Search results

This study aims to focus on studies that qualitatively explore prison food experience. The goal is to elaborate a framework to better understand how prison food shapes the worldwide carceral experience.

This systematic literature review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. It consists of four phases: identifying the studies, screening the studies, evaluating the eligibility of screened studies and inclusion of studies. After the four phases, ten studies (nine qualitative studies and one with mixed methods) were included in the review.

There is a consensus among the researchers in the reviewed literature that prison food shapes the carceral experience. More specifically, four themes that encompass the experience of people with prison food emerged from the reviewed literature: food appreciation (taste of the prison food and perceived nutritional value), food logistics (preparation, distribution and consumption), food variety (institutional menu and commissary store) and food relationships (symbol of caring or power or punishment).

The literature reviewed demonstrated that when incarcerated individuals have a negative view of prison food, the carceral experience is negatively impacted. This systematic review identified four dimensions that encompass the food experience within the prison environment, providing a framework for navigating this subject.

Provides a personal view of the development of the theories and applications of fuzzy systems which were first introduced in the 1960s. Details the interrelationships between the pioneering proponents of fuzzy theory. Concentrates in part I on the historical beginnings of the field and in part II continues to provide personal insights into contemporary studies.

Perspective-taking is a social competency to consider the world from other viewpoints (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008); it “allows an individual to anticipate the behavior and reactions of others” (Davis, 1983, p. 115) and helps to balance attention between self- and other-interests (Galinsky et al., 2008). Though often used interchangeably with the term empathy – “an other-focused emotional response that allows one person to affectively connect with another” (Galinsky et al., 2008, p. 378), clear evidence exists that demonstrates that the two concepts are distinct (Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Davis, 1983; Deutch & Madle, 1975; Hoffman, 1977; Oswald, 1996). Although both concepts refer to a social competency of taking another's perspective, empathy tends to be more affective while perspective taking leans toward the cognitive (Galinsky et al., 2008). For example, perspective taking is associated with personality characteristics such as high self-esteem and low neuroticism as opposed to emotionality (Davis, 1983). Perspective-takers are more capable of stepping outside the constraints of their own immediate, biased frames of reference (Moore, 2005) to reduce egocentric perceptions of fairness in competitive contexts (without it being at the expense of their own self-interest; Epley, Caruso, & Bazerman, 2006). Perspective taking has also been shown to be a more valuable strategy than empathy in strategic interactions because it helps negotiators find the necessary balance between competition and cooperation, between self- and other-interest (Galinsky et al., 2008). Achieving such a balance facilitates creative problem-solving (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). For instance, in negotiation, a focus only on self-interests is associated with excessive aggression and obstinacy whereas a focus only on other-interests encourages excessive concession making to the detriment of one's own outcomes (Galinsky et al., 2008). In contrast, perspective takers have the capacity to uncover underlying interests to generate creative solutions when an obvious deal is not possible (Galinsky et al., 2008). Consequently, the cognitive appreciation of another person's interests is capable of facilitating economically efficient outcomes by acting as a discovery heuristic that reveals hidden problems or solutions and as a tool that enables individuals to capture more value for themselves (Galinsky et al., 2008).