journal of research in crime and delinquency-1973-thomas-13-21

7/29/2019 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency-1973-Thomas-13-21

1/10

http://jrc.sagepub.com/Delinquency

Journal of Research in Crime and

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/002242787301000102

1973 10: 13Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyCharles W. Thomas

Impact of ImprisonmentPrisonization or Resocialization? : A Study of External Factors Associated with the

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers - Newark

can be found at:Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyAdditional services and information for

http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jrc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1973Version of Record>>

by BIBHUMA Biblioteca de Humanidades on October 27, 2011jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jrc.sagepub.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.newark.rutgers.edu/rscj/index.shtmlhttp://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jrc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jrc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13.full.pdfhttp://jrc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13.full.pdfhttp://jrc.sagepub.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jrc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jrc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.newark.rutgers.edu/rscj/index.shtmlhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13http://jrc.sagepub.com/


2/10

13

Prisonization or Resocialization?

AStudy of External FactorsAssociated withthe Impact of Imprisonment*

CHARLES W. THOMAS

Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityPh.D. (Sociology), 1971, University of Kentucky

This report focuses on data obtained from 276 adult male

felons who were inmates in a maximum-security penitentiary in1971. The

generalintent

ofthe

larger study ofwhich this

essayis a part was to test the viability of two available explanationsof the impact ofconfinement. One ofthese models, often referredto as the "deprivation model," provides a restrictive perspectiveby virtue of its unusually heavy emphasis on intra-institutional

processes and influences.Amore recent approach, the "importa-tion model," accepts the importance of such intra-institutionalvariables, but also points to the importance of variables that

originate outside the context of the prison and, in many cases,cannot be directly manipulated by correctional officials. The

specific variables reported in this pa per include measures of social

class of origin, social class of attainment, preprisoninvolvement

in criminality, extent of contact with the larger society duringconfinement, and the inmates perceptions of their post-prisonlife-chances. These independent variables were correlated with ameasure of prisonization. The findings provide evidence in sup-port of the more inclusive conceptualization provided by the im-

portation model. The obvious implication is that overemphasison intra-institutional factors will only prove to be misleading.

RIMINOLOGIS1S have carefully

C documentedthe presence of a

distinct cleavage between the norma-tive expectations of correctional au-thorities and those of the inmate sub-

culture. The objectives of the au-

thorities include the maintenance of

order, the implementation of pro-grams of treatment or rehabilitation,and the initiation of prosocial changesin the attitudes, values, and behaviorof those committed to their institu-

tions. The tenets of the traditional

inmate normative system devalue the* Based on a paper presented at the South-

ern Conference on Corrections, Tallahassee,Fla., Feb. 17-19, 1971.

- -

1. The better studies of male institutions

include Donald Clemmer, The Prison Com-

munity (Boston: Christopher Publishing,1940); Gresham Sykes, Society of Captives

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957);Daniel Glaser, The Effectiveness of a Prison

and Parole System (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964). For studies of womensprisons, see David A. Ward and Gene G.Kassebaum, Womens Prisons: Sex and SocialStructure (Chicago: Aldine, 1965) : and Rose

Giallombardo, Society of Women (New York:John Wiley, 1966).

http://jrc.sagepub.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/http://jrc.sagepub.com/


3/10

14

power vested in these formal authori-

ties and support a world-view that op-

poses both the prison administrationand the noncriminal expectations ofthose in the larger society.2The continuing conflict between

these sets of expectations poses a seri-ous dilemma for each new inmate.

Caught between opposing factions, hemust choose to abide by the demandsof the formal order or those of the

inmate society, or walk the vague andsometimes dangerous path betweenthe two factions.

In effect, because the goals of cor-rectional authorities and those of the

inmate society are so often antitheti-cal, these two opposing powers mustcompete for the allegiance of eachnew cohort of inmates. Should the

outcome of the competition favor theformal organization, ,the assumption isthat control and order will be

maintained and resocialization pro-

grams will be effective. Should the

outcome favor the inmate society,however, new inmates will become

prisonized and the goals of the correc-tional administration will be under-

mined. Although the representativesof the formal organization have the

power to develop programs, adminis-ter punishments, and allocate rewardsin a way which, they hope, will facili-tate the attainment of ,their goals, theinformal power of the inmate societyto undermine the formal system isformidable.

It is appropriate to view the effortsof both the formal organization andthe inmate society as reflections of twoconflicting processes of socialization.It is convenient to label the efforts ofthe formal organization as a &dquo;resocial-ization process&dquo; and those of the in-mate society as a &dquo;prisonization proc-

ess.&dquo; The former process is conceptu-alized as one that is initiate by theformal organization of the prison inan attempt to effect prosocial changesin the attitudes, values, and behaviorof adult felons; .the latter processrefers to the &dquo;taking on in greater orless degree of the folkways, mores,customs, and general culture of thepenitentiary.&dquo;8 Because the normativetenets of the inmate subculture typi-cally support aggressive, m,anipula-tive, and antisocial behavior, the im-

plication is that the success of one

process requires the failure of theother. The greater the degree of

prisonization, the lower the degree ofresocialization. This suggests that an

adequate understanding of the deter-minants of prisonization. is essentialfor those who wish to develop ef~-cient programs of resocialization. To

the extent that they can reduce theeffectiveness of prisonization they in-crease the probability of resocializa-tion.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Most criminological research has fo-cused on such determinants of prison-ization as leng,th of time incarcerat-ed,4 social role adaptations within theinmate subculture,5 involvement in

primary group relations w-ith other

2. Llovd Ohlin, Sociology and the Field ofCorrectiorts (New York: Social Science Re-search Council, 1956); Sykes, ibid.

3. Clemmer, op. cit. supra note 1, p. 299.4. Ibid.; Stanton Wheeler, "Socialization in

Correctional Communities,"American Socio-

logical Review, vol. 26, 1961, pp. 697-712.5. Clarence Schrag, Social Types in a

Prison Community, unpublished M.A. thesis,

University of Washington, 1944; "SomeFoundations for a Theory of Correction," inDonald Cressey, ed., The Prison: Studies inInstitutional Organization and Change (NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961) ,pp. 309-58; Peter Garabedian, "Social Roles

and Processes of Socialization in the Prison

Community," Social Problems, vol. 11, 1963,

pp. 139-52; Glaser, op. cit. supra note 1;Charles Wellford, "Factors Associated with

Adoption of the Inmate Code," Journal ofCriminal Law, Criminology and PoliceScience, vol. 58, 1967, pp. 197-203.



4/10

15

inmates,6 illicit behavior in the

prison,7 and alienation.8 These andrelated findings suggest that the de-

gree of pressure and deprivation thatconfronts prison inmates is directlyrelated to the degree of their prisoni-zation. Specifically, the research evi-dence has shown that increased inte-

gration into the inmate society is an

adaptive response for inmates who areconfronted with severe problems of

adjustmen.t in the prison. But thesevariables also share a common origin-all emerge within the immediate con-

text of the prison. The thesis of thispaper is that numerous contingenciesthat affect the degree of prisonizationeither were present as a part of the

preprison experiences of the inmatesor are present in the quality and

quantity of their contacts with the

larger society during their imprison-ment.

THEORETICAL ORIENTATION

Although the logic of including ex-

traprison variables in an explanatorymodel of prisonization is compelling,explicit attention to these influenceshas been both limited and sporadic.9The rationale for their inclusion,

however, is quite simple. No prison isa closed system. Inmates arrive havingalready been exposed to the socializa-

tion processes operative in some sectorof the larger society. During theirconfinement they maintain contacts inthe outside world and, in addition,

develop varying expectations aboutthe quality of their probable life-chances upon release. Thus, the pat-tern of any inmates adjustment isconditioned by a broad spectrum ofinfluences which include (1) his pre-prison experiences, both criminal and

noncriminal, (2) the expectations ofthe prison staff, (3) the expectationsof his fellow inmates, (4) the qualityof his contacts with persons or groupsoutside the prison, (5) his post-prisonexpectations, and (6) the immediateproblems of adjustment that must beresolved within the prison. The im-mediate problems of adjustment areneither the sole determinants of pris-onization, nor are they necessarily themost significant. To say that they. arethe primary determinants implies thatthe other sources of influence are

roughly the same for all inmates, andthis is obviously not the case.Two brief references to inmates

with whom I am familiar serve to

illustrate the preceding points. Jim isin his mid-twenties, comes from amiddle-class background, was a stu-dent before he was convicted for

pos-session and sale of marijuana, and wasrecently paroled from a five-year sen-tence. Throughout his confinementJim remained aloof from the otherinmates, maintained close connectionswith family and friends outside the

prison, and always anticipated his re-lease with confidence. Indeed, he nev-er considered himself more than a

&dquo;political prisoner of the state.&dquo; Theextent of his

prisonizationwas mini-

mal.

George, the second inmate, is a

6. Clemmer, op. cit. supra note 1.7. Ibid.; Sykes, op. cit. supra note 1.8. Charles Tittle, "Inmate Organization:

Sex Differentiation and the Influence of

Criminal Subcultures,"American SociologicalReview, vol. 29, 1969, pp. 492-505; Charles W.Thomas and Michael J. Miller, "The Effectof Goal Conflict on Organizational Effec-tiveness in Total Institutions," paperpresented to the Ohio Valley SociologicalSociety,April 1971.

9. Clemmer, op. cit. supra note I; Schrag,Social Types in a Prison Community, op. cit.supra note 5; John Irwin and DonaldCressey, "Thieves, Convicts, and the InmateCulture," in Howard Becker, ed., The OtherSide (New York: Free Press, 1964), pp.225-45; Wellford, supra note 5; Charles W.

Thomas, "Toward a More Inclusive Model ofthe Inmate Contraculture," Criminology, vol.8, 1970, pp. 251-62.



5/10

16

much different case. George had alengthy juvenile record and has ac-cumulated an FBI

&dquo;rapsheet&dquo; which

consumes several pages. Now in

his mid-forties, he is currently doingtime for his part in an illegal abortionthat resulted in the death of the pa-tient. His wife has divorced him since

his conviction and he has long sincelost touch with other friends and rela-

tives. Physically powerful, articulate,and &dquo;con-wise,&dquo; George is a force .tobe reckoned with by both staff andinmates.

The point should be obvious.George was wise in the ways of theinmate society before he entered the

prison on his present sentence, andhis assimilation into that system was

quite rapid. The probability of hisbeing influenced by any resocializa-tion program is nearly zero. Jim, onthe other hand, had far more prob-lems of adjustment to the immediate

prison situaltion than George did, butthe prosocial influences in his past,supportive contacts which he was ableto main.tain during his confinement,and positive expectations about hispost-prison life-chances nninimized the

degree of his prisonization.Athor-

ough understanding of either of thesetwo patterns of adjustment to the

prison demands -the consideration offactors whose origins lie beyond the

immediate prison environment. Inbrief, each inmate has a past, apresent, and a future. His adaptationto the prison can be nothing otherthan the interactive product of allthese influences.

RESEARCH DESIGNAND METHODOLOGY

For examination of the influence of

extraprison factors on the degree of

prisonization, data were gathered ear-

ly in 1970 at a large maximum-security prison in a southeastern state.When the study was initiaited the tar-

get institution housed some one thou-sand inmates of whom 810 were in the

permanently assigned working popu-lation of -the prison. Those not in theworking population were either hos-pittal cases from other institutions,new inmates being classified in thereceiving unit, or .permanently as-signed inmates who were under pro-tective or special disciplinary custody.Half of the 810 inmates in the work-

ing population were chosen by a sys-tematic random sampling techniquefor inclusion in the

study,and

specialarrangements were made for ,the selec-tion of thirty-seven inmates in the

maximum-security cell block. Thisyielded a total sample of 442 cases. Ofthese cases, forty-one men were notavailable for contact at the time of the

study. From the remaining pool of401 inmates, completed questionnaireinformation was obtained from 84 percent (N - 336) . This loss of six.ty-fivecases was

due to refusals (N = 54)or

incomplete responses to the question-naire (N = 11) . To obtain the neces-

sary background information on these336 inmates, we covertly matched thecompleted questionnaires with perma-nent prison records. Forty-three ques-tionnaires could not be matched with

these records and the files of seven-

teen men were not available because

of discharge, parole, or institutional

transfers. The data presented arebased on the 276 cases for whomrecords data and complete question-naire information was available.

The primary research hypothesesthat were to be tested with respect tothe influences of extraprison variablesare as follows:

Hypothesis 1. There is an inversecorrelation between social class of

origin and degree of prisonization.

Hypothesis 2. There is an inversecorrelation between social class of at-tainment and degree of prisonization.



6/10

17

Hypothesis 3. There is an inversecorrelation between age at first con-

viction and degree of prisonization.Hypothesis 4. There is an inverse

correlation between number of con-

tacts with persons outside the prisonand degree of prisonization.

Hypothesis 5. There is an inversecorrelation between positive post-prison. expectations and degree ofprisonization.The operational measures of the

variables included in these hypothesesare described below.

Prisonization

Prisonization is conceptualized as aprocess of normative assimilation into

the inmate subculture. The measure

of prisonization. used in this researchfocuses on such elements of the in-

mate code as physical toughness,manipulative relations with theprison staff, high evaluations of in-

group

loyalty,and

exploitativesex

relati6ns.Afounteen-item Likert scale

was developed from a larger pool ofattitude items. Item selection for the

scale was based on item-to-total scale

score correla.tions. Unless the correla-

tion between the item score and the

summated scale score was significantat the .001 confidence level, the itemwas defined as nondiscriminatory andwas excluded from the final scale.

The

potential rangeof scores on this

measure was from fourteen to seventy.The mean of this scale was 38.33 with

a standard deviation of 12.49. The

lower the scale score on this measure,

the higher the degree of prisoniza-tion. (SeeAppendix for sample itemsfrom each of the scales.)

Social Class

Because many inmates had alreadyserved rather lengthy sentences at thetime of the study, it was difficult todecide on an operational measure of

social class.Apreprison income of$100 per week for an inmate who hasbeen confined since 1950, for exam-

ple, has quite a different meaningthan the same preprison income foran inmate who arrived in 1969.A

similar difficulty is found in usinglevel of education as a measure. Occu-

pational rankings, however, have notbeen subject to such pronounced fluc-tuations in meaning as have most oth-er potential indicators. The seven-point measure of occupationalprestige developed by Warner and hisassociates was used in this research as

a measure of both social class of origin(fathers occupation) and social classof attainment (inmates occupy. tion) .10 The information on bothdimensions of social class was derivedfrom questionnaire information

provided by the inmates. Because thedistribution of scores on this measure

of social class is very clearly skewedtoward the lowest -three

positionsof

the scale, one would expect ,the corre-lations between social class and the

attitudinal measure to be lower .than

would be true if the entire social class

spectrum were represented.

PosiUprison ExpectationsInmates are aware that their return

to society will involve some problemsof reintegration. They vary, however,with respect to the anxiety and fearwhich the return evokes. Some feelthat they have no future, that friendsand family have deserted ,the~nn, andthat the &dquo;ex-con&dquo; stigma will precludea successful return. Other feel that

they will find good jobs and acceptingfamilies, and that they can overcomestigmatization. These differentials im-

ply a correlation with both the prob-lems associated with imprisonment

10. W.

LloydWarner et

al.,Social Class in

America (Chicago: Science Research Associ-ates, 1949) , pp. 121-59.



7/10

18

and receptivity to prisonization.Aneleven-item Likert scale was de-

velopedas a measure of the

qualityof

these expectations by the same tech-

nique used to select the items for the

prisonization scale. The mean of thepost-prison expectation scale was41.60 with a standard deviation of

6.96. The higher the score on thismeasure, the more positive the post-prison expectations.

Age at First Conviction and Numberof Contacts

Information on age at first convic-

tion was obtained from both prisonrecords and the self-reports of theinmates. No scale was required forthis measure. Similarly, the frequencyof contacts with persons outside the

prison was obtained directly from the

self-reports of the inmates. Each in-mate was asked to estimate the number

of letters received per week.ll

ANALYSISAND FINDINGS

The research literature suggeststhat social class of origin, social classof attainment, and participation incriminal activities all reflect preprisonexperiences which should be associ-ated with the degree to which aninmate becomes prisonized. Millers12enumeration of the focal concerns of

lower-class delinquen,ts, for example,is

strikinglysimilar to

descriptionsof

the &dquo;right guy&dquo; role adaptation inprison society. The implication is that

many preprison activities may lead to

the development of attitudes and val-ues that approximate those of theinmate subculture.

The greater thedegree of this similarity, the greaterthe receptivity to the influences ofprisonization. Tables 1 and 2 depictthe form of the association amongsocial class of origin, social class ofa~ttainment, and degree of prisoniza-tion. The two research hypothesesthat predict a correlation between so-cial class and prisonization are clearlysupported. In each case the tables

indicate that inmates from the lowestsocial class are considerably more like-ly to become highly prisonized thanare those from the highest social class

category (37.5 per cent versus 26.4 percent in the case of class attained; 39.7

per cent versus 26.7 per cent in the

case of the social class of origin).Thus, the suggestion that lower-class

membership may increase the proba-

TABLE 1DEGREE OF PRISOIvIZATION BY SOCIAL

CLASS OF ORIGIN

TABLE 2

DECREE OF PRISONIZATION BY SOCIAL

CLASS OFATTAINMENT

11. The number of letters or the number

of visitations could have been used as oper-ational measures but were not because the

institution had strict controls on the max-

imum number of letters an inmate could

write and the number of visitors he couldreceive.

12. Walter B. Miller, "Lower-Class Cul-ture as a

GeneratingMilieu of

GangDelin-

quency," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 14,1958, pp. 5-19.



8/10


9/10

20

tacts and that they have been unableto maintain interpersonal relation-

shipswith friends and

familyrelatives

in the larger society. Second, of thosewith the highest degree of contactwith the outside, 60.9 per cent had

very low scores on the measure of

prisonization. The research hypothe-sis is supported. The greater the de-

gree of contact with the outside, the

lower the degree of prisonization.Table 5 pursues the examination of

extraprison influences by relating the

quality of post-prison expectationsto

the degree of prisonization. The the-oretical model suggests that the quali-ty of post-prison expectations variesfrom very positive to very negative.To the extent that the inmates per-ceive their post-prison life chances in a

positive fashion the priority of theirimmediate situation should be re-

duced. If, however, they have consid-erable fears or doubts about what they

will confront upon release, this wouldincrease the probability of highprisonization. The table clearly showsa strong association between the two

variables. Among those for whom

post-prison expectations are thebleakest, 61.4 per cent show a highdegree of prisonization, but amongthose with the most positive expecta-tions almost half, 46.9 per cent, show

TABLE 5

DEGREE OF PRISONIZATION BY QUALITY OFPOST-PRISON EXPECTATIONS

very low degrees of prisonization. In-deed, the power of the associationbetween the two variables indicates

that the quality of post-prison expecta-tions is a prime determinant ofprisonization and would have a majorinfluence on the effectiveness of anyresocialization program.

CONCLUSION

The research literature on prisoni-zation has shown that the problemsand deprivations that confront large

groups of similarly situated inmatesstimulate the development of an op-positional inmate subculture. Thepreponderance of this literature hassought to examine the effects of thesevarious deprivations on patterns ofadjustment in the prison.Although itis certainly true that inmates may seekto alleviate these pressures by becom-

ing integrated into the inmate societyand accepting the normative stand-

ards that bind that society together,the influence of the immediate prisonsituation can provide only a partialexplanation of the impact of im-

prisonment.In the preceding pages I have at-

tempted to show that the relative suc-cess of prisonization or resocializationprocesses frequently depends uponfactors beyond the immediate contextof the institution. Inmates are adults.

They relate to their present situationin a way that reflects their preprisonlearning experiences, their extra-prison relationships, an~-A their post-prison expectations. These externalvariables not only. influence their po-tential receptivity to both prisoniza-tion and resocialization, but, in addi-

tion, may affect the magnitude of the

pressures which they perceive as as-pects of their immediate situations.

Certain aspects of these external influ-ences may well provide a cause for



10/10

21

concern among those whose task is to

implement programs of resocializa-tion. They cannot, for example,

manipulate the preprison experiencesof the inmates they receive in a man-ner that would insure that each new

inmate would be highly receptive tothe influences of resocialization. But

they can put to good use a moreinclusive model of the factors that

determine ,prison adjustment. Several

specific points seem fairly clear. First,most prison inmates do not becomecompletely or uniformly assimilated

into the inmate society. Only 32.6 percent of those in this study showed

high degrees of prisonization. This

implies that resocialization can beefficiently developed even in the con-text of a custodially oriented max-

imum-security prison. Second, al-

though some determinants of prisoni-zation cannot be manipulated by cor-rectional administrators, others are

clearly subject to direct intervention.Such mundane regulations as thosethat limit the number of letters an

inmate can write or receive and those

that specify the individuals withwhom an inmate may correspond areof dubious utility. While these meas-ures are typically defended on thebasis of custodial or financial consid-

era-tions, they would appear to in-crease the probability that inmateswill become isolated from the outside

world. This isolation clearly con-tributes to increased prisonizationand, by definition, a reduction in re-

ceptivity to resocializa.tion. Finally, al-

though many resocialization programshave taken preprison factors into con-sideration, particularly in initial clas-sification actions, most have not givenadequate attention to the fears andanxieties, whether realistic or imagi-

nary, that surroundan

inmatesre-

turn to the larger society. The strong

association between these post-prisonexpectations and degree of prisoniza-tion suggests that resocialization pro-grams must include specific attentionto this determinant of adaptation inthe prison community.

APPENDIX

Sample items from each of the scalesreported in this paper are provided below.


journal of research in crime and delinquency-1973-thomas-13-21

Documents