SOCIAL SUPPORT AND MENTAL HEALTH AMONG MALE AND FEMALE PRISON INMATES

SOCIAL SUPPORT AND MENTAL HEALTH AMONG MALE AND FEMALE PRISON INMATES
ChandraKant Jamadar
Assistant Professor,P.G.Studies in Psychology,Maharani Arts & Commerce College for Women’s MYSORE

Abstract
Aim: The present endeavor was planned with the primary objective to asses the relationship between social support and mental health among male and female prison inmates. The secondary aim was to find out the gender differences on social support and mental health among prison inmates.
Method: For this purpose 50 prison inmates from central jail Mysore were selected, using randomization technique, as respondents. The sample comprised of 25 male and 25 female prison inmates with mean age of 31.48 for males and 31.32 for females. The SD was for males and females 10.79 and 8.71 respectively.
Results: Results revealed that social support has a positive correlation with mental health. There were significant gender differences on social support and mental health.
Conclusion: Finally, it can be concluded that social support has an impact on mental health of prison inmates. The availability of someone to provide help or emotional support may protect individuals from some of the negative consequences of prison’s stressful situations. Efforts should be done in increasing Social support for prison inmates.
Key-words: Social support, mental health, prison inmates, gender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Introduction
Social support is a multidimensional construct that has been conceptualized and measured in a variety of ways. Most measures of support fall into one of three categories: 1) social network characteristics that assess the degree to which a person is socially integrated; 2) received support measures that indicate what a person has actually received or reported to have received; and 3) perceived support measures that capture an individual’s beliefs about the availability of support (Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990).
Social support is a ubiquitous phenomenon in everyday life. People talk about their needs for support with close others and provide it when others experience distress. Support groups provide people with a forum to share a wide range of issues and to receive support from others dealing with similar issues, and in the United States such groups have proven very popular (Davison, Pennebaker, & Dickerson, 2000). Social support is sought to such a large extent because, by and large, it works; it is one of the most effective means by which people can cope with and adjust to difficult and stressful events, thereby buffering themselves from the adverse mental and physical health effects of stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Seeman, 1996; Thoits, 1995). Numerous studies have examined factors that affect individuals’ seeking of social support as well as its effectiveness (Taylor, 2007).
What is mental health?
Since its inception, WHO has included mental well-being in the definition of health. WHO famously defines health as:
... a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity (WHO, 2001, p.1).
Three ideas central to the improvement of health follow from this definition: mental health is an integral part of health, mental health is more than the absence of illness, and mental health is intimately connected with physical health and behavior.
Defining mental health is important, although not always necessary to achieving its improvement.
Differences in values across countries, cultures, classes, and genders can appear too great to allow a consensus on a definition (WHO, 2001b). However, just as age or wealth each have many different expressions across the world and yet have a core common-sense universal meaning, so mental health can be conceptualized without restricting its interpretation across cultures. WHO has recently proposed that mental health is:
... a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community (WHO, 2001a).
In this positive sense, mental health is the foundation for well-being and effective functioning for an individual and for a community. It is more than the absence of mental illness for the states and capacities noted in the definition have value in themselves. Neither mental nor physical health can exist alone. Mental, physical, and social functioning is interdependent. Furthermore, health and illness may co-exist. They are mutually exclusive only if health is defined in a restrictive way as the absence of disease (Sartorius, 1990). Recognizing health as a state of balance including the self, others, and the environment helps communities and individuals understand how to seek its improvement.
Social Support and Mental and Physical Health
Social support has been defined as information from others that one is loved and cared for, esteemed and valued, and part of a network of communication and mutual obligations (Cobb, 1976; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Seeman, 1996). It may come from a spouse or companion, relatives, friends, coworkers, and community ties. Social support effectively reduces psychological distress, such as depression or anxiety, during times of stress (Fleming, Baum, Gisriel, & Gatchel, 1982) and is associated with a variety of physical health benefits, including positive adjustment to coronary heart disease, diabetes, lung disease, cardiac disease, arthritis, and cancer (Holahan, Moos, Holahan, & Brennan, 1997; Stone, Mezzacappa, Donatone, & Gonder, 1999). It can reduce the likelihood of illness, speed recovery from illness when it does occur, and reduce the risk of mortality from serious disease (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). Conversely, lack of social support during stressful times can be very distressing, especially for people with high needs for social support who are unable to obtain it, including the elderly and victims of sudden uncontrollable life events (Sorkin, Rook, & Lu, 2002).
Prison, Gender, Social Support and Mental Health
A key part of any prisonization study since the middle of the 20th century has been the types of social support imported into the prison or emergent from the deprivations of prison life (Clemmer, 1958; Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Sykes & Messinger, 1960; Thomas, 1970). For example, positive social (prosocial) support mechanisms contribute to the smooth operation of the correctional facility and, furthermore, should portend well for exoffenders as they reenter the society at large. Conversely, negative social (antisocial) support mechanisms, such as the inmate social system and its negativistic inmate code, may propagate criminal orientations and outlooks with origins in both the prison and the free society and ultimately bode ill for a successful return to life outside the correctional facility.
Quantitative research that explores both the institutional and individual levels of prison misconduct has been rare until very recently, and even these recent additions to the literature have ignored social support variables (Camp, Gaes, Langan, & Saylor, 2003; Huebner, 2003;Wooldredge, Griffin, & Pratt, 2001). Moreover, there are hundreds of studies about inmates’ adjustment, several of which compare incarcerated male and female inmates (Craddock, 1996b; Harris, 1993; Hart, 1995; Zingraff, 1980). In spite of this growing body of literature, little attention has been paid to the gendered effects of social support on inmate behavior. In statistical terms, omitting important variables from a model can lead to biased and inconsistent estimators
(Wooldridge, 2000).
The possible effect of extra- and intrainstitutional prosocial support mechanisms on the responses of male and female inmates to incarceration is important for many reasons. First, whatever their source, social support mechanisms can help inmates meet their personal needs or situate themselves with a modicum of safety and security in the inmate society. For example, an inmate’s participation in prison education programs, including basic literacy, can reduce idle time and improve self-esteem. Moreover, participants report such programs also provide safe havens inside prison, enhance their ability to deal with an often hostile prison environment, and enrich the quality of day-to-day life (Fagan, 1989; Ryan & McCabe, 1994). The prosocial support derived from prison-based educational programming apparently leads to fewer prison rule violations (Gaes & McGuire, 1985; McCorkle, Miethe, & Drass, 1995; Adams et al., 1994).
Within the past decade, criminologists have begun to address the theoretical roots of social support. Pratt and Godsey (2003) maintain that besides Cullen’s (1994) pioneering work on social support, this perspective also has conceptual ties to popular theories such as reintegrative shaming, social capital, institutional anomie theory, and social altruism. All deal with “the common proposition that social aggregates—from communities to nations—vary in their degree of cohesiveness, support, shared values, and willingness to come to the aid of those in need” (Pratt & Godsey, 2003,). In the prison context, social support may strengthen inmate family ties (Howser et al., 1983; Howser & MacDonald, 1982), and strong family ties can foster both general prosocial behavior (Wright, Cullen, & Miller, 2001) and higher proinstitutional—or at least lower levels of antiinstitutional—behavior (Hensley, Rutland, & Gray-Ray, 2000).
Researchers have reported differences in the child-rearing patterns of men and women bound for prison. According to Datesman and Cales (1983), in most instances the female prisoners’ dependent children were not living with their fathers prior to incarceration (McGowan & Blumenthal, 1978).
In 1997, only about 4 in 10 male parents in state prisons lived with their children prior to incarceration, contrasted with nearly two thirds of female parents in state prisons (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). It is usually the case that prior to incarceration, women are more closely linked to the care and upbringing of children than are men (Ward & Kassebaum, 1965; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
As suggested by the importation model’s supporters, gender-based differences also should be brought into the prison and further shape inmates’ values, subcultures, and behaviors (Giallambardo, 1966; Heffernan, 1972; Owen, 1998; Pollock, 2002; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). But men and women bring qualitatively different life experiences into prison, differences that may be categorized into several key clusters. For instance, female prisoners’ values are generally quite traditional, for as a group they are family centered, children centered, or relationship oriented (Harris, 1993). Ward and Kassebaum (1965) observed that 4 in 10 female prisoners at Frontera, California, indicated that missing their home and family was the most difficult aspect of adjustment to prison life, a percentage that was higher than that for any other answer. More than a generation later, Owen (1998) found that most of the women interviewed at the Central California Women’s Facility held quite traditional views of gender roles. They saw themselves as wives and mothers; moreover, relationships with children were central to the lives of many of them.
Male and female inmates also behave in different ways as they establish relationships within correctional facilities. These male and female responses to incarceration can be categorized into two central types of relationships: relationships with other inmates and relationships with family (especially children) outside of prison. With regard to relationships with other inmates, men concentrate on doing their own time, being tough, and relying on their feelings of inner strength and their abilities to withstand outside pressures to get themselves through their time in prison. By contrast, women remain interwoven into the extra-institutional lives of their significant others, primarily their children and their own mothers (Datesman & Cales, 1983; Lord, 1995; Owen, 1998; Sykes, 1958; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). Within the prison walls, women’s lives featured personalized relationships that are organized around small, intimate, family-like groups (Owen, 1998; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965).
These qualitative differences have implications for the female inmates’ institutional adjustment. For example, studying two gender-specific juvenile correctional facilities, Zingraff (1980) found that for female inmates, the greater the priority of interpersonal ties within the institution, the lower the prisonization levels. This relationship did not exist for male inmates. Recent studies, however, have revealed that female inmates’ interpersonal relationships may be less stable and less familial than in the past (Greer, 2000; Kruttschnitt, Gartner, & Miller, 2000). Many women choose to isolate themselves from others as the best way to do their time. Social support has at least two dimensions: support structure and support process (Cullen, 1994). Support structure refers to the embedded location of support resources within the social structure, such as community, social networks, and intimate relationships (Lin, Ye, & Ensel, 1997). Support process refers to the mechanisms by which support resources are recognized and used by individuals to meet their individual needs (Lin et al., 1997). Social support also may be either formal or informal. According to Cullen (1994), informal support might be provided through social connections with others who do not have any official status with or connection to the individual. Formal support refers to the support provided by criminal justice systems, schools, and other governmental assistance programs. When discussing people’s behavior within an organization, social support consists of internal and external social support. Internal social support includes informal and formal support from inside an organization. External social support refers to informal and formal support from outside an organization.
In recognition of these distinctions, we employed two levels of variables, one reflecting individual-level factors, the second exploring institutional level factors. Both types of variables are included in each gender-based model. For example, each model includes five external support variables at the inmate (or individual) level and two support variables at the prison (or institutional) level. The five support variables at the inmate level are three process variables—calls, mail, and visitation—and two resource variables—marital status and number of children. At the prison level, support variables include one formal support process from prison—prison programs in which inmates participate—and one informal support within prison—inmate-organized groups or clubs in which inmates participate. Previous researchers have suggested that females need and have greater social support at the inmate level (Hart, 1995). Consistent with this argument, we expect a higher level of social support among females. In addition, based on social support theory, we expect all of the included social support variables to help reduce inmate rule violations. Finally, the effect of social support on inmate prison adjustment—especially with respect to getting into trouble with prison authorities—may be gendered as well (Hart, 1995; Zingraff, 1980). As a corollary, we expect the effect of social support on inmate misconduct to vary by gender. The primary aim of the present investigation was planned to assess the relationship of social support and mental health among male and female prisoners and the secondary aim was to find out the gender differences.
HYPOTHESES: After reviewing the concerned literature the following hypotheses was formulated:-
(Ha) This is expected that there will be a significant relationship between social support and mental health of prison inmates.
(Ha) This is expected that there will be a significant difference on social support among male and female prison inmates.
(Ha) This is expected that there will be a significant difference on mental health among male and female prison inmates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample: The sample comprised of total fifty (N=50) prison inmates from central jail Mysore, out of which twenty five (n=25) male and twenty five (n=25) female prison inmates with mean age of 31.48 for males and 31.32 for females. The SD was for males and females 10.79 and 8.71 respectively.
Measures: The following standardized tools were administered: 1. PGI-Social Support Quetionner (SSQ) Nehra.et al. (2003), 2. Mental Health Inventory by Dr.Jagadish & Dr,A.K.Srivastava (1995) The scoring was done according to the respective manuals.
Statistical Analysis: Pearson’s correlation method was applied to assess the relationship and independent t test was also applied to compare the mean scores and to find out the significant difference.
RESULTS
Table: 1 Pearson’s Correlation

Sr. No. Variable Social Support Mental Health
1. Social Support 1 .653**
2. Mental Health 1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

It has been observed from the table-1 that Social Support was positively related to Mental Health (r=0.653). That shows that for both the groups higher the social support higher the mental health.
TABLE: 2 INDEPENDENT T-TEST FOR GENDER WITH REGARD TO SOCIAL SUPPORT.



Sr. No.


Variable Males
(N=25) Females
(N=25)


‘t’ ratio
Mean SD SEM Mean SD SEM
1. Social Support 23.88 3.92 0.78 20.04 3.85 0.77 3.48**
**Significant at 0.01, df =48
It has been observed from the table-2 that mean scores of Social Support, among Males and Females were 23.88 and 20.04 respectively. The standard deviation was 3.92 for Males and for Females it was 3.85. The standard error of mean for Males came out to be 0.78 and for Females it came out to be 0.77. The ‘t’ value of Social Support 3.48 was found significantly higher than the table value. This shows that Males scored higher than Females on Social Support.
Fig: 1 Comparison of mean scores for Gender with regard to Social Support

TABLE: 3 INDEPENDENT T-TEST FOR GENDER WITH REGARD TO MENTAL HEALTH.



S. No.


Variable Males
(N=25) Females
(N=25)


‘t’ ratio
Mean SD SEM Mean SD SEM
1. Mental Health 131.64 10.27 2.05 119.72 6.82 1.36 4.83**
**Significant at 0.01, df =48
It has been observed from the table-3 that mean scores of Mental Health, among Males and Females were 131.64 and 119.72 respectively. The standard deviation was 10.27 for Males and for Females it was 6.82. The standard error of mean for Males came out to be 2.05 and for Females it came out to be 1.36. The ‘t’ value of Social Support 4.83 was found significantly higher than the table value. This shows that Males scored higher than Females on Mental Health.
Fig: 2 Comparison of mean scores for Gender with regard Mental Health

DISCUSSION
The primary aim of the investigation was to study the relationship of Social Support and Mental Health. Secondary aim was to study the differences between Males and Females prison inmates on these dimensions. For this purpose the participants in this investigation were total fifty (N=50) prison inmates from central jail Mysore, out of which twenty five (n=25) male and twenty five (n=25) female prison inmates with mean age of 31.48 for males and 31.32 for females. The SD was for males and females 10.79 and 8.71 respectively.
In the beginning of the investigation it was hypothesized that there will be significant relationship between Social Support and Mental Health. This was also hypothesized there will be a significant difference between Male and Female prison inmates.
The participants were tested for Social Support and Mental Health with the help of standardized questionnaires. The scoring was done for both the scales after the administration of the same. The scales were scored according to the response options chosen by the participants and grand totals on each were obtained. The scores were further statistically analyzed and Pearson’s correlation and t-ratios were calculated.
Pearson correlation was calculated for Social Support and Mental Health for studying the relationship. Result revealed that Social Support was positively related to Mental Health (r=0.653). This showed that Mental Health increases with Social Support. Kurten-Vartio (2007) reviewed the mental health status of prisoners and found that the health status is generally much poorer than that of the general population, and women’s health needs can be seriously neglected in a male-dominated prison system. Many women in prison have a background of physical and sexual abuse and of alcohol and drug dependence. Many did not receive adequate health care before incarceration. Women in prison generally have more mental health problems than women in the general population. This frequently stems from prior victimization. Mental illness is often both a cause and a consequence of imprisonment and the rates of self-harm and suicide are noticeably higher among female than among male prisoners (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009).
Further, t-ratios were also calculated to find out the gender difference for Social Support and Mental Health. t-ratio for Social support came out to be 3.48 for Male and Female prison inmates. This was significant on 0.01 level. While the t-ratios for Mental Health was 4.84 which were also significant at 0.01 level. Male Prison inmates were higher on Social Support and Mental Health level. Thus, all the three hypotheses were accepted. Sorkin et al., (2002) suggested that lack of social support during stressful times can be very distressing, especially for people with high needs for social support who are unable to obtain it, including the elderly and victims of sudden uncontrollable life events. Lekka et al., (2006) examined the prevalence of Suicidal behavior among prison inmates and suggested that suicidal ideation should be considered a serious sign of future suicidal behavior in prisoners, as it was shown that inmates with SI had a significantly higher risk for self-destructive acts at follow-up. Suicidal ideation should be followed by referral to psychiatric care, as well as by any further suitable measures that would help prevention of suicide in prisoners.
Further, the results implied that the Social Support tend to have positive relationship with Mental Health. Social Support had an impact on Mental Health of prison inmates. Gender differences revealed that Male prison inmates had more social support of family and society as compared to Female prison inmates.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the results obtained and studies done in the past it could be said that Social Support has positive relationship with Mental Health. Mental Health will increase as Family and society’s support is there for the prison inmates. Results further revealed that Males have more family and society’s support as compared to Females. The availability of someone to provide help or emotional support may protect individuals from some of the negative consequences of prison’s stressful situations. These results go a long way in suggesting the impact of social support for prison inmate’s mental health.
References:
Adams, K., Bennett, K. J., Flanagan, T. J., Marquart, J. W., Cuvelier, S. J…….., & Fritsch, E. (1994). A large-scale multidimensional test of the effect of prison education programs on offenders’ behavior. The Prison Journal, 74, 433-449.
Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2000). Codebook of survey of inmates in state and federal correctional facilities, 1997 (ICPSR, first ICPSR Ed.).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., Langan, N. P., & Saylor, W. G. (2003). The influence of prisons on inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20, 501-533.
Clemmer, D. (1958). The prison community. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a mediator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38,300-314.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Cornman, J., Goldman, N., Weinstein, M., & Lin, H S. (2002). “Perceptions of Elderly Taiwanese about the Availability of Social Support.” Working Paper 2001-4. Ann Arbor: Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
Craddock, A. (1996b). A comparative study of male and female prison misconduct careers. The Prison Journal, 76, 60-80.
Cullen, F. T. (1994). Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Quarterly, 11, 527-559.
Datesman, S. K., & Cales, G. L. (1983). “I’m still the same mommy”: Maintaining the mother/child relationship in prison. The Prison Journal, 63, 142-154.
Davison, K. P., Pennebaker, J. W., & Dickerson, S. S. (2000). Who talks? The social psychology of illness support groups. American Psychologist,55, 205–217.
Fagan,W. T. (1989). Prisoners’ and non-institutional adults’ perceptions of conditions affecting their learning. Journal of Correctional Education, 40, 152-158.
Fleming, R., Baum, A., Gisriel, M. M., & Gatchel, R. J. (1982). Mediating influences of social support on stress at Three Mile Island. Journal of Human Stress, 8, 14–22.
Gaes, G. G., & McGuire, W. J. (1985). Prison violence: The contribution of crowding versus other determinants of prison assault rate. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 41-65.
Giallambardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a women’s prison. New York: John Wiley.
Greer, K. R. (2000). The changing nature of interpersonal relationships in a women’s prison. The Prison Journal, 80, 442-468.
Harris, J. W. (1993). Comparison of stressors among female vs. male inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 43-56.
Hart, C. (1995). Gender differences in social support among inmates. Women and Criminal Justice, 6, 67-88.
Heffernan, E. (1972). Making it in prison: The square, the cool, and the life. New York: John Wiley.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., & Brennan, P. L. (1997). Social context, coping strategies, and depressive symptoms: An expanded model with cardiac patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 918–928.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545.
Howser, J., & MacDonald, D. (1982). Maintaining family ties. Corrections Today, 44, 96-98.
Howser, J., Grossman, J., & MacDonald, D. (1983). Impact of family reunion program on institutional discipline. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 8, 27-36.
Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117.
Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. (1962). Thieves, convicts, and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10, 142-155.
Jiang, S., & Winfree, L. T. Jr. (2006). Social Support, Gender, and Inmate Adjustment to Prison Life: Insights from a National Sample. The Prison Journal, 86(1), 32-55. DOI: 10.1177/0032885505283876.
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and Social Support. American Psychological Association, 63(6), 518–526. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.
Kruttschnitt, C., Gartner, R., & Miller, A. (2000). Doing her own time? Women’s responses to prison in the context of the old and the new penology. Criminology, 38, 681-718.
Kurten-Vartio, S. (2007). Women in prison: social, economic and cultural rights of female prisoners. Brussels, European Parliament http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/20070626/femm/kurten_vartio_en.pdf, Retrieved 2 December 2011.
Lekka, N. P., Argyriou, A. A., & Beratis, S. (2006). Suicidal ideation in prisoners: risk factors and relevance to suicidal behavior: A prospective case-control study. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256, 87–92.
Lin, N., Ye, X., & Ensel,W. M. (1997). Revisiting social support: Integration of its dimensions. (Unpublished manuscript). Duke University, Durham, NC.
Lord, E. (1995). A prison superintendent’s perspective on women in prison. The Prison Journal, 75, 257-269.
McCorkle, R. C., Miethe, T. D.,& Drass, K. A. (1995). The roots of prison violence: A test of the deprivation, management, and “not-so-total” institution models. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 317-331.
McGowan, B. G., & Blumenthal, K. L. (1978). Why punish the children? A study of children of women prisoners. Hackensack, NJ: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Owen, B. (1998). “In the mix”: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pollock, J. M. (2002). Women, crime, and prison. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Pratt, T. C., & Godsey, T.W. (2003). Social support, inequality, and homicide: A cross-national test of an integrated theoretical model. Criminology, 41, 611-643.
Ryan, T. A., & McCabe, K. A. (1994). Mandatory versus voluntary prison education and academic achievement. The Prison Journal, 74, 450-461.
Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Traditional Views of social Support and Their Impact on Assessment”. In B.R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason, and G.R. Pierce (Eds.), Social Support: An Interactional View (pp. 9-25). New York: Wiley.
Sartorius, N. (1990). Preface. In D. Goldberg & D. Tantam (Eds.), The public health impact of mental disorders. Toronto: Hogrefe and Huber.
Seeman, T. E. (1996). Social ties and health: The benefits of social integration. Annals of Epidemiology, 6, 442–451.
Sorkin, D., Rook, K. S., & Lu, J. (2002). Loneliness, lack of emotional support, lack of companionship, and the likelihood of having a heart condition in an elderly sample. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 290–298.
Stone, A. A., Mezzacappa, E. S., Donatone, B. A., & Gonder, M. (1999). Psychosocial stress and social support are associated with prostate specific antigen levels in men: Results from a community screening program. Health Psychology, 18, 482–486.
Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sykes, G. M., & Messinger, S. L. (1960). Inmate social system. In R. A. Cloward, D. R. Cressey, G. H. Grosser, R. McCleery, L. E. Ohlin, G. M. Sykes, & S. L. Messinger (Eds.), Theoretical studies in social organization of the prison (pp. 5-19). New York: Social Science Research Council.
Taylor, S. E. (2007). Social support. In H. S. Friedman & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Foundations of health psychology (pp. 145–171). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 53–79.
Thomas, C.W. (1970).Toward a more inclusive model of the inmate contraculture. Criminology, 8, 251-262.
Ward, D. A., & Kassebaum, G. (1965). Women’s prison: Sex and social structure. Chicago: Aldine.
WHO (2001). Basic documents. 43rd Edition. Geneva, World Health Organization: 1.
WHO (2001a). Strengthening mental health promotion. Geneva, World Health Organization (Fact sheet, No. 220).
WHO (2001b). Mental health: new understanding, new hope. The World Health Report. Geneva, World Health Organization.
WHO (2004). Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence, practice: summary report. Geneva, World Health Organization.
WHO Regional Office for Europe (2009). Women’s health in prison: Correcting gender inequity in prison health. http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Session51/Declaration_Kyiv_Women_60s_health_in_Prison.pdf Retrieved on 2 December 2011.
Wooldredge, J. D., Griffin, T., & Pratt, T. (2001). Considering hierarchical models for research on inmate behaviors: Predicting misconduct with multilevel data. Justice Quarterly, 18, 203-231.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2000). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Wright, J. P., Cullen, F. T., & Miller, J. T. (2001). The family social capital and delinquent involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 1-9.
Zingraff, M. T. (1980). Inmate assimilation: A comparison of male and female delinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 275-292.