Female Institutional Misconduct: A Test of Deprivation, Importation, and Gendered Importation Theories

• Published date: 01 June 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885519837532
• Author: Margaret E. Leigey
• Date: 01 June 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519837532

The Prison Journal

2019, Vol. 99(3) 343 –362

© 2019 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032885519837532

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

Female Institutional

Misconduct: A Test

of Deprivation,

Importation, and

Gendered Importation

Theories

Margaret E. Leigey1

Abstract

Although deprivation and importation theories are frequently offered as

explanations of institutional misconduct, there have been few studies that

have tested either approach on women in prison. Moreover, despite research

that suggests women have different pathways to crime, research studies

have not incorporated gendered variables into the importation perspective.

As such, this study tests three explanations of misconduct in a large sample

of female inmates. Using logistic and negative binomial regressions, results

support deprivation, importation, and gendered importation explanations

relative to understanding of female misconduct.

Keywords

female institutional misconduct, deprivation theory, importation theory,

gendered importation theory

Introduction

All prisons have rules, and the violation of these rules is of interest to both

practitioners and academics. Prison officials consider inmate disciplinary

1The College of New Jersey, Ewing, USA

Corresponding Author:

Margaret E. Leigey, Department of Criminology, The College of New Jersey, 304A Social

Sciences Building, Ewing, NJ 08628, USA.

Email: leigeym@tcnj.edu

837532TPJXXX10.1177/0032885519837532The Prison JournalLeigey

research-article2019

344 The Prison Journal 99(3)

records in making important decisions, including classification, program-

ming, visitation, and release. Researchers examine institutional misconduct

as a measure of prison adjustment to learn how well inmates are coping with

imprisonment, and to predict which inmates are at greatest risk of recidivat-

ing (Hsieh, Hamilton, & Zgoba, 2016). Yet, despite the interest in rule viola-

tions and their predictive value for male incarcerees, there is far less known

about female institutional misconduct, including whether deprivation and

importation theories are effective explanations of the rule-violating behavior

of incarcerated women.

Deprivation theory posits that institutional misconduct is explained by the

prison environment (Dâmboeanu & Nieuwbeerta, 2016). Its proponents

would evaluate prison regulations, inmate–inmate and staff–inmate interac-

tions, and the quality and quantity of amenities when examining violations.

In contrast, the importation model suggests that institutional misconduct is

explained by individual characteristics of prisoners prior to prison entry

(Dhami, Ayton, & Loewenstein, 2007)—the same factors that increase one’s

likelihood of engaging in crime, for example, age and prior criminal justice

system involvement (Dâmboeanu & Nieuwbeerta, 2016). Although the depri-

vation/importation debate is frequently the subject of scholarly examination,

there have been few studies that test either approach on female inmates

(Gover, Pérez, & Jennings, 2008). And, despite research that suggests women

have different pathways to crime than men (Bloom, Owen, & Covington,

2003), there have been few attempts to incorporate gendered variables into

the importation perspective. Consequently, this study seeks to test depriva-

tion, importation, and gendered importation explanations of institutional mis-

conduct using a large sample of female inmates (n = 1,821) and multiple

measures of rule-violating behavior.

Literature Review

Deprivation Theory

In The Society of Captives (1958), Sykes posited that deprivations in prison

life—the pains of imprisonment—could lead prisoners to engage in institu-

tional misconduct as a means of coping with conditions, ameliorating hard-

ships, or rebelling against prison authority. Another proponent of deprivation

theory, Goffman (1961) maintained that prisons, and other total institutions,

strip residents of their former identities and alter their beliefs and behaviors.

However, not all residents accept their new powerless roles in these total

institutions, as Goffman described the “intransigent line,” or rule violation as

one common adaptational alignment.