SOCIAL SUPPORT AND MENTAL HEALTH AMONG MALE AND FEMALE PRISON
INMATES
ChandraKant Jamadar
Assistant Professor
P.G.Studies in Psychology,Maharani College ,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.
Passion Questionnaire developed by Vallerand, R. J. et al. (2003), 2. Sports
Motivation Scale Brière, N. M. et al. (1995) & 3. Task and
Ego Orientation in Sports Questionnaire by Duda, J. L. (1989). 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment