weak supervision.
Failure to manage conflict.
Unpredictable punishment.
Poor communication.
This account agrees that aggression is influenced by the environment, but argues that poor management may be more important than deprivation itself.
The administrative control model is recognised in the AQA mark scheme as a possible challenge to the deprivation model.
Comparing Importation and Deprivation
The two models make different predictions.
Comparison | Importation model | Deprivation model |
Type of explanation | Dispositional | Situational |
Main cause | Characteristics brought into prison | Conditions experienced inside prison |
Origin of aggression | Before imprisonment | During imprisonment |
Relevant factors | Violent history, attitudes, gang identity, learned norms | Loss of liberty, autonomy, goods, relationships and security |
Why prisoners differ | They enter with different dispositions | They experience or interpret conditions differently |
Expected prison differences | Aggression depends on the prisoners held there | Aggression depends on the conditions provided |
Intervention | Identify and manage high-risk individuals and group conflict | Improve conditions and reduce deprivation |
Wider emphasis | Person | Environment |
Different Predictions
The importation model predicts that:
Prisoners with violent histories will be more aggressive.
Existing gang rivalries will continue inside prison.
Aggression will be linked to pre-prison characteristics.
Differences between prisoners will remain important even in similar conditions.
The deprivation model predicts that:
Harsher prisons will have greater aggression.
Overcrowding will increase conflict.
Scarce resources will increase competition.
Reduced autonomy and safety will increase violence.
Improving prison conditions will reduce aggression.
These predictions allow the models to be compared using evidence.
Different Interventions
The models suggest different practical responses.
Importation-based interventions
A prison might:
Assess histories of violence.
Identify existing group rivalries.
Separate prisoners involved in serious conflicts.
Provide targeted behavioural support.
Monitor prisoners at elevated risk.
Challenge imported aggressive norms.
Deprivation-based interventions
A prison might:
Reduce overcrowding.
Improve access to activities.
Increase autonomy.
Support family contact.
Provide adequate resources.
Improve safety and supervision.
An intervention based on the wrong explanation may be ineffective.
For example, adding activities may not remove aggression caused by a continuing gang conflict. Separating gang members may not address violence caused by severe overcrowding.
Are the Models Mutually Exclusive?
The explanations do not have to be treated as complete alternatives.
An interactionist explanation may be more realistic:
A prisoner enters with particular attitudes, experiences or vulnerabilities.
Prison conditions create deprivation and stress.
Situational pressure activates or strengthens the imported tendency.
Aggression becomes most likely when dispositional risk and situational pressure occur together.
For example:
A prisoner may import a belief that aggression is necessary for respect. A threatening and overcrowded prison may then make this belief especially likely to be expressed.
This combines the two models:
Dispositional vulnerability + situational deprivation → increased risk of institutional aggression
The interaction can be developed using the relationship between personal and environmental influences.
Individual Differences Within the Same Prison
Not every prisoner exposed to deprivation becomes aggressive.
Within the same institution, prisoners may respond by:
Withdrawing.
Cooperating.
Seeking support.
Following rules.
Joining a group.
Behaving aggressively.
This variation supports the importance of dispositions.
However, individual differences do not disprove the deprivation model. Prisoners may differ in:
How strongly they experience deprivation.
Which resources they value.
Their access to support.
Their ability to cope.
Their perceived safety.
The most convincing explanation may therefore consider both person and situation.
Prison Differences with Similar Prisoners
Aggression may vary between prisons even when they contain broadly similar offender populations.
This supports the situational explanation because differences might reflect:
Overcrowding.
Management.
Resources.
Activities.
Staff-prisoner relationships.
Levels of security.
However, prisons may not contain truly equivalent prisoner groups. High-security prisons may house people with more serious violent histories, creating a confounding variable.
Social Learning Within Prison
Prison aggression can also develop through learning aggressive norms and observing their consequences.
A new prisoner may observe that aggression:
Produces respect.
Prevents victimisation.
Provides access to resources.
Is rewarded by a group.
Is rarely punished.
The behaviour may then be imitated.
This can be interpreted in two ways:
As a situational process because learning occurs inside prison.
As later importation if the prisoner carries those learned prison values into another institution.
This shows that the boundary between dispositional and situational explanations is not always simple.
De-Individuation and Prison Groups
Prisoners acting as group members may also experience reduced personal responsibility.
Strong group identity may make aggression towards a rival appear acceptable. This connects with identity and responsibility in group aggression.
However, de-individuation should not replace the two required explanations.
Importation explains where group loyalties originated.
Deprivation explains how prison conditions produce stress and competition.
De-individuation explains why an individual may follow an aggressive group norm.
Determinism
The models involve different forms of determinism.
The importation model can be considered dispositional determinism because aggression is explained through characteristics carried by the prisoner.
The deprivation model can be considered environmental determinism because behaviour is explained through prison conditions.
Both may underestimate:
Personal choice.
Resistance to pressure.
Changes in behaviour.
Coping strategies.
Responsibility for aggression.
This issue connects with causal explanations and personal control.
Levels of Explanation
The importation model focuses mainly on the individual level.
The deprivation model focuses on the institutional and environmental level.
Neither level necessarily provides a complete account.
A fuller explanation could include:
Biological vulnerabilities.
Individual personality.
Learning history.
Group identity.
Prison conditions.
Management practices.
Wider social inequalities.
Comparing these levels develops holistic and reductionist approaches to behaviour.
Overall Comparison
The importation model explains why some prisoners may be more aggressive than others under similar conditions. It is particularly useful where aggression follows existing gang loyalties, prior violent behaviour or imported beliefs about status.
The deprivation model explains why rates of aggression may vary across institutions and why prisoners without violent histories could become aggressive in response to harsh, threatening or restrictive conditions.
The most balanced conclusion is that institutional aggression results from an interaction:
Prisoners bring different characteristics into prison.
The prison environment either suppresses or activates these characteristics.
Management, resources and group processes affect whether aggression is rewarded.
Neither person nor situation provides a complete explanation alone.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Organise Situational Answers Around the Five Deprivations
Examiner hint: Use Sykes’ five forms of deprivation as the structure of your explanation.
The June 2025 examiner report found that stronger answers organised the situational model around liberty, autonomy, goods, intimate relationships and security. Students then matched concise explanations of each deprivation to relevant details in the scenario.
A reliable structure is:
Name the deprivation.
Identify the matching detail from the scenario.
Explain how it creates stress, frustration or competition.
Link it to aggression.
For example:
The shortage of books represents deprivation of goods and services. Competition for this limited resource may create conflict between prisoners and increase aggression.
Use the Whole Scenario
Examiner hint:Â Do not apply only one detail when the stem contains several clear opportunities.
In the 2025 question:
“Little choice” indicated deprivation of autonomy.
Lack of activities indicated deprivation of goods and services.
Difficulty accessing equipment indicated competition.
Missing a partner indicated deprivation of intimate relationships.
Feeling scared indicated deprivation of security.
High-quality answers used these details efficiently rather than writing a memorised account followed by one brief reference to the prisoner.
Explain the Link to Aggression
Do not stop after identifying a deprivation.
A weak answer would be:
The prisoner has a deprivation of autonomy because he has no choice.
A stronger answer would be:
Having no choice represents deprivation of autonomy. This loss of control may create frustration and hostility towards the institution, increasing the likelihood of aggressive resistance.
Keep the Two Models Distinct
Examiner hint:Â The deprivation model is situational. The importation model is dispositional.
AQA’s 2021 mark scheme awarded the identification mark specifically for naming the situational explanation or deprivation model when aggression was attributed to the institutional environment.
Use the simple distinction:
Imported:Â came in with the prisoner.
Deprived:Â happened because of imprisonment.
Compare Rather Than Describe Separately
The June 2025 report noted that strong discussions directly compared the situational and importation models.
Use comparison language:
“In contrast...”
“Whereas the importation model predicts...”
“Both explanations recognise...”
“The deprivation model is better able to explain...”
“The importation model is more successful when...”
Two separate descriptions do not automatically form an effective comparison.
Use Evidence to Make a Point
Do not simply list researchers.
A developed evidence paragraph might state:
Evidence linking gang membership with prison violence supports the importation model because the aggressive values existed before imprisonment. However, gang-affiliated prisoners may also experience different treatment and prison placement, making cause and effect uncertain.
Be Careful with the Stanford Prison Study
Examiner hint:Â Check whether the evidence actually demonstrates prisoner aggression.
The 2025 examiner report noted that students relying on the Stanford prison study often struggled to account for the prisoners’ passivity and focused instead on aggressive guard behaviour. This weakened its relevance to a question about prisoner aggression.
Use evidence that clearly matches:
The explanation.
The aggressive group.
The context named in the question.
Develop Practical Recommendations
A recommendation must be linked to a deprivation.
For example:
Increasing educational and recreational activities would reduce deprivation of goods and services and boredom. It would also reduce competition for the few existing resources, so aggression should become less likely.
The 2021 mark scheme rewarded recommendations involving accommodation, activities, autonomy, goods and visits.
Avoid Commonsense Application
Do not write only that “prison is unpleasant, so prisoners fight”.
Use psychological mechanisms:
Deprivation.
Frustration.
Competition.
Imported norms.
Group loyalty.
Loss of autonomy.
Defensive aggression.
Develop Evaluation
The 2025 extended response allocated:
AO1:Â 6 marks.
AO2:Â 4 marks.
AO3:Â 6 marks.
A high-level answer therefore needs accurate knowledge, clear application and developed discussion.
A useful paragraph structure is:
Make the evaluative claim.
Explain the supporting evidence or reasoning.
Connect it to one model.
Introduce a limitation or counterargument.
Reach a judgement.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake 1
Mistake:Â Treating institutional aggression as aggression committed only by prisoners.
Why this is incomplete:
Institutional aggression can involve prisoners, staff and groups within an institution, although AQA requires explanations specifically in the context of prisons.
How to improve:
Identify precisely whose aggression is described in the question.
Mistake 2
Mistake:Â Saying that dispositional means genetic.
Why this is incorrect:
Dispositional factors can include learned attitudes, criminal history and group affiliation. They do not have to be biological.
How to improve:
Define dispositional as a characteristic or tendency present within the person when they enter prison.
Mistake 3
Mistake:Â Calling the importation model situational.
Why this is incorrect:
The importation model explains aggression through values and tendencies brought into prison.
How to improve:
Remember:
Importation = brought in.
Mistake 4
Mistake:Â Calling the deprivation model dispositional.
Why this is incorrect:
The deprivation model explains aggression through the prison environment.
How to improve:
Remember:
Deprivation = taken away by imprisonment.
Mistake 5
Mistake: Listing Sykes’ deprivations without explaining aggression.
Why this is incomplete:
AO1 and AO2 require a causal connection.
How to improve:
Use the chain:
Deprivation → stress, frustration or competition → aggression
Mistake 6
Mistake:Â Confusing deprivation of liberty and autonomy.
Why this is incorrect:
Liberty concerns freedom of movement and confinement. Autonomy concerns choice and personal control.
How to improve:
Remember:
Liberty:Â Where can I go?
Autonomy:Â What can I decide?
Mistake 7
Mistake:Â Limiting intimate relationships to one particular type of relationship.
Why this is too narrow:
The explanation concerns deprivation of close, intimate or partner relationships.
How to improve:
Apply it inclusively to restricted contact with a partner or other emotionally close relationship.
Mistake 8
Mistake:Â Saying deprivation of security means that the prison has low physical security.
Why this is incorrect:
It refers to prisoners feeling unsafe because they may be attacked, intimidated or victimised.
How to improve:
Link security to fear and defensive aggression.
Mistake 9
Mistake:Â Assuming that harsh conditions prove the deprivation model.
Why this is incorrect:
Aggressive prisoners may be placed in harsher institutions, or another factor may produce both harsh conditions and violence.
How to improve:
Discuss cause and effect and possible confounding variables.
Mistake 10
Mistake:Â Using the Stanford prison study without checking who was aggressive.
Why this is a problem:
Evidence about aggressive guards may not directly explain aggression by prisoners.
How to improve:
State exactly which behaviour the evidence supports and avoid overstating its relevance.
Mistake 11
Mistake:Â Describing both models without comparing them.
Why this does not meet the learning objective:
A comparison must identify similarities, differences or relative explanatory power.
How to improve:
Compare:
Cause.
Predictions.
Evidence.
Interventions.
Strengths and limitations.
Mistake 12
Mistake:Â Claiming that evidence for one model completely disproves the other.
Why this is too absolute:
Imported tendencies and prison deprivation can operate together.
How to improve:
Develop an interactionist conclusion.
Mistake 13
Mistake: Evaluating with vague claims such as “the study is unreliable”.
Why this is ineffective:
The issue must be explained and connected to the conclusion.
How to improve:
Identify the specific methodological problem, such as inability to manipulate prison conditions or separate prisoner history from institution type.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which explanation of institutional aggression argues that prisoners bring aggressive values and tendencies into prison? [1 mark]
Question 2
Explain one difference between a dispositional and a situational explanation of prison aggression. [2 marks]
Question 3
Outline the importation model of institutional aggression. [4 marks]
Question 4
Samir belonged to a violent group before imprisonment. Several members of a rival group are held in the same prison. Samir tells a new prisoner that he must always retaliate against members of the rival group or he will lose respect.
Using your knowledge of dispositional explanations, explain Samir’s behaviour. [4 marks]
Question 5
Dale describes life in prison:
“We spend most of the day in crowded cells. Officers decide everything, including when we exercise and what activities we do. There are only a few books, so prisoners argue over them. My partner lives too far away to visit. At night, I stay awake because I am frightened that another prisoner will attack me.”
Using the deprivation model, explain two aspects of Dale’s experience. [6 marks]
Question 6
A researcher records the mean number of aggressive incidents per month in four prisons.
Prison | Prisoners with recorded gang affiliations | Activities available each week | Mean aggressive incidents |
A | High | Few | 31 |
B | High | Many | 19 |
C | Low | Few | 22 |
D | Low | Many | 8 |
Describe two patterns in the table. Explain how the results could support both the importation and deprivation models. [6 marks]
Question 7
A prison governor plans to reduce aggression by increasing educational activities and allowing prisoners to vote for representatives who can comment on daily routines.
Explain how these changes might reduce institutional aggression. [4 marks]
Question 8
Compare dispositional and situational explanations of institutional aggression. [8 marks]
Question 9
Discuss dispositional and situational explanations of institutional aggression in prisons. [16 marks]
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
Answer:Â The importation model. [1 mark]
Question 2
Award marks as follows:
One mark for explaining that a dispositional explanation locates the cause within characteristics prisoners possess before imprisonment.
One mark for explaining that a situational explanation locates the cause within the prison environment or conditions.
Maximum: 2 marks
Question 3
Award one mark for each relevant point, up to four marks:
The importation model is a dispositional explanation.
Prisoners bring values, attitudes and behavioural tendencies into prison.
Relevant factors may include violent history, gang affiliation or approval of aggression.
Existing group rivalries may continue in prison.
Prison aggression reflects behaviour or norms that existed before imprisonment.
Aggression may be used to obtain status, resources or protection.
Prison is the setting in which the imported disposition is expressed rather than the original cause.
A full-mark response should explain the model as a connected process.
Question 4
Award up to four marks for effective application:
Samir’s violent group membership existed before imprisonment.
He imports the group’s aggressive values into prison.
The rival group represents a pre-existing conflict.
Retaliation reflects an imported group norm.
Samir believes aggression is necessary to maintain respect or status.
Teaching this norm to a new prisoner shows that the aggressive code is being continued inside the institution.
The origin of the behaviour is located in Samir’s pre-prison identity rather than prison deprivation.
Do not award full marks for simply stating that Samir has an aggressive disposition.
Question 5
Award up to three marks for each of two clearly explained deprivations.
Possible applications include:
Liberty:Â Confinement in crowded cells restricts movement and personal space, producing stress or frustration.
Autonomy:Â Officers control exercise and activities, reducing choice and creating hostility or attempts to regain control.
Goods and services:Â Scarcity of books creates competition and disputes between prisoners.
Intimate relationships: Distance prevents visits from Dale’s partner, creating isolation and loss of emotional support.
Security:Â Fear of attack prevents Dale feeling safe and may produce defensive or pre-emptive aggression.
For each aspect:
One mark for identifying the deprivation.
One mark for linking it accurately to the scenario.
One mark for explaining how it may increase aggression.
Question 6
Award up to two marks for describing patterns:
Prisons with many activities have fewer aggressive incidents than prisons with few activities when gang affiliation is similar.
Prison B has fewer incidents than Prison A despite both having high gang affiliation.
Prison D has fewer incidents than Prison C despite both having low gang affiliation.
Prisons with high gang affiliation have more aggression than prisons with low gang affiliation when activity levels are similar.
Prison A has more incidents than Prison C when both provide few activities.
Prison B has more incidents than Prison D when both provide many activities.
Award up to two marks for the importation model:
Higher aggression in prisons with greater gang affiliation supports the claim that prisoners import aggressive group norms or rivalries.
The difference remains when activity availability is similar.
Award up to two marks for the deprivation model:
Fewer activities may represent deprivation of goods and services.
Scarcity and boredom may create frustration or competition.
Aggression is lower where more activities are available, even when gang affiliation is similar.
The results support an interactionist conclusion because both factors appear related to aggression.
Question 7
Possible content:
More education reduces boredom and deprivation of goods and services.
A wider range of activities reduces competition for limited resources.
Meaningful activity may reduce frustration.
Electing representatives gives prisoners some influence.
This reduces deprivation of autonomy.
Increased control may reduce hostility towards the institution.
Reduced frustration should make aggression less likely.
Award one mark for each clear explanatory point, up to four marks.
Question 8
A high-level comparison may include:
Importation is dispositional, whereas deprivation is situational.
Importation explains aggression through characteristics existing before prison.
Deprivation explains aggression through harsh conditions experienced inside.
Importation predicts differences according to prisoner history.
Deprivation predicts differences according to institutional conditions.
Importation is supported by evidence involving gang values or violent histories.
Deprivation is supported by evidence involving overcrowding and prison conditions.
Importation suggests managing high-risk individuals and group conflicts.
Deprivation suggests improving accommodation, autonomy, resources and safety.
Both can explain status and resource-related aggression.
Neither is necessarily complete.
An interactionist model may explain how prison conditions activate imported tendencies.
Seven to eight marks:Â Comparison is accurate, detailed and sustained. Similarities and differences are explicit, and a reasoned judgement is reached.
Five to six marks:Â Both explanations are understood and several relevant comparisons are made, although some lack development.
Three to four marks:Â Knowledge is present, but the response relies mainly on separate descriptions with limited direct comparison.
One to two marks:Â Knowledge is very limited, confused or focused on only one explanation.
Question 9
A high-level answer should contain accurate description and developed evaluation.
Indicative AO1 content:
Definition of institutional aggression.
Dispositional and situational explanations.
Importation model.
Pre-prison values and attitudes.
Criminal history.
Group or gang affiliation.
Imported aggressive norms.
Deprivation model.
Deprivation of liberty.
Deprivation of autonomy.
Deprivation of goods and services.
Deprivation of intimate relationships.
Deprivation of security.
Frustration, stress and competition.
Aggression as protection, resistance or resource acquisition.
Indicative AO3 content:
Evidence supporting imported group values.
Evidence linking overcrowding or conditions with violence.
Cause-and-effect difficulties.
Prisoner selection and placement as confounding variables.
Difficulty ethically manipulating prison conditions.
Practical value of improving prison conditions.
Cost of situational interventions.
Practical value of identifying imported risks.
Problems relying on simulated prison research.
Administrative control as an alternative situational factor.
Individual differences under the same prison conditions.
Differences between institutions.
Links with frustration-aggression and social learning.
Dispositional and environmental determinism.
Interaction between imported tendencies and deprivation.
Comparison of predictions and interventions.
Thirteen to sixteen marks:Â Knowledge is accurate and generally detailed. Discussion is thorough and focused. Evidence is used effectively, the explanations are compared explicitly, and specialist terminology is precise.
Nine to twelve marks:Â Knowledge is mostly accurate and discussion is generally effective. Both explanations are considered, although some comparisons or evaluation points lack development.
Five to eight marks:Â Some relevant knowledge is present, but the response is mainly descriptive. Evaluation or comparison is limited.
One to four marks:Â Knowledge is very limited or confused. Only one explanation may be addressed, or discussion is absent and poorly focused.
Comments