| Prison is a context that exerts its influence upon the social relations of those who enter its domain. Sociologists have long conceptualized prison as a sort of community or society (e.g., see Clemmer, 1940; Sykes, 1958). Just as the context of a neighborhood, community, or society shapes the interactions that develop therein, so too does the structure of a prison influence the social processes that occur on the inside. In particular, an inmate subculture arises in response to the problems imposed by living inside prison. This counterculture is organized around an inmate code. All convicts are aware that this normative orientation emphasizes in-group solidarity and opposition to custodial authority. Acceptance of the inmate code is generally referred to as prisonization. However, inmates differ on the extent to which they adopt this orientation and become prisonized. In fact, both individual and institutional antecedents affect the degree to which an inmate becomes prisonized. Consequently, prisonization is linked with maladaptive behaviors both inside and outside prison.;A multilevel approach was adopted for the current project. That is, individual and institutional predictors of prisonization were explored simultaneously using hierarchical linear modeling techniques. Individual data were gathered from self-administered questionnaires that were administered to over 1,000 prisoners in 30 prisons throughout Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. Institutional data came from official sources and prison administrators.;Two theories of subcultural formation were integrated in order to explain prisonization: indigenous influence theory (i.e., deprivation) and cultural drift theory (i.e., importation). The deprivation perspective tends to focus on those situational deprivations that result in prisonization. Importation theory emphasizes the pre-prison characteristics that predispose an individual to become involved in the inmate subculture. This theoretical framework was also used to explain institutional misconduct as one consequence of prisonization.;The results indicated that variables from theories of both deprivation and importation were useful in explaining adoption of the inmate code. Furthermore, contextual features of correctional institution had direct effects on both prisonization and institutional misconduct. The findings also suggested that the integrated deprivation-importation model was not entirely beneficial in explaining misconduct inside prison. |
