Forensic Psychology
Staff Seductions: How Inmates Manipulate Prison Staff
And what it tells us about reciprocity.
“As soon as she came, I know I had her. I was working out in the gym, and I winked at her. She smiled, and I thought, ‘I’ve got her.’”
This statement is from an imprisoned gang member who had sex with a correctional officer. Despite losing her job and undergoing criminal prosecution, the former correctional officer remained infatuated with the inmate. The inmate had a record of manipulation, and the correctional officer knew that sexual contact with inmates was prohibited, yet the relationship persisted. It’s clear that the inmate was ultimately responsible, yet we’re left asking ourselves how this could possibly happen.
This scenario is known as a staff seduction — when an inmate coerces prison staff into providing goods, services, or privileges, as discussed in chapter 8 of Predators by Dr. Anna C. Salter, Ph.D. As highlighted in the above example from Predators, it’s puzzling how prison staff can be aware of the crimes of inmates yet still fail to resist “fraternizing, having sex with, or bringing in contraband for inmates”. The goal of this article is to explore this paradox. To do so, we’ll explore examples of staff seductions and discuss potential explanations.
How Are Staff Seduced?
After decades of interviewing inmates, Dr. Salter found that staff seductions occur in four steps.
Obtaining Information
First, inmates will gather information to analyze staff behavior and personalities to determine which staff members will be selected for further grooming. In addition to chatting with staff members, information is obtained through overhearing staff conversations and observing behavior.
As one inmate put it:
“Find out something you’re not supposed to know…She probably thinks I’m being friendly, but I’m sizing her up. We’re fatting them up for the kill.”
Selecting a Target
After obtaining information about prison staff, inmates will focus on those that displayed vulnerability, typically due to perceived weaknesses or personal problems. An inmate explained his approach:
“…girlfriend where she has come in with black eyes, and he has been known to hit her on state property…If going to him every night is a frightening experience and coming to work and talking to me every day is a pleasant experience, that’s my in.”
The definition of vulnerability, however, is not limited to perceived weakness. According to Dr. Salter, caring or generous people can be exploited:
“Religious staff are considered easiest to manipulate because, as one inmate says, ‘they look for the good in people,’ but any sort of caring is fair game.”
Relying on Reciprocity
After a target has been selected, staff seductions begin with an offering: protection, favors, or flattery.
The offering can be subtle advice:
“You’re new. You’re in segregation. You don’t know these guys from a can of paint. These guys are yelling all kinds of things. Don’t mind these guys. They’re just restless.”
Praise:
“You can get almost anything you want if you let him think he’s in control. ‘You’re a white shirt. You can do whatever you want.’ Just make them feel powerful.”
Or small favors:
“‘Your office is a mess. I got to clean the hall anyway. Why don’t I do your office too? I got nothing but time.’”
The goal of this step is to invoke reciprocity — the idea that “you’ll scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. In the next section, we’ll discuss research on reciprocity to shed light on the psychological mechanisms underlying staff seductions. Before we do, let’s take a look at the reason for staff seductions: the demand.
The Demand
After the inmate has offered something to the prison staff member, they’ll often demand something in return. Requests may start small, such as a french fry or a cigarette, but demands can escalate. As one inmate not so delicately stated:
“Bring me some weed or don’t bring your ass back to work.”
Research On Reciprocity
Reciprocity is the exchange of goods or services between people or groups so that both parties benefit. In social psychology, reciprocity is often defined as the social norm of treating others as they have treated us.
According to Dr. Salter, staff seductions would not be possible without reciprocity. To gain a better understanding of how the social norm of reciprocity is used by inmates to manipulate prison staff, we’ll explore research on reciprocity in both animals and humans.
Reciprocity in Animals
There’s evidence that animals rely on reciprocity. For instance, pied flycatchers, a type of bird, engage in mobbing behavior, which are coordinated assaults to drive away predators. Here’s how it works: if an initial pied flycatcher (mobbing initiator) is joined by a second pied flycatcher (co-operator) in mobbing a predator, then the mobbing initiator would be more likely to help the co-operator fend off a predator in the future. Alternatively, if the mobbing initiator is abandoned by a defector (a pied flycatcher that does not assist in mobbing behavior), the mobbing initiator would be less likely to assist the defector in future skirmishes.
To test this, Dr. Indrikis Krams and colleagues assigned pairs of pied flycatchers to one of three positions (A, B, C) that represented nests. Two phases followed:
- In phase one, B birds were removed and a predator (a stuffed owl) was placed in nest A. The researchers observed the mobbing behavior of A birds and any assistance from C birds.
- In phase two, B birds were brought back and predators were introduced to both B and C nests. Which group would A birds help: B (defectors) or C (co-operators)?
In all trials of phase one, C birds helped A birds. In 30 out of the 32 phase two trials, nest A birds helped C birds mob the predator yet never responded to group B birds. These results suggest that the principle of reciprocity underlies both rewards for cooperation and punishment for defectors.
Animal reciprocity appears to be symmetry-based, where animals mirror the actions of members of the same species in close proximity; but evidence of calculated reciprocity, which requires weighing pros and cons, is scarce.
Since reciprocity in humans depends on understanding the value of goods and calculating the gain/loss of these goods over time, researchers explored chimpanzees’ capacity for self-control and anticipation over time to serve as a model for expectation management in animals.
In a study, the researchers gave chimpanzees a cookie and measured how long they could wait to exchange this cookie for a better reward. They found that chimpanzees can wait for longer durations (that is, by not eating the cookie) for better rewards, which suggests that chimpanzees can weigh the benefits of a larger reward versus the costs of a longer wait time. However, animals likely cannot predict, plan, and execute more complex reciprocal behaviors, such as those demonstrated by the inmates in the above examples.
These studies highlight two components of reciprocity that inmates use to engage in staff seductions:
- Treating others as they have treated us.
- Weighing the costs and benefits of different types of offerings and scaling demands accordingly.
Reciprocity in Humans
Researchers that study human behavior have found evidence of the power of reciprocity in experimental and real-life situations.
In one of the earliest experimental studies on reciprocity, Regan (1971) instructed confederates (members of the research team posing as fellow participants) to act pleasantly or unpleasantly towards participants in three different scenarios. Picture yourself in each scenario:
In the first scenario, the confederate leaves the room and returns to give you a Coca-Cola. In the second, the confederate leaves the room and brings you nothing upon returning. In the final scenario, the experimenter, not the confederate, offers you a Coca-Cola. You’re then told by the confederates that they are selling raffle tickets and are wondering if you would be interested in purchasing any.
The question of interest was whether participants treated to a Coca-Cola would purchase more raffle tickets. The results provided evidence of reciprocity: participants bought more raffle tickets when the confederate offered a drink, even when the confederate was acting unpleasantly!
Other researchers have studied reciprocity in real-life settings. A charitable organization, for instance, found that donations increased by 75% after donors were sent gifts. Similarly, restaurant servers that add a small piece of chocolate to the bill or pack up leftovers for guests receive larger tips.
A Final Note
Staff seductions have shown us that we need not be aware of the principle of reciprocity for it to influence our thinking and behavior. Spooky? Indeed. That being said, we can protect ourselves by recognizing when others are using reciprocity for personal profit. Recognition begins with knowledge, and my hope is that this article has made you aware of the influence of reciprocity on our reasoning, judgments, and decision-making.
