Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Po0.05.
Po0.02.
Po0.001.
226 Ireland et al.
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
Monaghan, 2006], and consistent with the prediction
made that perpetrators would use indirect aggres-
sion more than direct. This prediction was based on
the effect-danger principle proposed by Bjo rkqvist
[1994] where aggressors choose a strategy based on
an evaluation of the effect of their aggression in
relation to the personal danger involved. Indirect
aggression, in a prison, arguably combines a low-
danger element for perpetrators in terms of detec-
tion by staff [Ireland and Monaghan, 2006], with
a desired negative effect on victims, and thus may
be preferred in prisons to the more detectable (and
costly in terms of penalties) direct aggression.
Alternatively, the preference may be less representa-
tive of effect-danger considerations and associated
more with prisoners simply failing to identify
indirect aggression as aggression [Ireland and
Ireland, 2003] and thus demonstrating an increased
willingness to report it in comparison to more overt
and direct aggression.
Behavioral characteristics were consistently iden-
tied as predictors of membership of the bully-group
categories. Based on previous research, we predicted
that bully-victims would show more negative beha-
vior [Ireland, 2000, 2001]. This study supported this
both with regard to differences across behaviors and
predictors: bully/victims reported higher levels of
negative behavior (as well as drug-related and
positive behavior) than the other groups involved,
with membership to the bully/victim group pre-
dicted by increased negative behavior.
Thus, overall, the study supported the prediction
that bully-victims would demonstrate more disrup-
tive behavior. The nding that they also demon-
strated more involvement in the supply and use of
drugs was consistent with previous research among
adult prisoners [Ireland, 2000, 2001] and applied to
both sexes. However, this study also indicated that
increased negative behavior was an overall predictor
of pure victims and pure bullies, with pure victims
TABLE III. Signicant Characteristics Associated With Each Bully Category For Men
Bully-category Variable b SE of b
Wald
(z-ratio) Exp (B)
95% CI
for Exp B
Marginal effect:
BP(1P)
Pure bully Negative 1.49 0.29 26.9
Po0.01.
Po0.001.
TABLE IV. Signicant Characteristics Associated With Each Bully Category For Women
Bully-category Variable b SE of b
Wald
(z-ratio) Exp (B)
95% CI
for exp B
Marginal effect:
BP(1P)
Pure bully Negative 0.79 0.24 10.6
Po0.001.
227 Characteristics of Prisoners Involved in Bullying
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
also demonstrating more drug-related behavior,
suggesting that such behavior occurred in all of the
groups involved in bullying behavior. There was less
behavior of this type among the not-involved group.
For both victim (pure victim and bully-victim) and
perpetrator (pure bully) groups, negative behavior
may serve an instrumental function. It represents
a method through which they can raise their status
among peers by demonstrating a capacity to
challenge the out-group, i.e. being abusive to the
staff. This would serve to protect them against
future victimization by communicating to peers their
capacity to aggress, thus further lessening the chance
that they would be considered an easy target
[Ireland, 2002a]. This explanation has been put
forward before in relation to bully-victims [Ireland,
2002a], but the current ndings suggest it could also
be extended to pure victims and pure bullies. For
perpetrator groups, displaying such behavior may
relate more to maintaining already existing status,
however, whereas for victim groups it may be more
focused on accruing status.
Displaying negative behavior to staff also
increases the possibility that both victim groups will
be disciplined and either watched more closely by
staff or be removed from the wing to another
location. The rst outcome would assist in prevent-
ing their victimization [Ireland, 2002a]. The second
would allow a respite for victims while at the same
time preventing them from being subject to justied
bullying from prisoners by avoiding any breach
of the inmate code regarding directly informing on
other prisoners [Ireland, 2002a; Tittle, 1969].
Displaying negative behavior has been described
as serving a protective function for victim groups
[Ireland, 2005a]. For bully-victims acts of bullying
behavior towards other prisoners could serve a
similar function [Ireland, 2002a]. This is consistent
with explanations of victim responses in a prison in
terms of aggression and negative behavior serving
adaptive functions in response to a threat, such as
actual bullying or the risk of bullying [Ireland,
2005b]. Bullying others and/or displaying negative
behavior in response to victimization has been
described as an effective and adaptive method of
social problem-solving in prison [Ireland and
Murray, 2005]. Both forms of behavior reduce the
opportunities that others have to bully a prisoner by
increasing staff attention to them. This in essence
raises the danger element [Bjo rkqvist, 1994] asso-
ciated with others seeking to bully them [Ireland,
2002a]. The notion that aggression and/or disruptive
behavior have adaptive qualities contrasts with
models of social problem-solving (among children)
that consider aggression and related difcult beha-
vior to represent a decit in effective functioning
[Dodge and Crick, 1990]. The current study cannot
establish whether these suggested explanations are
correct since the data were cross-sectional. They do,
however, highlight the need for longitudinal re-
search to explore the development of aggression and
difcult (negative) behavior in both victim cate-
gories, to determine whether victimization leads to
negative behavior or whether negative behavior is a
cue marker for being aggressed towards by others
(i.e., is negative behavior an indication of difculty
in adjustment and thus a potential vulnerability cue
for an aggressor).
Although the current study beneted from a large
sample, it has a number of limitations. The rst
relates to procedural issues regarding administration
of the questionnaires. In four of the 11 establish-
ments, their own psychology departments distribu-
ted and collected the questionnaires using the
procedure described for the overall study. Although
a regression analysis showed that this method did
not signicantly inuence the outcome for bully
(t 50.98) or victim items (t 51.18) reported, it still
remains an identied limitation to acknowledge as a
potential confounding variable. There was also no
assessment made of the literacy levels of prisoners
due to the anonymity of the research. Somewhat
related to this issue regarding anonymity is the
honesty of prisoner responses. Although assured of
anonymity, prisoners might still have been reluctant
to disclose behaviors indicative of being bullied
for fear of reprisals from their aggressors, or fear of
being labeled as a grass. Equally, prisoners might
not have disclosed behaviors indicative of bullying
others for fear of reprisals from the prison
authorities. Overall, this might have led to an
under-estimation of behaviors indicative of bullying.
Such a limitation is largely unavoidable in research
of this nature, and alternative methods of data
collection to self-report, such as record-based data,
have signicant drawbacks [Dyson, 2005]. Record-
based methods in particular are known to greatly
underestimate specic forms of aggression, notably
indirect aggression [Ireland, 2002b].
The data produced by the DIPC is unsuitable for
categorizing groups using a median split or cut-off
analysis. Such an analysis would enable a more
detailed classication: e.g., perpetrators could be
separated into those falling below the median
in terms of aggression frequency and those falling
above [Ireland, 2005a]. The rst author has devel-
oped an alternative version of the DIPC (DIPC-
SCALED) that involves assessment of behavior
228 Ireland et al.
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
frequency and will therefore enable median splits to
be used. The current study, however, employed a
measure-involving acknowledgement of one or more
items (victim and/or perpetrator) to categorize the
participants. There are limitations with this in that it
does not account for aggression frequency. This is a
method routinely used, however, in prison based
bullying research [e.g., Ireland, 2002a; Palmer and
Farmer, 2002] and accounts for aggression within
a short timeframe (i.e., 1 week) and for single
incidences as aggression as per denitions of
bullying applied to prison samples [Ireland, 2002a].
There are a number of potentially useful areas for
future research, some of which have been indicated
here, for example using a longitudinal design to
determine the developmental trajectory of negative
behaviors in relation to perpetration and victimiza-
tion. Further areas of interest include a need to
explore and rene how individuals are classied into
bully groups. Pursuing alternative methods of
classication in future research would prove of
value, and could perhaps also consider motivations
and frequency in their denition of bullying sub-
groups [Ireland, 2005a].
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks are extended to all the prisoners who took
part and the staff who provided assistance. Thanks
are expressed in particular to Carol Smith, Johanna
Blake, Lorraine Mosson and the Scottish Prison
Service for the coordination of data collection
within their services. The views contained within
this article are those of the researchers and not of the
Grant Authority, HM Prison Service or the Scottish
Prison Service.
REFERENCES
Archer J, Coyne SM. 2005. An integrated review of indirect,
relational and social aggression. Personality Social Psychol Rev
8:212230.
Bjo rkqvist K. 1994. Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect
aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles 30:177188.
Bjo rkqvist K, O