Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Follow us on Twitter

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by RAMIREZ, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Prisonization, Staff, and Inmates

Is it Really about Us Versus Them?

JOHN RAMIREZ

University of Houston

It was argued that implicit in the concept of prisonization is the assumption that the relationship between the staff and inmate social systems is oppositional both normatively and behaviorally. This assumption was termed the opposition assumption. This assumption may be false and needed to be empirically tested. Using the Q-type correlation coefficient in conjunction with the Q-sort relative rating procedure, the specific issues to which this investigation addressed itself were (a) whether staff members would exhibit high agreement, (b) whether inmates would exhibit high agreement, and, most important, (c) whether staff and inmates would exhibit low agreement in their appraisals of the prison's official administrative code regulating inmate conduct. These expectations were derived directly from the opposition assumption. Results substantiated the first two expectations. The third and most important expectation, however, was convincingly disconfirmed. Agreement between the staff groups and the inmate groups was as high as the within-staff and within-inmate agreement. Moreover, some groups of staff showed more agreement with some groups of inmates than they did with other groups of staff. Likewise, some groups of inmates showed more agreement with some groups of staff than they did with other groups of inmates.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 4, 423-460 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854884011004004


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
G. D. Walters
Changes in Criminal Thinking and Identity in Novice and Experienced Inmates: Prisonization Revisited
Criminal Justice and Behavior, August 1, 2003; 30(4): 399 - 421.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Offender Ther Comp CriminolHome page
J. Maghan
The Dilemmas of Corrections and the Legacy of David Fogel
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, June 1, 1997; 41(2): 101 - 120.
[Abstract]


Home page
The Prison JournalHome page
D. P. LAWSON, C. SEGRIN, and T. D. WARD
The Relationship Between Prisonization and Social Skills among Prison Inmates
The Prison Journal, September 1, 1996; 76(3): 293 - 309.
[Abstract] [PDF]