REFERENCE No.

RESEARCHREPORT[ESRCRES-000-22-0268]
Aninvestigationofthecharacteristicsofadult
prisonersinvolvedinbullying
Investigators:JohnArcher&JaneL.Ireland
Researchassistant:ChristinaL.Power
UniversityofCentralLancashire
22
REFERENCE No.
Background
The issue of bullying among prisoners is an important one that can influence
theoverallhealthoftheprisonandthosehousedwithinit.Italsoaffectstheextent
to which prisons can successfully achieve their aims of rehabilitating prisoners and
keeping them safe during detention. Although recognising bullying as a problem
since 1993, the UK Prison Service only produced their first mandatory anti-bullying
policy in 1999 (Home Office Prison Service, 1999). This policy was largely based
upon anecdotal evidence on the nature and extent of bullying, since the research
evidenceavailableatthattimewasverylimited(Ireland,2002).Atpresentaround20
papersonthistopichavebeenpublishedinacademicpeer-reviewedjournals,thefirst
appearing in 1996 (Connell & Farrington, 1996; Ireland & Archer, 1996).
Researchers have tended to concentrate either on young male offenders, or on adult
men, or on combined samples of adults and young offenders (both sexes). Women
prisoners have been researched to a much lesser extent than men have, and few
studies have compared men and women directly. Adult prisoners have been under-
researched.
The effects of bullying include an increase in the level of suicide and self-
harm,stress,druguse,drugtrading,escapes,absconding,failurestoreturnfromhome
leave, prisoner complaints, assaults, prisoners requesting transfers or to be placed
undertheprotectionofstaff,andincreasedlevelsofdamagetoprisonproperty(Home
OfficePrisonService,1999).
Followingstudiesofbullyinginschoolchildren,researchersadoptedasystem
of classifying prisoners into one of four bully-categories: pure bullies, who solely
report behaviour indicative of bullying others: pure victims, who solely report
behaviourindicativeofbeingbullied:bully/victims,whoreportbehaviourindicative
of being bullied and of bullying others: and not-involved, who report no such
23
REFERENCE No.
behaviour (Ireland, 1999b). This classification is an improvement on the earlier
distinctionbetweenthecategoriesbullyandvictim,whichfailedtoaddresscases
wherethesamepersonwasbothbullyandvictim.Informingthesebullycategories,
moststudiesofprisonbullyinghaveusedbehaviouralcriteria,ratherthanaskingthe
participantswhethertheyhadbulliedorbeenbullied.Thismethod(whichwasusedin
the present study) was adopted because of the possible connotations of the label
bully,andthelikelystigmaattachedtoadmittingtobeavictimofbullying,within
aprisonculture.
Currentresearchonprisonbullyinghastendedtoconcentrateondocumenting
its nature and extent, but there is only a limited amount of information on the
followingissues(Ireland,2002):(1)thepsychologicalandbehaviouralcharacteristics
of the three categories involved in bullying (pure bullies, pure victims, and bully-
victims); (2) sex differences across the different bully-categories; (3) the
psychological impact of victimisation; (4) how prisoners perceive the use of
aggressionanditsfunction.
Thepresentresearchbothextendedexistingresearchonthenatureandextent
of bullying by involving a substantial sample (1,253) from 11 British prisons,
involvingbothsexes,andbegantoaddressthesemorespecificquestionsaboutprison
bullying.Weundertookacomprehensiveinvestigationofbullyandvictimcategories
inrelationtotheirpsychologicalattributes,theirresponsestovictimisation,andtheir
perceptions of aggression. We also extended the current use of four categories for
those involved in bullying, by assessing whether bully-victims possessed
characteristics that would not be predicted from the separate features of those who
bulliedandthosewhowerevictims.
24
REFERENCE No.
In choosing the psychological measures to investigate in relation to the bully
categories, we concentrated on psychological studies of aggression, since bullying is
regarded as a form of aggression (e.g., Smith & Brain, 2000), yet there are few
empirical links between the two concepts. We investigated a range of responses to a
hypothetical incident involving the individual being bullied by another prisoner.
Theseincludeddirect,indirectanddisplacedaggression,revengeplansandfantasies,
and alternative non-aggressive responses such as ignoring the incident, fear and
avoidance, and self-harm. We also assessed two characteristics that have been
associated with aggression in previous studies: impulsiveness (e.g., Barratt, 1994;
OConnoretal.,2002);andinstrumentalandexpressiveattributionsaboutaggression
(e.g.,Archer,2004a;Archer&Haigh,1997a,1997b).Finally,weassessedtheextent
towhichtheresponsesofbullies,bully-victims,andvictims,wouldbeaffectedbythe
retaliatory potential of someone who provoked them, again studied in the form of a
scenariothathadbeenusedinpreviousresearch(Archer&Benson,2001).
Objectives
Ourresearchbeganwiththefollowingmainquestions:
1. Howdothebullycategoriesreacttotheirvictimisation,intermsofretaliatory
aggressive behaviour, or in terms of alternative ways of responding? Do the
sexesdifferintheseresponses?
2. Do bullies tend to view their aggressive actions in instrumental, or in
expressiveterms,i.e.asnecessarytoattainanend-point,oraslossofcontrol?
3. Ismembershipofthedifferentbully-categoriesrelatedtoimpulsivity?
4. Are bully-categories related to an individuals ability to retaliate, and their
assessmentofanothersabilitytoretaliate?
Eachofthesequestionswaslinkedtospecifichypothesesasfollows:
25
REFERENCE No.
1. To contribute to answering the question of why some prisoners are both
bulliesandvictimswhereasothersareonlybulliesorvictims,weinvestigated
a range of responses to a hypothetical situation involving bullying. Based on
previousstudiesofadultaggression(e.g.OConnoretal,2001),weprovideda
range of responses to a depicted provoking situation, including displaced
aggression,revengefantasies,orself-injury.Wepredictedthatvictimswould
not only show more fear and avoidance, but also more displaced aggression,
revenge fantasies, and self-harm, all negative responses that do not involve
confronting the aggressor. Both bullies and bully-victims would show more
direct and indirect forms of aggression, which could potentially harm the
aggressor.
2. Bully-victims have been found to be more hostile and angry than other
categoriesandtoshowamorenegativeattitudetoprisonauthorities(Ireland,
2002). We therefore predicted that bully-victims would view their aggressive
actions in more expressive terms, as being due to a loss of control, whereas
purebullieswouldtendtoviewtheiractionsininstrumentalterms.Consistent
withpreviousresearchusingthesemeasures(e.g.,Archer,2004a;Campbellet
al., 1999), we expected that male prisoners would be more likely to show
instrumental attributions about their aggression and that female prisoners
wouldbemorelikelytoshowexpressiveattributions.
3. A third hypothesis concerned impulsiveness, which is a strong predictor of
aggressive behaviour (see above), and has been routinely assessed in prison
sampleswhereittendstobehigherthaninthegeneralpopulation(e.g.Barratt,
1994). Impulsivity is considered to be an element of reactive aggression
whereas, classically, bullying is viewed in terms of coercive power and
26
REFERENCE No.
considered to be an instrumental form of aggression. We therefore predicted
that pure bullies would show lower levels of impulsivity than bully/victims,
who are known to show higher scores on hostility and anger (Ireland &
Archer,2004),andareconsideredmorerepresentativeofreactiveaggressors.
4. Pure bullies perpetrate aggressive acts classified as bullying, but are not
themselves subject to these acts. This may be because they are less likely to
attract retaliation than bully-victims, which could be because they are better
able to distinguish their potential targets than are bully-victims. We used a
general principle from studies of animal fighting, RHP or resource holding
power,whichdescribesperceivedretaliatorypower,andincorporatedthisinto
ascenarioinvolvingprovokingeventswithprotagonistsdifferinginretaliatory
power(Archer&Benson,2001),toassesswhetherpurebulliesmadeagreater
distinction between potential opponents in terms of RHP than did bully-
victims.
In assessing these hypotheses, we investigated the separate and interactive effects of
beingabully(vsanon-bully)andbeingavictim(vsanon-victim),toassesswhether
any characteristics of being a bully-victim went beyond what would be expected on
thebasisoftheadditiveeffectsofbeingabullyandavictim.
We also investigated sex differences to assess the extent to which these were
similar to those reported from the outside world. Although we originally portrayed
thispartofthestudyasexploratory,wesubsequentlybasedourexpectationsonwhat
had been found in a meta-analysis of sex differences in community and student
samples(Archer,2004b).
All these objectives were met (see Results for details)
Methods
27
REFERENCE No.
Participants
These were adult offenders (N = 1,253; 728 men and 525 women) from 11
prisons in the UK (5 housing women and 6 housing men); they included closed,
medium and medium-high security institutions. The mean age was 32.1 years (SD =
9.9):most(88.8%)wereofCaucasianethnicorigin,theirmeansentencelengthwas
43.6 months, and their mean lifetime duration in penal institutions was 50 months.
Their most common offences were violent (32.6%), acquisitive (26.7%), and drug
related. Male and female prisoners showed similar ages and ethnic composition, but
the sentence lengths and total time spent in penal institutions were longer for men
thanforwomen.
Procedure
Most prisoners completed the questionnaire on their own, in their cells. A
consistentprocedurewasadoptedforalloftheparticipatingprisonestablishments.It
involved the distribution of questionnaires at the beginning of a lunchtime period of
lock-up,oratrainingafternoonwhenprisonerswerelockedintheircellsforaperiod
of two hours. Questionnaires were collected between one and two hours later. This
methodhasprovedtobereliableforadministeringquestionnairesinprisons(Ireland,
1999b).Theresponseratewas40percent.
Measures
The Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC: Ireland, 1999a; 1999b). This
hasbeenusedextensivelywithmen,women,youngandadultprisoners(Ireland,2002).Itisa
method of gathering information on bullying behaviour rather than a measure that yields a
compositescore.Itdoesnotinvolvethetermbullying,butrecordsthepresenceorabsenceof
acts of behaviour indicative of bullying others or of being bullied. The DIPC contains
physical, theft-related, psychological or verbal, and sexual forms of direct bullying. Indirect
28
REFERENCE No.
bullying involves gossiping, spreading rumours and ostracizing. There are 65 items on the
scalerelatingtobullyingbehaviour,ofwhich48describedirectformsand17indirectforms.
Thereare34additionalitems,assessingnegativebehaviortowardsstafforprisonrules,drug-
related behavior, positive behaviour, reactions to victimization and some filler items.
Prisoners are asked to identify which behaviour they had engaged in during the previous
week,orwhichhadoccurredtothem,byindicating'yesornotoeachitem.
Response to Victimization Scale (RVS). This measure was devised for the study. It asks
participants how they would respond if another prisoner bullied them, and includes 43
responses such as: direct aggression (e.g., Insult them and threaten them to their face);
indirect aggression (e.g., Tell lies or stories about the person); displaced aggression (e.g.,
BeingsoangrythatwhentheyhadgoneIpickedupthenearestthingandbrokeit);revenge
plans and fantasies (e.g., Have fantasies of killing the person); direct confrontation (e.g.,
Shout at the bully); anti-social behaviour (e.g., become physically aggressive towards a
memberofstaff);selfharm(e.g.,Threatentodeliberatelyhurtmyself);fearandavoidance
(e.g., Feel scared); and ignore (e.g., Forget about it as soon as the person had left). The
RVS was derived from several sources (see above). Participants were asked to rate each
statement on a 5-point Likert scale depicting how often they would behave in this way (1 =
Neverto5=Always).
The Barratt Impulsiveness ScaleIIr(BIS-IIr:Barratt,1994). Thispresentsparticipantswith
aseriesofitemsdesignedtoassesstheirtendencytorespondimpulsivelyincertaincontexts.
The version we used was modified slightly to make it appropriate for a prison sample by
removing two items that were not suitable for a detained sample. Participants were asked to
respondona4-pointLikertscale(1=rarely/neverto4=almostalways/always).
The Revised Expagg-short version (Campbell et al., 1999). This involves a series of items
designed to assess peoples instrumental or expressive attributions about their own
aggression. Instrumental attributions are planned or goal-directed, and expressive are
29
REFERENCE No.
unplannedanddrivenbyemotions.Thereare16items,eightmeasuringexpressiveandeight
instrumentalattributions.Participantswereaskedtoratethemselvesona5-pointLikertscale
(1to5)foreachitem.
Resource Holding Power Questionnaire (RHP: Archer & Benson, 2001). This is a
scenario-basedmeasuredesignedtoassesshowparticipantsresponsestoprovocation
aremoderatedbytheretaliatorypotentialoftheprovokingperson.Participantswere
asked to rate how likely they would be to become physically aggressive in two
situations:(1)Youareattheserveryandanotheroffenderstartstocallyouabusive
names in front of everyone and (2) You are on your way back from a visit and
another offender starts pointing at you and making insulting remarks about your
friendsandfamily.Responsesinvolveda5pointLikertscale(1to5).Twenty-seven
possibilitieswerepresentedaftereachscenario,describingtheopponentwithregards
tosize(S),numberoffriends(F)andstatus(ST).Eachcharacteristichadthreelevels,
low(1),medium(2),andhigh(3),whichweremanipulatedtoproducethe27items,
ina3x3within-participantsdesign.
Dataanalysis
We used responses on the bully and victim items of the DIPC to place
participantsintooneoffourcategories:purebullies(onlyreportingbullyingothers);
pure victims (only reporting being victims); bully/victims (reporting bullying others
and being bullied); and not-involved (reporting neither bully nor victim behaviours).
A logistic regression analysis and ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves
were used to examine the association between these categories and personal, and
prison-based behavioural, characteristics. The categories were then compared on the
other variables (except the RHP) using a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests. To
assess whether the bully-victim category showed specific features beyond those that
could be predicted from their being both bullies and victims, we carried out a 2 x 2
30
REFERENCE No.
ANOVA with bully/non-bully and victim/non-victim as the factors. We were
particularly interested in whether there were any interactions between bully and
victimfactors.Wealsocalculatedcorrelationsbetweenthenumberofbullyitemsand
theothermeasuresforthoseindividualsshowingatleastonebullyingitem,andthose
showing at least one victimization item. This indicated whether differences between
bullies and non-bullies, and between victims and non-victims, were paralleled by
thoseshowingmorebullying,ormorevictimization.
Results
Preliminaryanalyses
One or more items of bullying others were reported by 42% of the sample,
23% reported direct perpetration, and 34% indirect. Direct physical assault was
reportedbyonly6%.Oneormoreitemsofbeingbulliedwerereportedby52%ofthe
sample, 37% by direct victimization, and 39% by indirect victimization. Direct
physicalvictimizationwasreportedby9%.Therewerenosignificantsexdifferences
onanyofthecombinedorsubcategoriesofbullyingorvictimization.
Thesubstantialproportionsofthesamplewhoreportedeithernoperpetration
or no victimization enabled the data to be analysed by a factorial (perpetrator x
victim)ANOVA,asoutlinedintheDataanalysissection,ratherthanbyaregression
model. This was undertaken in addition to the four category analysis. There were
12.5% pure bullies, 22.6% pure victims, 29.4% bully-victims, and 35.6% not
involved. As these figures indicate, there was considerable overlap between being a
bullyandbeingbullied.Approximately71%ofbullieswerealsovictims,andofthose
whowerevictims,approximately57%werealsobullies.
We found that for male, but not female, prisoners, bully/victims had more
experience with prison. Pure bullies reported less involvement in prison-based drug-
31
REFERENCE No.
related behaviour. Bully/victims were characterised by more negative and drug-
relatedbehaviour.Thesefindingswereinlinewiththosefrompreviousresearch.
Before undertaking the analysis of the dependent variables, the RVS items
were factor analyzed, and 9 subscales derived (on the basis of items with loadings
over .5 on one of the factors). These were: direct aggression (8 items); indirect
aggression (6 items); displaced aggression (6 items); revenge (4 items);
fear/avoidance (5 items); confrontation (2 items); ignore (2 items); self-harm (2
items);andaggressiontostaff(2items). Owingtothesmallnumberofitemsonthe
last4scales,thesewereregardedmoreasindicationsforfutureresearch.
Correlations between these RVS subscales were generally moderate positive
ones for different forms of aggressive responding to victimization. However, a
moderate positive correlation between displaced aggression and fear/avoidance (r =
.41) suggested that this may occur when direct aggression and confrontation are
inhibited by fear. A positive correlation between fear/avoidance and self-harm (r =
.48) indicated that self-harmwas associated with a fearful response to victimization.
Impulsiveness was most strongly correlated with instrumental attributions about
aggression (r = .43), and more moderately with direct aggression, displaced
aggression,revenge,andaggressiontostaffontheRVS(r=.30to.40).Instrumental
attributionsweremostcloselycorrelatedwithdirectaggression(r=.54)andrevenge
(r = .47), and to a lesser extent with confrontation (r = .30). Expressive attributions
were less closely associated with other measures, with the exception of a positive
correlationwithinstrumentalattributions.
Comparisonsbetweenbullycategories
TheresultsofthefactorialANOVAs(bully/notbully;victim/notvictim)
showedanumberofmaineffectsacrossthe12dependentvariables.Ineverycase,
32
REFERENCE No.
differencesbetweenthefourbullycategoriesweretheresultofeitherorbothmain
effectsofbullyingorvictimization.Insomecases,bothbullyandvictimstatuswere
associatedwithdifferences,whereasinothersitwasoneortheother.Buttherewere
nosignificantinteractions,indicatingthatallofthecharacteristicsassociatedwiththe
fourbullycategoriescouldbeexplainedintermsoftheseparateeffectsofbeinga
bullyorbeingavictim.Bully-victimscanthereforebeunderstoodintermsofthe
characteristicsassociatedwithbullyingcombinedwiththoseassociatedwithbeinga
victim:therewerenoemergentpropertiesassociatedwiththiscombinationofthetwo
factors.Inviewofthenumericalsuperiorityofbully-victimsoverbullies,weshould
perhapsaskwhythoseinthepurebullycategoryarenotbulliedratherthanwhy
bully-victimsarevictimised.
Bullieshadhigherscoresthannon-bulliesonallmeasuresexceptfor
fear/avoidance,andignore,wheretheyhadlowervalues,andforself-harm,where
therewasnosignificantdifference.Thustheyshowedmoredirect,indirectand
displacedaggression,revengeplans,confrontation,aggressiontothestaff,
impulsiveness,andbothinstrumentalandexpressiveattributionsabouttheir
aggression.Displacedaggression,revenge,aggressiontostaff,andimpulsiveness,
wereallhigherinvictimsthannon-victims,i.e.thedifferencewasinthesame
directionasforbullies.Thus,inthesecasesbully-victimshadhigherscoresthan
eitherbulliesorvictims,althoughinnoneofthefourcomparisonsdidbully-victims
havesignificantlyhigherscoresthanbullies:thiswasattributabletotheeffectofbully
statusbeingconsiderablylargerthantheeffectofvictimstatus.Forthecharacteristics
thatwerehigherinthebullyvsnon-bullycategoriesonly,purebulliesandbully-
victimstendedtobesimilarandhigherthanpurevictims.Fear/avoidancewas
significantlyhigherinvictimsthannon-victims,whichisintheoppositedirectionto
33
REFERENCE No.
thedifferenceforthebullyfactor.Inthiscase,wewouldexpectthebully-victimsto
showscoresthatwereintermediatebetweenthoseofpurebulliesandpurevictims,
whichiswhatwefound:theyweresignificantlydifferentfromthoseofbothpure
bulliesandpurevictims.Self-harmwastheonlymeasurethatdifferedforvictimbut
notforbullystatus,beinghigherforvictimsthanfornon-victims.Inthiscase,both
bully-victimsandpurevictimsshowedhigherscoresthantheothertwocategories.
In terms of the predictions, victims did showed more fear and avoidance,
displaced aggression, revenge fantasies, and self-harm, as predicted, but these were
more apparent in the 2 x 2 analysis than the four-category one. Bullies and bully-
victimsdidshowmoredirectandindirectformsofaggression,responsesattributable
totheircommonendorsementofbullyitems.Thepredictionthatbully-victimswould
view their aggressive actions in more expressive terms, as being due to a loss of
control, whereas pure bullies would tend to view their actions in instrumental terms,
was not supported: both pure bullies and bully-victims had similarly high levels of
instrumental attributions, as a consequence of their common endorsement of bully
items. Although there was a suggestion of heightened expressive attributions among
bully-victims, these values were only significantly different from the not involved
category.Thepredictionthatpurebullieswouldshowlowerlevelsofimpulsivitythan
bully/victims was not supported: they showed similar levels, and all three categories
involved in bullying showed higher levels of impulsivity than those who were not
involved,andbully-victimsshowedhigherlevelsthanvictims.Thesedifferenceswere
attributable to a strong main effect of bullying on impulsiveness, combined with a
weakermaineffectofvictimization.
The correlations between these measures and the numbers of bully or victim
items shown by those in the bully or victim categories generally paralleled the
34
REFERENCE No.
categorical differences. Thus the numbers of bully items were positively correlated
with direct and indirect, aggression, revenge, staff aggression, impulsiveness,
instrumental attributions, and (to a lesser extent) displaced aggression and
confrontation. They were negatively correlated with fear/avoidance, and (to a lesser
extent) ignore. The numbers of victim items were positively correlated with
fear/avoidance and self-harm, and (to a lesser extent) with revenge, indirect,
displaced,andstaffaggression.
Sexdifferences
Althoughtherewasnosexdifferenceinthefrequencyofbullyingor
victimisation,overall,orforanysubcategories,forthemeannumberofitems,men
reportedmoreperpetrationthanwomendid,andwomenreportedmorevictimization
thanmendid,thefirstofthesebeingsignificantlydifferent(t=2.8;p=.006).This
samepatternwasfoundforallthesub-categoriesofbullyingandvictimization
(physical,psychological/verbal,theft-related,andindirect).Examiningthemeansfor
perpetrationandvictimizationwithineachsex,itisclearthatbothmaleandfemale
prisonersreportedmorevictimizationthanperpetration,andthatthiswasmore
markedforfemale(means:.92v2.22;t=8.06;p<.001)thanmaleprisoners(means:
1.26v1.77;t=4.35; p<.001).Whetherthisrepresentsagenuinedifferenceora
tendencyofbothsexestoadmittomorevictimizationthanperpetrationisnotclear
fromthisevidencealone.Itismorelikelytobethesecondalternative,sincethe
findingsforbullyingandbeingbulliedcomefromthesamesampleofprisoners,and
similarpatternshavebeenfoundinstudiesofpartnerviolence(Archer,1999).
OntheRVS,BISandExpaggmeasures,menshowedsignificantlyhigher
scoresthanwomenfordirectaggression,indirectaggression,revenge,staff
aggression,andinstrumentalattributions.Effectsizesvariedfrom.47fordirect
35
REFERENCE No.
aggressionto.18forinstrumentalattributionsandstaffaggression.Womenshowed
significantlyhighervaluesthanmenforfear/avoidance,self-harm,andexpressive
attributions.Effectsizeswere.70forfear/avoidanceandmuchlowerfortheothertwo
measures.Therewerenosignificantsexdifferencesfordisplacedaggression,
confrontation,ignoreandBIS-11r.Thispatternofsexdifferenceswasconsistentwith
findingsfromcommunityandstudentsamples,inthatmenshowedhighervaluesfor
directaggression,instrumentalattributions,andrevengefantasies(Archer,2004b;
Campbelletal.,1999;Sukhodolskyetal.,2001),andlowervaluesforexpressive
attributions(Campbelletal.,1999).However,menshigherscoresforindirect
aggressionwereunexpectedsincestudiesofadultsgenerallyfindnosexdifference
(Archer,2004b).Thefindingthatwomenshowedmuchhighervaluesthanmendid
onfear-avoidance,combinedwiththeabsenceofasexdifferenceinimpulsiveness,
suggeststhatthegreatermalethanfemalefrequencyofphysicalaggressionis
attributabletohigherlevelsoffearbyfemalesinsituationswherethereisdangerof
physicalharm(Campbell,1999).
TheRHPquestionnaire
ThefindingsfortheRHPquestionnairedidnotreplicatetheearlieronesfor
youngmalesaround17yearsofage(Archer&Benson,2001)inthatparticipantsdid
notfollowtheretaliatorypotentialoftheopponentwhenansweringtwoscenarios
depictingaprovocation.Thefindingstendedtoindicatethereverse,apatternmorein
keepingwithacodeofnotaggressingtothosesmallerorweaker.Thesefindingsare
notreportedhere(astheyarethesubjectofongoingfollow-upstudies) beyond
notingthatwefoundnoevidenceinthescenariothatbulliesdiscriminatedmorethan
bully-victimsonthebasisoftheopponentsretaliatorypower.Twofollow-upstudies
areplanned,thefirsttoseektoreplicatetheoriginalfindingsinamorecomparable
36
REFERENCE No.
studentsample,andthesecondtoinvestigatefurtherhowprisonersresponsesto
provokingsituationsmightinvolveaformofcodeofhonouraboutretaliating.
Activities
TheinitialfindingswerepresentedattheAnnualConferenceoftheBPS
DivisionofForensicPsychology,March2005.Themainresultswillbedisseminated
attheXVIIWorldMeetingoftheInternationalSocietyforResearchonAggressionin
MinneapolisinJuly2006.SomeresultswillalsobereportedattheInternational
AcademyofLawandMentalHealthconferenceinParis,July2005.
Outputs
Asindicatedintheapplication,individualreportshavebeencomplied
outliningthenatureandextentofbullyingineachofthe11prisonsinvolvedinthe
study.Thesereportswillhelptheprisonstofulfiltheirannualrequirementto
completeananti-bullyingsurvey.Theseoutputsaredetailedinsection2oftheEOA
ReportForm.
Impacts
Theresultsoftheresearch,inwholeorpart,arebeingusedbyindividual
prisonstorefineandupdatetheirprisoner-to-prisoneranti-bullyingstrategies,most
notableatHMPLeedsandHMPCortonVale.Thereisalsointerestoutsidethe
participatingprisonestablishmentsintheapplicationofthefindingstoanti-bullying
strategiesandtheuseofbehaviouralcheckliststoassessthenatureandextentof
bullying.
FutureResearchPriorities
Theprojectdescribedhereispartofaseriesofinvestigationsaboutthenature
and extent of bullying in prisons and the characteristics of prisoners associated with
bullying. There are two methodological innovations to arise from this study, one of
37
REFERENCE No.
whichhasinformedthepresentanalysis.Theotherwillinformfuturestudies.Theuse
of a 2 x 2 factorial analysis of bully categories, in addition to a single comparison
across four categories, has enabled us to question current emphasis in bullying
research on the bully-victim as a special category. This, along with the higher
frequencyofbully-victimscomparedwithpurebullies,willleadusinfutureresearch
tochangetheemphasisfromaskingwhatisspecialaboutbully-victimstoaskingwhy
pure bullies do not become victims. The other methodological innovation, to be
adopted in future studies, is to use frequency measures for the items indicative of
bullying,ratherthantheirpresenceorabsenceoverthepastweek.Thiswillmakethe
measureusedmorelikethoseinotherareasofaggressionresearch,suchasphysical
aggressionbetweenpartners(Strausetal.,1996).
AsindicatedattheendoftheResultssection,twofurtherstudiesareplanned
to investigate the anomalous results we found with the questionnaire that involved
differentlevelsofpotentialforretaliation.
References
Archer,J.(1999).AssessmentofthereliabilityoftheConflictTacticsScale:Ameta-
analyticreview.JournalofInterpersonalViolence,14,1263-1289.
ArcherJ.(2004a).Whichattitudinalmeasurespredicttraitaggression?Personality
andIndividualDifferences36,47-60.
Archer,J.(2004b).Sexdifferencesinaggressioninreal-worldsettings:Ameta-
analyticreview.ReviewofGeneralPsychology,8,291-322.
ArcherJ.,&Benson,D.A.(2001,June).Self-reportedwillingnesstoescalateasa
functionofRHPandprovocation.Postersessionpresentedattheannualmeetingof
theHumanBehaviorandEvolutionSociety,UniversityCollege,London,UK.
38
REFERENCE No.
Archer,J.,&Haigh,A.(1997a).Dobeliefsaboutaggressionpredictself-reported
levelsofaggression?BritishJournalofSocialPsychology,36,83-105.
Archer,J.,&Haigh,A.(1997b).Beliefsaboutaggressionamongmaleandfemale
prisoners.AggressiveBehavior,23,405-415.
Barratt,E.S.(1994).Impulsivenessandaggression.InJ.Mohanan,&J.Steadman
(Eds.),Violenceandmentaldisorder(pp.61-79).Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.
Campbell,A.(1999).Stayingalive:Evolution,cultureandwomen'sintra-sexual
aggression.BehavioralandBrainSciences,22,203-252(includingcommentaries).
Campbell,A.,Muncer,S.,McManus,I.C.,&Woodhouse,D.(1999).Instrumentalor
expressiverepresentationsofaggression:Onescaleortwo?AggressiveBehavior,25,
435-444.
Connell,A.&Farrington,D.(1996)Bullyingamongincarceratedyoungoffenders:
developinganinterviewscheduleandsomepreliminaryresults.Journalof
Adolescence19,75-93.
HomeOfficePrisonService.(1999)Anti-Bullyingstrategy.PrisonServiceOrder.
Ireland,J.L.(1999a).Directandindirectprisonerbehaviourchecklist(DIPC).
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCentralLancashire.
Ireland,J.L.(1999b).Bullyingamongprisoners:Astudyofadultsandyoung
offenders.AggressiveBehavior,25,162-178.
Ireland, J. L. (2002). Bullying among prisoners: Evidence, research and intervention
strategies.Brunner-Routledge:London,UK.
Ireland,J.L.andArcher,J.(1996)Descriptiveanalysisofbullyinginmaleand
femaleadultprisoners.JournalofCommunityandAppliedSocialPsychology,6,35-
47.
39
REFERENCE No.
Ireland,J.L.&Archer,J.(2004).Associationbetweenmeasuresofaggressionand
bullyingamongjuvenileandyoungoffenders.AggressiveBehavior,30,29-42.
OConnor,D.B.,Archer,J.,Hair,W.M.,&Wu,F.W.C(2002).Exogenous
testosterone,aggression,andmoodineugonadalandhypogonadalmen.Physiology
andBehavior,75,557-566.
OConnor,D.B.,Archer,J.,&Wu,F.W.C(2001).Measuringaggression:Self-
reports,partnerreportsandresponsestoprovokingscenarios.AggressiveBehavior,
27,79-101.
Smith,P.K.,&Brain,P.(2000).Bullyinginschools:Lessonsfromtwodecadesof
research.AggressiveBehavior,26,1-9.
Straus,M.A.,Hamby,S.L.,Boney-McCoy,S.,&Sugarman,D.B.(1996).Therevised
ConflictTacticsScales(CTS2):Developmentandpreliminarypsychometricdata.
JournalofFamilyIssues,17,283-316.
Sukhodolsky,D.G.,Golub,A.,&Cromwell,E.N.(2001).Developmentand
validationoftheangerruminationscale.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,31,
689-700.
40