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
Womens 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 prisons 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 individuals 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 20 th 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
inmates 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 Cullens (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 aggregatesfrom communities to nationsvary 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 proinstitutionalor
at least lower levels of antiinstitutionalbehavior (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 models 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 Womens 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, womens 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 peoples 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 visitationand two resource variablesmarital status and number of children.
At the prison level, support variables include one formal support process from prisonprison
programs in which inmates participateand one informal support within prisoninmate-
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 adjustmentespecially with
respect to getting into trouble with prison authoritiesmay 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: Pearsons 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 Pearsons 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.

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

Sr. No. Variable t ratio

Mean SD SEM Mean SD SEM

1. Social Support 23.88 3.92 0.78 3.85 3.48**

20.04 0.77
**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
 Mean

25
20 Males
15 Females

10
5
0
Social Support

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

HEALTH.

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

S. No. Variable t ratio

Mean SD SEM Mean SD SEM

1. Mental Health 131.64 10.27 2.05 6.82 4.83**

119.72 1.36
**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

140
120
100
80 Males Females
60
40
20
0
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
Pearsons 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 womens 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
societys support is there for the prison inmates. Results further revealed that Males have more
family and societys 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
prisons stressful situations. These results go a long way in suggesting the impact of social
support for prison inmates 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, 310357.
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). Im 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, 205217.
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, 1422.
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 womens prison. New York: John
Wiley.
Greer, K. R. (2000). The changing nature of interpersonal relationships in a womens 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, 918928.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science,
241, 540545.
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), 518526. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.
Kruttschnitt, C., Gartner, R., & Miller, A. (2000). Doing her own time? Womens 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, 8792.
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 superintendents 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 womens 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, 442451.
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, 290298.
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, 482486.
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. 145171). 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, 5379.
Thomas, C.W. (1970).Toward a more inclusive model of the inmate contraculture.
Criminology, 8, 251-262.
Ward, D. A., & Kassebaum, G. (1965). Womens 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). Womens 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.