Prisons are social spaces in which incarceration is conducted as a method of punishment. The majority of psychology-based studies on prisons generally focused on the prison experiences and situations of prisoners (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2017; Facer-Irwin et al., 2019). Moreover, scant attention has been given to studies that address the social–psychological and spatial aspects of the human–prison relationship in the Turkish literature.

The current study used social representation theory (Moscovici, 1984; 1988) to examine individual representations of prisons. Moscovici (1963) defined social representation as the detail “of a social object by the community for the purpose of behaving and communicating” (p. 251). In other words, social representation encompasses the thoughts and meanings that emerge and shared in everyday discussion and communication chaos, which serves the individual need to comprehend the world (Moscovici, 1984). This representation plays a crucial role in shaping one’s ideas about the world, which influences one’s perception and explanation of it (Moscovici, 1988; 2000). Social representation emerges under the influence of direct experience, indirect information, and daily production (e.g., media and daily conversation). Examining social representation through visual outputs poses advantages such as elucidating the active role of a space more clearly, which reveals symbolic and affective representations and the situational characteristics of these representations in an integrated manner (Arruda, 2014; 2015). This study used cognitive mapping, which is essentially an environmental psychology technique, because it provides presents advantages and enables the effective examination of spatial representation.

This study aims to reveal the prison representation of three groups, namely, those (i) with prison experience, (ii) without prison experience but are relatives of prisoners, and (iii) without prison experience and prisoner relatives. In addition, this study aims to examine the formation or differentiation of prison representation among the groups.

Method

The sample consists of 50 participants (18 women, 32 men). Ages ranged from 14 to 58 years (M = 29.64; SD = 9.47) across seven provinces in Turkey, namely, Adana, Van, İzmir, Şanlıurfa, Diyarbakır, Bursa, and İstanbul.

The study prepared personal information to collect data from the participants such as gender, age, and city. In addition, this form included closed-ended questions about the prison experience of the participants and whether or not they are relatives of prisoners. The semistructured interviews included open-ended questions about the mental representation of the participants of prisons such as What are the first five words that come to mind when you think of prison?, What is the purpose/function of the prison in your opinion?, and What would the ideal prison be like for you? Lastly, we used an A3-size blank white sheet on which the participants can draw their sociospatial representation of prisons.

The participants were selected using the purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling techniques. In this regard, we also obtained support from organizations such as Turkish Bar Associations and Civil Society in the Penal System Association. We ensured that the interviews were conducted in quiet environments in which the participants could feel safe and comfortable. In the first part, the participants filled in the personal information and semistructured interview forms. For the second part, they were given the blank sheet of paper and instructed to visualize their mental image of a prison then draw it. 

Data were analyzed by open-coded content analysis using MAXQDA 20. Open coding enables the construction of new categories and concepts by discovering various commonalities in the data (Joffe & Yardley, 2004). The third author conducted the coding, which the other authors independently reviewed. Discrepancies related to the coding were negotiated, and the codes were finalized. In the first stage of coding, the study analyzed the responses of the participants at the level of words or word groups and created codes. Subcategories were developed by combining the codes that overlapped with one another. Lastly, the researchers grouped close subcategories under categories.

Results

The results demonstrated a number of similarities and differences in the prison representations of the three groups. The study observed that the groups with prison experience and without prison experience but with prisoner relatives shared the representations of the isolation experience (e.g., chain and lock), when the cognitive maps and the semistructured interviews were examined. Compared with the semistructured interviews, the participants expressed more spatial elements in cognitive mapping. The drawings of the three groups were common in terms of highlighting the spatial characteristics of prisons (e.g., prison and yards). However, the drawings of the group with prison experience frequently depicted prisoner states (e.g., prisoners who are longing or transferred to another prison) with a high frequency (30.19%), whereas the groups without prison experience but with prisoner relatives and those without prison experience and prisoner relatives (28% and 28.57%, respectively) drew the personal belongings of prisoners and fixtures in prison (e.g., rosaries and posters). In the semistructured interviews, the study noted a clear consensus among the three groups: the need for a compulsory punishment mechanism to fight against crimes.

The study then examined the first words thought by the three groups regarding prison using word-level associations of prisons, the group with prison experience frequently expressed their denomination of feelings, such as freedom and longing (37.61%), while the group without prison experience but with prisoner relatives uttered political-themed phrases such as the government, intellectual crime, and the Kurdish people (20%). The group without prison experience and prisoner relatives more frequently expressed words related to law such as crime, criminal, punishment, and justice (25.33%).

In response to the question, Do you think prisons are useful or beneficial for prisoners?, 72.7%, 22.7%, and 4.5% of the group with prison experience answered no, yes, and not sure, respectively. Among the participants without prison experience but with relatives in prison, 53.8%, 7.7%, and 38.5% responded with no, yes, and not sure, respectively. In contrast, 40%, 20%, and 40% of the participants without prison experience and prisoner relatives cited no, yes, and not sure, respectively These results indicate a higher rate of not sure responses among participants in the two groups without prison experience. In other words, the evaluations of participants of prison experience on this issue are more decisively in favor of no. 

Discussion

In the cognitive maps and semistructured interviews of the participants with prison experience and without prison experience but with relatives in prison, the study observed common representations of the isolation experience. These shared representations may stand out as a common theme in expressing experiences in prison, which may be influenced by interactions between prisoners and their relatives as well as the heightened sensitivity of relatives to explicit or implicit cues on this issue. Indeed, isolation is a highly significant experience that can lead to negative outcomes, such as withdrawal, risk of alienation, asociality, loss of the ability to stablish boundaries, expression of frustrations through violence, and an increased tendency toward self-harm (Haney, 1993; Richards, 1978).

In the semistructured interviews with participants without prison experience and without relatives in prisoners, the study found that prison was predominantly expressed in legal terms (e.g., crime, punishment, and justice). Notably, the study observed that these participants described the situation of prisoners using “external” emotions (e.g., compassion and pity). These results indicate that this group tended to identify with and empathize with prisoners less than did participants in the other groups.

The prison representations are organized with internal–external distinction when the results of the cognitive maps are evaluated in general. A number of clear markers demonstrate the worlds inside versus outside the prison based on spatial, emotional, and experiential. Prisons are perceived as self-contained entities that are separate and isolated from external spaces. Similarly, the inside of prisons is characterized by negative emotions and experiences (e.g., fear, torture, and persecution), while the outside is associated with positive emotions (e.g., happiness, freedom, trust, and peace). These findings are seemingly related to the high salience of both spatial and emotional and experiential characteristics of prisons. 

The results underscore the explicit role of social representation in constructing and maintaining distinct social realities within a system that perpetuates power relation and social inequality. The sociospatial representations of prisons by the three groups fulfill the need to understand, interpret, and predict the world in which one lives, while crystallizing their desire to transform this world according to their expectations and needs (Moscovici, 1984; 1988). The sociospatial representations of prisons differ from a social reality in which participants simply express personal needs. Instead, these representations point to expectations and needs within a given context — in this case, within the components of a powerful social and political system that surrounds them on all sides. For example, the three groups agree on the necessity of a system of punishment as desired by such a system. Simultaneously, as permitted by the system (which implies that the system legitimizes controllable demands without changing the existing basic function of the system). The group with prison experience, in fact, expressed that they view prisons as dysfunctional institutions. This definition, which is similar to a dilemma, becomes comprehensible by emphasizing a context or a social and political system. On the one hand, these systemic elements, which transcend individuality, suggest that the penal system must exist; otherwise, individuals will live in a worse world. However, it implies that the existing functioning must be maintained by correcting minor flaws within the penal system, which holds the reformist perspective. This implication seemingly enables the expression of the ideas that prisons should exist and that they are dysfunctional. Moreover, given that a significant number of participants with prison experience have been in and out of prison for political reasons, their view that prisons as disciplinary institutions do not, in fact, rehabilitate prisoners and deter them from crime is unsurprising. They are individuals with knowledge and experience of the abovementioned disadvantageous conditions of the system (Foucault, 1992). Notably, therefore, the existence of different social realities established and maintained through prison representations within a more inclusive system than these social realities should be emphasized.

In summary, the results demonstrate that the prison representations of the participants are substantially constructed by the spatial characteristics of prison, prison experiences, and observations about prison. These results indicate that the human–space relationship as well as the production and experience occurring in daily communication channels are effective in the formation of social representation.