Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The article explores how inmates in Panevėžys Correctional Facility, Lithuania’s only women’s prison, manage and express their emotions. The study utilizes the theories of emotions as a social glue and emotional contamination. Through semi-structured interviews with female inmates, the study found that emotional restraint was the norm in prison. Women were expected to appear emotionally strong and avoid displaying vulnerability. Additionally, the study discovered that expressing emotions was not considered a crucial component of femininity. Women’s emotional competencies in prison were linked to their ability to hide their emotions and to open up only to a limited number of other inmates who became emotional support networks. The study suggests that emotional restraint among inmates is not due to gender but rather influenced by the prison environment, which fosters mutual mistrust and emotional claustrophobia.

Keywords

female inmates emotions emotion management feeling rules Lithuanian prisons

Introduction

This article focuses on expressing and managing emotions in Panevėžys Correctional Facility, the only correctional facility for women in Lithuania (Sakalauskas et al., 2020; Tereškinas et al., 2021). It discusses this facility’s emotional atmosphere and emotional competencies of female inmates, which help them build and maintain relationships and communicate their attitudes toward the reality they experience in prison.

The Panevėžys Correctional Facility located in the fifth largest city in Lithuania houses 217 inmates. The women’s prison community here is diverse and includes adult and underage women, as well as mothers with children under the age of three. The majority of convicted offenders are women who committed offenses related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, theft, and murder (Aebi et al., 2023). This prison still has elements of Soviet-era organizational structure, known as “carceral collectivism” (Piacentini & Slade, 2015). Communal living, insufficient staff presence, and unwritten rules are some of its manifestations. Female offenders at Panevėžys Correctional Facility must adapt to communal living conditions with limited access to showers and toilets. The living quarters here are divided into two blocks, separating women with multiple sentences from those with first sentences. Both blocks are self-governing: the prison administration elects a warden responsible for maintaining order in her wing. In both wings, women live in dormitory-style rooms of ten, seven or, if luckier, five each.

As regards women’s imprisonment, it is important to note that between 2004 and 2012, the proportion of incarcerated women in Lithuania almost doubled to just over 40%, but since 2012, with some fluctuations, this number has been decreasing. The share of women in prison increased from 3.2% in 2004 to 5% in 2017. Although the total number of incarcerated persons has decreased by 34.2% over the last 10 years, the proportion of incarcerated women has remained fairly stable. The share of women in prison was 4.6%, which is very close to the European average of 4.7% of the total prison population in 2020 (Tereškinas et al., 2021).

Keeping in mind Panevėžys Correctional Facility’s specificity, this inquiry is based on the assumption that imprisonment is a highly emotional experience for many individuals, evoking frequent, and intense affective states. Navigating these feelings is a crucial and personal aspect of the sentence. For some offenders, being in prison can lead to a profound encounter with their own emotions (Laws, 2022). Emotions play a fundamental role in shaping social interactions and informing decision-making processes and a range of situational behaviors (Rustin, 2009).

Many studies on the effects of imprisonment do not adequately address the emotional aspects of the experience, leading to a lack of understanding of important dynamics within prisons. Similarly, accounts of women’s prisons have tended to neglect significant emotions such as anger, disappointment, sadness, frustration, and fear (Liebling, 1999, 2009). These studies fail to access prisoner experiences with regard to their own “subjective, cognitive, or affective contributions” (Liebling, 1999, p. 287).

Emotions in Lithuanian prisons, especially for women, have not been analyzed; they have only received some mention in studies of men’s prisons (Petkevičiūtė, 2015; Tereškinas et al., 2016; Tereškinas & Petkevičiūtė, 2013). However, as Mary Bosworth and her co-authors note, the reluctance to discuss how male or female inmates openly display or conceal feelings of anger, frustration, fear, and rage is related to a tendency to ignore the emotional side of the research itself. By not acknowledging their own emotions and feelings, criminologists and sociologists tend to mask the pains of imprisonment that inmates experience in prison. This, in turn, weakens prison research and the ability to criticize the penal system (Bosworth et al., 2005). By analyzing the emotional experiences of incarcerated women, this article attempts to fill this gap in the research on emotions in Lithuanian prisons.

This qualitative study draws on the insights of emotion researchers on how emotions are communicated, shared, and managed in inmates’ everyday practices. Emotions are easier to understand if we explore the processes by which they are created, interpreted, and expressed in interaction with others. This lets us grasp how emotional norms and rules are developed and disseminated (Hochschild, 1983, 1990). In analyzing the emotional experiences of female inmates and the circulation of emotions in prison, it is possible to contribute new knowledge about prisons (Crewe et al., 2014; Jewkes, 2014).

The article begins with a literature overview of emotion and emotion management strategies, followed by a discussion of the psychic costs of imprisonment and gender in emotion management. The research methodology is then described, and the subsequent parts examine predominant emotions in Panevėžys Correctional Facility and the ways that female inmates deal with them.

Emotions and Emotion Management: A Literature Overview

In the literature overview, three main aspects are discussed: the social nature and connectivity of emotions, coping strategies employed by prisoners to deal with their emotions, and the relationship between gender and emotions. The article presents the theory of emotions as a social glue and the theory of emotional infection or contamination. It also explores the different ways in which prisoners cope with their emotions.

Emotions such as anger, frustration, fear, love, hope, hatred, and envy are often defined as forms of intensity that are transmitted from one body to another and as resonances that bounce back and forth between these bodies (Seigworth & Gregg, 2010). They give color, tone, and texture to people’s everyday experiences (Grossberg, 1992). Emotions also function as a form of capital, which is accumulated during circulation in both the social and psychic spheres. By circulating, emotions create links between the individual and the collective, the psychic and the social spheres.

Emotions are not only psychological states but also social and cultural practices (Hochschild, 1983). Jeff Hearn describes them as material-discursive processes that contextualize and construct embodied experience. According to him, “emotions tend to occur and circulate when hopes or expectations, on one hand, and realities experienced, on the other, coincide or conflict, or are experienced as such” (Hearn, 2008, p. 185). Similarly, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that “the particular depth and the potentially terrifying character of the human emotions derive from the especially complicated thoughts that humans are likely to form about their own need for objects, and about their imperfect control over them” (Nussbaum, 2003, p. 16). It is through emotions that individuals enact cultural definitions of what counts as a person (Illouz, 2009) and “formulate a particular life, with its struggles, incoherencies and contingencies” (Duschinsky & Wilson, 2014, p. 5).

The psychic costs of imprisonment point to an archive of emotions that may include shame, despair, sadness, anxiety, escapism, self-hatred, guilt, loneliness, bitterness, regret, defeatism, and passivity, an excess of which has been noted by prison researchers (Crewe et al., 2014; Laws, 2018, 2022). In general, the prison is seen as a specific emotional field that influences the identities of prisoners and may create specific emotional geographies. Impression management (Goffman, 1959), central to subcultures of prisoners and prison staff, further highlights the primacy of emotions in prisons (Garrihy & Watters, 2020). According to Crawley (2011), emotions are not an accessory to prison life. Instead, the language of emotions is a crucial means of conveying what it is like to live and work in a prison.

Emotion regulation refers to the methods that individuals use to manage their emotions, including how they feel them, how they experience them, and how they express them. These methods can be automatic or controlled, conscious or unconscious, and may have an impact at different stages in the emotion-generating process (Gross, 2014). Some scholars (Laws, 2022) distinguish two theories of emotion regulation in prison: the theory of emotions as a social glue and the theory of emotional infection or contamination.

First, emotions play a crucial role in prisoner relationships as they function as “social glue.” This idea is clearly demonstrated through the sharing of emotions among prisoners in prison. It is essential to note that the emotional aspects of prisoner interactions work as social glue, contributing to the intimacy and harmony of their relationship. Emotions act as social glue between small groups of prisoners, allowing them to share their feelings with each other. This social sharing of emotions provides a way for prisoners to ventilate their emotions and build stronger bonds with each other. Establishing trust, intimacy, and communication through emotion sharing is essential for stabilizing prisoner relationships (Laws, 2018; also see Davidson & Milligan, 2004; Fischer & Manstead, 2008).

Another way to understand emotion regulation in prison is by examining emotional contagion or emotional contamination, which refers to the transmission of emotions from one person to another (Hatfield & Cacioppo, 1994; Laws, 2022). Emotional contamination is a term used to describe the spread of negative emotions or behaviors among individuals in a confined environment, such as a prison. This phenomenon is especially relevant in the context of incarceration, where inmates are exposed to various stressors, violence, and tough living conditions. In prisons, negative emotions like fear, anger, aggression, hopelessness, and frustration can easily spread from one person to another. The close proximity of inmates in a relatively small and often overcrowded space increases the likelihood of emotional contagion, where negative emotions can quickly spread among inmates due to their shared environment and frequent interactions. The idea of emotional contamination also highlights how inmates may attempt to avoid being influenced by negative emotions and emotional states.

Besides these two theories, prison researchers also categorize emotion management into different techniques such as “bottling up,”“diluting,”“distilling,” and “discharging” emotions (Laws, 2022). Other scholars identify five types of emotional coping techniques: seeking distractions, spiritual pursuits, repression, self-reflection, and humor (Greer, 2002). It is common for inmates to employ a combination of these techniques, which they have discovered to be advantageous in safeguarding their well-being. In general, prisoners have varying responses to emotions, ranging from actively transforming difficult feelings to suppressing emotions altogether (Greer, 2002; Laws, 2022).

Regarding the expression of emotions and the specificities of emotion management in prisons, it is important to bear in mind that emotion management is related to individuals’ intimate needs, caring for loved ones, creating and maintaining social and emotional bonds, and attention to health and hygiene (Boris & Parreñas, 2010). When emotions are shared, they can create multifaceted friendships (Fassin, 2016). Repressed emotions can erupt in violent forms (Laws, 2019). Since prisoners are constantly under the gaze of not only other inmates but also prison staff, i. e. the “bureaucratic gaze” that is constantly judging them (Crewe et al., 2014), their every action and emotional display becomes an object of this bureaucratic gaze and part of an emotional geography. Understanding prison as an emotion-filled space allows for analyzing the diversity of emotions and their distribution (Garrihy & Watters, 2020). Emotion management and feeling rules constitute a fruitful field of research on fundamental aspects of prison life (Laws & Crewe, 2016).

At the same time, prison is a gender-differentiated institution where gender and emotional expression are linked: maintaining gender norms is inseparable from the emotion work inherent in different genders (Crewe et al., 2014, 2017; Garrihy & Watters, 2020). When analyzing women’s prisons from this perspective, it is often argued that more open expressions of emotions and emotion management are more typical of women. While no major differences in the emotions experienced by men and women in prison have been observed (Laws, 2018), it is noteworthy that, according to Kruttschnitt and Gartner (2005, p. 144), prison staff describe female inmates as “more emotional, manipulative, and generally more troublesome than their male counterparts.” Some other studies (Laws, 2022) show that female prisoners’ emotions differ in their level of expressiveness: women express more emotions and show them more openly and in a more intimate way than men in prisons. Imprisoned women more openly demonstrate their attachments to others; they talk more and touch upon deeper topics. Despite this view, it is important to remember that the expression of emotions is not only influenced by gender but also by the institutional arrangements of the prison itself, which make emotion management a universal experience for women and men. Moreover, gender roles and emotion norms are not fixed and show variation over time and space. Emotional differences between genders are strongly influenced by socialization and the contrasting societal roles assigned to men and women. These differences collapse the notion that certain emotions are exclusive to one gender.

Methodology

Twenty semi-structured interviews with women serving prison sentences in Panevėžys Correctional Facility were conducted in August 2020. In formulating the guidelines for the semi-structured interview, the experience of previous research in Lithuanian prisons (Petkevičiūtė, 2015; Sakalauskas et al., 2020; Slade & Vaičiūnienė, 2018; Vaičiūnienė & Tereškinas, 2017), as well as the methodological approaches and guidelines of international researchers (Crewe, 2009, 2011; Jalili Idrissi, 2020; Jewkes, 2005, 2012) were taken into account. The interview guidelines consisted of nine blocks of questions asking about the court process and punishment; life before and after the crime; daily life in the prison; employment; adaptation to the prison environment; relationships with other women, staff, and relatives; female identity and appearance; emotions, emotional support, emotional survival; and future prospects. In the block of questions on emotions that are used in this article, the inmates were asked about what feelings are associated with their incarceration, which emotions can be expressed openly and which are better left hidden, how negative emotions are handled, and from whom they are the most likely to get emotional support. The interviews lasted from 16 min to 1.34 hr. The average length of the interviews was 48 min.

Purposive sampling (Staller, 2021) was used to select prisoners of different ages and with varying lengths of incarceration and from different wings to ensure diverse participants. The sample included women aged 22 to 54 imprisoned for various offenses: drug possession and distribution, theft, injury to a person’s health, physical violence, fraud, robbery, and fraudulent bookkeeping. Purposive sampling involves selecting the most relevant, information-rich, and diverse data to gain an in-depth understanding of prisoners’ emotional lives. The principle of theoretical saturation guided the determination of sample size in this study. According to this principle, the researcher needed to analyze the data collected and assess whether it was adequate based on the level of repeated content, details, and shared meanings across interviews (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013; Staller, 2021).

Each informant was requested to provide her consent to participate in the study; she was informed about the study’s objectives and allowed to withdraw at any time. During the interviews, the informants’ anonymity was ensured: their names were not used, and no specific questions were asked that may identify them. The interviewees’ names have been changed in the article. The research was conducted with the approval of the Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

The interviews with female inmates were recorded, transcribed, and then thematically analyzed using MAXQDA software. The analysis was conducted by assigning thematic codes and sub-codes on a line-by-line basis to two interviews. Afterward, the coding process was thoroughly examined, resulting in the development of a cohesive framework of codes and sub-codes. The remaining interviews were then coded using the established code system, with various clarifications and additional codes being incorporated throughout the process as needed. The following coding categories were used in this article to process the interview data using MAXQDA software: life in prison, the stigma of imprisonment, impact of imprisonment, life in prison, physical and emotional state in prison, and emotional support. These categories have been subdivided into smaller sub-categories. The categories and sub-categories were useful in analyzing inmates’ emotions and emotion management through their stories and voices.

The study utilized interpretive phenomenological analysis (Hughes et al., 2021) to examine inmates’ lived experiences and individual meaning-making processes in prison. By using this methodology, the researcher gained a better understanding of how inmates manage their emotions while in prison. The approach not only led to a better understanding of the prison environment but also provided an opportunity to delve deeper into the perspective of women prisoners. By exploring how they perceived their situation and derived meaning from it, the researcher gained valuable insights into the experiences of female inmates in the prison system.

Although the Covid-19 pandemic prevented a larger-scale ethnographic study (interviews took place between two quarantines), 20 semi-structured interviews with women imprisoned in the Panevėžys Correctional Facility allowed the researcher to outline the main features of their punishment and imprisonment experiences. It should also be noted that the interviews with the inmates were conducted after the first quarantine had ended, which made women long for contact with the outside world (for several months, no one from outside the Correctional Facility was allowed to enter except the administration).

Results

Predominant Emotions in Prison

It has been argued that the psychological harm of imprisonment is linked to negative emotions. The prison environment and the experienced deprivation can lead to depression, irritability, anxiety, and suicide. Women who perceive their prison environment as unsafe and stressful and feel that they are not respected by other inmates or prison officers are at higher risk of psychological distress. Lack of contact with family and children also contributes to the psychological problems about which inmates complain (Slotboom et al., 2011). Some prison researchers argue that the primary emotions experienced by prisoners, whether female or male, are insecurity, loneliness, and mistrust of others (Crewe et al., 2014; Katz & Pallot, 2014).

What emotions do women in Panevėžys Correctional Facility identify as the most frequently experienced?

Despair, depression, and loneliness were the feelings that women most often mentioned. Staying in a correctional home

…causes very great loneliness, a kind of rejection… When you’re free, you will go to your best friend’s or to your neighbor’s house, and you’d talk to them, but who can you talk to here? Nobody. It’s not worth going to a psychologist to talk. Well, she won’t understand or tell you what you need. She’ll only ask: ‘Why? What? Why?’ and that’s it. She’ll write in the file that there’s something wrong with you and that’s all. Well, so what? (Galina, theft)

Sadness and longing for family also characterize most women’s daily lives:

It’s very sad. You long for everything – your home, children, family – and you somehow nag yourself constantly: ‘Why [this has happened to me]? I could have lived a different life. What have I done? I lost all those years. My children stay with my mother’…. Yes, it’s a shame; it hurts very much. (Eusebia, theft)

Some informants complained that negative emotions were fueled by various bans (e.g., no kettles and radios could be used by women assigned to a less privileged “simple group,” according to article no. 73, 74, and 75 of the Code on Enforcement of Sentences of the Republic of Lithuania) and the lack of activities:

Yes, yes. They took those kettles away, too. We can’t listen to any news, nothing that’s happening in the world, we aren’t allowed even a simple little radio. [You only want] to get away from all that. You can achieve it only if you can listen to the radio, watch the news, or some other programs… And here we are in despair and depression… Because of the nerves and psychological problems, [women] become nervous and aggressive and start fights for a trifle. (Eusebia, theft)

Feelings of rage, shame, despair, and apathy compound the pains of imprisonment or subordination. One informant mentioned shame: “Perhaps I feel ashamed in front of my relatives and my child” (Milda, fraudulent bookkeeping). Imprisonment carried a heavy burden of shame and stigma for her. However, this same shame could also serve as a way of reintegrating her back into society by drawing her closer to her family and motivating her to change her ways. It was common for inmates to feel a mix of shame and anger toward themselves for their actions.

Sometimes you get angry at yourself for being here because of your stupidity and carelessness. Some other times you laugh at yourself, as I say: ‘Instead of rocking your grandchildren, in your old age, you do time in prison’. And you cry alone when you’re alone, well, of course, I cry most of the time at night when nobody sees me because [the prison] is not the place to show your tears because if you cry, they’ll think you’re weak. (Vaida, violent crime)

According to this informant, there were women in prison who openly expressed anger and aggression; however, she tried to distance herself from such inmates:

People show both anger and aggression. I am unsure, but perhaps I’m distancing myself from such people. I come to a smoking room here, I see them smoke, they get angry and start quarrelling, I don’t even raise my eyes, I smoke, and I leave without saying ‘Hello’ or ‘Goodbye’ I’m not interested in them [smiles]. (Vaida, violent crime)

This woman distanced herself from other inmates to avoid being emotionally “infected” by negative emotions. This can be effective, but it can also mean a kind of emotional apathy when an inmate attempts not to notice what is happening outside of her as a psychic being.

Another informant highlighted the feelings of disappointment and guilt that many women experienced, although they avoided talking about them: “Well, I don’t know, it’s a very big disappointment. It’s not self-pity; I am sorry for my family; I don’t know. And there’s this guilt. I think everybody has it, but not everybody wants to admit it. Everybody. Nobody talks about such feelings here” (Karlita, drug possession and distribution).

During the interviews, women were asked about what caused the most stress and anxiety in prison. For many women, thoughts about the future and the uncertainty it entailed were a source of stress and anxiety: “Uncertainty. Not knowing and constant waiting” (Fabia, possession and distribution). In general, the prison space, which fostered the pains of imprisonment, was a source of stress. Comparing being in prison with being free, women felt a constant sense of loss and uncertainty:

Yeah, … you wait and wait … If you want to make a phone call, all those restrictions get in the way. Well, you can’t be free to do whatever you want to do. If you were free, you could pick up the phone, call, and get things in order, but here you have to wait; you’re nervous, stressed out, thinking about your children. If you call and learn that your child is sick, you can only call a few days later because you don’t have enough credit on your phone card … (Fabia, drug possession and distribution)

The women’s dependence on the staff of the correctional facility was also stressful, as they decided when inmates would leave prison: “When the time comes, and you have chances to go home, you know that your fate depends on them [prison staff] …, although you’re really doing everything right. That’s the biggest stress” (Eusebia, theft). In another informant’s words, “A lot of stress here, a lot, actually, for everybody. You are stressed about the facilities, you are stressed about every move, every communication, every word you say, everything [stresses]. Everything, really” (Galina, theft). Another informant feared that she might start using drugs again, which also stressed her:

[Sighs] I would say that fear is always there. I can’t be sure 100 percent, there is still 1 percent of a possibility that I will start using [drugs] anyway. I fear getting stuck [in the past] and giving in to emotions, but I need to try to solve problems, not to run away, not to use [drugs] again and not to come back here. This fear is still present and will always be present. But one has to fight this fear. (Rasa, drug possession and distribution)

Thus, the prison space was filled with negative emotions, including despair, depression, loneliness, anger, shame, and guilt. While some of these emotions were associated with the prison itself, others were a result of the inmates’ crimes. Despite this, most of the interviewed women tried to distance themselves from these negative emotions because they only worsened their feelings of inferiority and powerlessness, ultimately making their imprisonment even more painful. Researchers (Crewe et al., 2017) refer to this distancing as a part of emotional claustrophobia, or the fear of being affected by and simultaneously infected by openly expressed emotions. It should also be noted that some women found it difficult to talk about their feelings, as they related to private and often painful aspects of women’s lives. Therefore, the inmates limited themselves to short answers about their emotional state or their emotional relationships with other prisoners, prison officials, and relatives. It could be assumed that women experiencing the trauma of imprisonment were often unable to express the emotions associated with it, even though they have touched many aspects of their lives.

Emotion Management and Feeling Rules

Prisons are places of intense emotion management due to the stress and anxiety caused by the living conditions there. It is, therefore, important to be emotionally literate or manage one’s emotions in one’s best interests. Emotional literacy is part of the social capital that helps people build relationships (Illouz, 2008). Therefore, imprisoned women devoted considerable effort and attention to emotion management. How did inmates express and manage emotions in the closed world of prison? How did gender and the prison environment shape emotional expression and regulation?

Inmates stressed the importance of limiting and controlling emotions, especially negative ones. Pain, loneliness, or vulnerability had to be hidden. It was necessary to be restrained even in expressing positive emotions such as joy and admiration. According to one informant, there was a lot that cannot be talked about in the correctional facility, let alone about one’s feelings: “Nobody talks here, really. And feelings are not a topic of conversation among the women; unless you become really close to someone, then you could tell them how you feel…” (Karlita, drug possession and distribution). If you cannot control your emotions, you may find yourself the focus of other women’s attention, which is completely unwanted. For this reason, it was best not to pay attention to other women’s pain either:

Well, how to say it better?… So, when they see you crying, and you experience difficulties, they think, ‘Oh, something has happened’, and they all crawl around interested, but you try not to let them see what’s happening with you. All kinds of things occur here. If a person is sad, she is sad. We do not interfere. (Fabia, drug possession and distribution)

Such women were left alone to deal with their feelings: “A person calms down, then starts to communicate when she feels better” (Fabia, drug possession and distribution).

Another informant said that she had to be emotionally tough and strong to survive. In prison, women wore emotional armor or mask; they knew the boundaries between what was permissible and not desirable in the emotional sphere. They chose to manage their emotions by keeping everything to themselves. That was why this informant condemned other inmates who openly expressed negative emotions:

I know from my life outside that, for example, work is work and home is home, so I don’t express the [negative] emotions. If I’m not feeling well, I’ll keep it to myself …. There are some women who show their emotions, show their dissatisfaction, but then others look at them askew because nobody is interested in their emotions. Did anything happen to you there, or did someone do anything to you? … I don’t show my emotions when I return from work to my residential section. Everything is fine with me. (Donalda, drug possession and distribution)

She said no one cared about her emotions because every inmate lived their own life. From the interviews, it could be inferred that not showing one’s emotions and ignoring other women’s emotions was one of the most openly articulated strategies for managing emotions. Also, women avoided showing emotions because it was difficult to get other inmates’ sympathy: “No one will sympathize with you here. Of course, they’ll ask you what’s wrong, what you’re crying about, but the whole time it’s like, ‘Be strong, and that’s it. Don’t give up’” (Donalda, drug possession and distribution). Another informant said that she did not like to be open because she had already experienced the negative outcome of such openness:

I’m the kind of person that takes everything in a very relaxed manner. I can answer calmly. Of course, sometimes I would complain. Not only to myself, not to someone else. I don’t show my emotions. I don’t like to be very open …. Well, I have been burned a few times, so I’m not going to try to open up to someone … (Olga, robberies)

Still, in another informant’s view, “Well, it happens to all of us when we have to shed a tear. It is natural. You just don’t want to be seen [doing it]” (Milena, drug possession and distribution). This strategy of managing emotions might be due to the aforementioned emotional claustrophobia as well as the fear of infect others with negative emotions or being infected by them.

Nevertheless, was it possible to erase negative emotions in prison? This question was answered by another informant, who argued that it was not always necessary to repress, distil or process feelings to achieve emotional balance. Feelings were allowed as long as they stayed within certain limits. According to her, “It’s better that you release your emotions immediately because those who hoard [negative emotions] have emotional explosions, and nobody knows what could happen. But if you immediately get a little angry and say something, then usually there is not as much anger as you think there is” (Demetria, drug possession and distribution). However, this informant also believed it was impossible to be completely open and express emotions in prison: “Well, up to a certain point. There has to be a limit everywhere, especially here, so if you are wise, you won’t say anything inappropriate.”

Some of the informants stated that expressing emotions and being vulnerable could be used against them. Previous studies reveal that incarcerated women perceive emotions as a tool for exploitation, manipulation, and coercion by fellow inmates (Laws, 2018). Similar to men’s prisons (Crewe et al., 2014; Jewkes, 2005), women in Panevėžys Correctional Facility clearly articulated the need to maintain a “tough” façade and to engage in “front management” strategies (de Viggiani, 2012). This means that the processes of emotional control were, in many cases, deliberately reflected upon by emphasizing that negative feelings of pain, vulnerability, weakness, and loneliness had to be repressed.

Emotion management is also important because of the effect of emotional contagion when other women’s negative emotions can overwhelm other women and “ruin the mood.” According to one informant, one had to be very careful because some women’s bad feelings could become contagious:

There are those who make an effort [to control their emotions] and those who express their feelings openly. Well, there are even those who feel unwell every day. When money is not sent to them, they feel bad and automatically spoil your mood. Such women exaggerate things like money; they get upset if their husbands or partners fail to visit or call them. All sorts of things happen. Moreover, it happens that they pass those emotions on to you. When after witnessing these [negative] emotions every day, you ask: ‘What happened?’ they respond: ‘Oh, the money has not been transferred; oh, my partner didn’t pick up the phone.’ Well, this is so insignificant. (Rasa, drug possession and distribution)

Although this informant avoided communication with such inmates, she attempted to advise and support women experiencing negative emotions: “No, it’s not that you don’t communicate. You try to communicate anyway, you try to advise them …, to show them an example from your own life and so on. You want to cheer them up” (Rasa, drug possession and distribution).

Most women mentioned a lack of trust and the superficiality of friendships in prison. The somewhat fractured and unsustainable relationships between inmates were also reflected in one informant’s statement that “every second woman in prison [was] two-faced” (Galina, theft). In the words of another inmate, “You can’t trust anyone here at all” (Karlita, drug possession and distribution). As a result, women relied only on themselves, avoided closer relationships, and attempted to control their emotions: “I stay in my own corner most of the time and …. Sometimes I talk to some people, but I am mostly alone …” (Galina, theft). The fear of being affected by overt emotionality was palpable: “…And here you have to stay very strong. You can’t show your emotions to anybody because when you show your emotions, it means that you are a weaker person than others, and afterwards they will try to control you by exploiting your weakness” (Rainolda, drug possession and distribution). In the words of this informant, “Everything must be hidden. I don’t even tell anyone about my family. I don’t tell anyone about my child. Nobody knows that I have a child.” Another informant also stressed that vulnerability should not be shown openly: “No, there can be no weak people here. As I say: the words ‘fear’ and ‘afraid’ do not apply here” (Vaida, violent crime).

However, several women thought it was possible to be emotionally open without being afraid of showing vulnerability. One way to share emotions was to talk to other inmates who had similar experiences of imprisonment. Broader psychological research shows that people are more likely to communicate with those who experience similar emotions, as such communication fills a powerful need for social acceptance and social integration. At the same time, people are listened to, legitimized, and accepted for who they are. The collective experience of imprisonment is a powerful unifying tool, as it allows one to empathize with other individuals’ emotions and experience them together (Laws, 2018).

In Panevėžys Correctional Facility, women tended to share their emotions with small groups of inmates or only with single women they trusted the most: “Well, on weekends, we all sit around the table and talk. If someone feels rotten, we talk about it” (Lina, robbery). This sharing of emotions created a sense of solidarity and intimacy, which acted as emotional glue among inmates. This social glue, though limited in scale, strengthened their bonds, and mutual trust, and brought relative harmony to their relationships. However, this did not mean that inmates shared all their emotions. Most inmates were very clear about what emotions to share and what not to share. Emotional and linguistic self-censorship was evident in the facility, and women often refrained from sharing their feelings due to introversion or other personal reasons: “Well, I’m the kind of person that hides and doesn’t want to show [my emotions]. Of course, there are times when I do” (Lina, robbery). When the inmates found communion with other women, they began to come to terms with their imprisonment and enjoyed emotional bonds with other women:

Well, maybe it’s the fact that I’m happy with this new environment now because the women here are really good…. During my time here, there was some gossip and slander, but when people take me as I am and they see what I am, they act human towards me.… It’s still nice when people come and smile and are friendly and don’t just turn around and say, ‘Everything is bad here, so bad.’ Well, it won’t be any different. We are serving sentences. We have to accept that we knew where we would end up and that it’s still a bit different here. (Fabia, drug possession and distribution)

Positive emotions functioned as a motivational mechanism for maintaining friendly relations with other inmates. Some informants also associated positive emotions with work and a sense of collectiveness at work:

For me, work provides positive emotions because of the team, the communication, and the head of the canteen who isn’t an inmate. Well, really, it’s not like you’re seen as the biggest enemy. So, it’s a job that makes me very happy …. You have a strict schedule, you work specific hours, you work quietly, and you sort everything out … Nobody controls you … (Donalda, drug possession and distribution)

The statement from the informant indicates that she considered her workplace to be a secure and protected environment, with a different emotional atmosphere that was established through mutual support, collectiveness, openness, and kindness. This environment enabled her to escape from the negative aspects of imprisonment, at least for a brief period of time.

Thus, being together at work or in leisure time could be a source of tension and stress but also joy. One informant talked about the games inmates played or the stories they told each other: “…It’s when we get together, and we start fooling around [starts laughing]. The best thing! Yeah, when one of them starts acting, another is acting, another is talking about a fun adventure, and another is dancing. Well, that’s fun” (Galina, theft). Although she found it challenging to communicate with other inmates, another informant said that women had to support each other morally:

It is very difficult, yes. And there are people who really need each other. You help, and you support each other morally, somehow. There are some people who, you know, get depressed, and you have to support them. Of course, you do not interact with everybody, but everybody finds their own way. There are friends, there are those with whom you have socialized in the past, and some are like sisters who get along well. But it’s still very difficult to communicate. (Eusebia, theft)

Hence, individual women or groups of women acted as emotional support networks that helped them survive.

As the informants themselves pointed out, there were two types of inmates: one type was more open in expressing their feelings, while the other was more withdrawn and refused to share what they felt and experienced: “It’s different. For example, I don’t repress it, if I’m angry with the women here, I try to talk to them, to explain and to say what I don’t like. [I say]: ‘I’m angry with your behavior.’ But other [inmates] don’t say anything; they just cry and stay alone” (Milda, fraudulent bookkeeping). These types of inmates can be categorized as internalizing and externalizing negative and sometimes destructive emotions, which reflect differences in inmates’ expressions of emotions (Laws, 2018). However, the interviews demonstrate that the first type of inmates was predominant: more women tended to suppress negative emotions in Panevėžys Correctional Facility. This is supported by previous research on women’s prisons, which has shown both conscious and subconscious suppression of emotions in prisons. Ben Laws, who interviewed 25 female prisoners, reported that over two-thirds of informants suppressed and hid their emotions to some extent (Laws, 2018, p. 75).

Many women who externalized emotions had been involved in physical and emotional conflicts because they believed that showing emotional toughness was a sign of individual strength. According to an informant, “…They already come here with the idea that ‘I can’t behave like a woman.’ I have to behave almost like a man because if I behave like a woman, they will see that I am weak, then they will tread on my toes” (Rainolda, drug possession and distribution). Based on this informant’s observations, it appears that these inmates were displaying behavior characteristic of men:

They are no longer women. Not all, but most of them are no longer women. They behave like guys, fighting all the time. You are a woman, and you have to talk calmly. At least try to talk and resolve the conflict calmly, don’t use punches, don’t use foul language, and don’t use swear words … But those women are not able to talk calmly.

This statement also reveals the peculiarities of women’s adaptation to a prison environment based on aggressiveness and threat. The aggressiveness, open hostility and anger that make these women “no longer women” can also be seen as a form of self-preservation brought from the outside world (Grounds, 2004). The specificity of emotion management is also linked to previous experiences developed while outside the prison (Laws, 2018). Therefore, it is not only the prison environment but also the informants’ previous biographies that may determine the ways in which emotions are expressed, how emotions are managed, and which emotions dominate their lives.

One could argue that emotional competence is crucial for most informants, whether inside or outside prison. This means having the ability to know when to display or conceal emotions and knowing what to say in different situations. Intrigues, misunderstandings, and anger can occur in any setting, so emotional awareness is essential for navigating social interactions (Demetria, drug possession and distribution). Emotional competencies can be a socially helpful resource in adapting to the prison environment, for example, handling conflicts in relationships or dealing with experiences of loneliness, abandonment, and despair. They enable a skillful response to different situations. This inmate said that in order to prevent excessive emotions from interfering with daily life, it was possible to go to a psychologist or to call relatives (“then go to a psychologist and tell her [everything] … or call your mother”). Some inmates also felt that instead of openly expressing emotions, it was better to improve their emotional skills by consulting with a psychologist or other staff of the facility:

If it is absolutely necessary to see a psychologist, it is better to go and talk to her. And, of course, it is also possible to call your relatives to tell them about your problems or complaints. (Olga, robberies)

You can go and talk to the warden, you can go and talk to the dynamic supervisor, there is a psychologist, there is a rehabilitation social worker, you can go to any of them. There are definitely places you can go to and talk openly about your problems. If you feel pressure or if somebody abuses you morally or verbally, you can go to talk. [These officers] will not betray you; they will deal with the matter nicely. (Rasa, drug possession and distribution)

This means that prison was a good school for managing emotions, where you learned emotional restraint and discipline: “I learned to keep quiet here. That’s good because I’ve learned to be calmer here because I was a bit wild when free. I would never be silent, but here I have learned [to restrain myself]. Maybe that’s a good thing” (Milda, fraudulent bookkeeping). There were also courses in prison that taught emotional literacy. One inmate mentioned a stress management course: “We have stress management courses too. Skills.…Our female officers run these dynamics and help the girls” (Aida, drug possession and distribution).

Several informants referred to the more general lessons of prison concerning emotional literacy and emotional competencies. In the words of one inmate,

I have learned a lot of patience here …. And I’ve got really tough here …. Well, I also started to believe that I can [do things], that I will endure, that all I need is patience, that I am a human being, and no matter how I am judged here, I will still be a good mother for my children and my family, and I won’t repeat my mistakes …. (Eusebia, theft)

Some inmates felt that their character had changed during their imprisonment; they became stronger and appreciated the benefits of freedom. The correctional facility made them rethink themselves and others: “I could say that when I got here, I had somehow much time to think things over, and I started to think that maybe it should be more about loving yourself than others” (Mirta, infliction of bodily harm). The prison has toughened women up: “Yes, yes, you commit some crimes, you become smarter, you become more resilient, you become more hardened. You are a very tough person” (Livija, drug possession and distribution). This informant stated that everything seemed more manageable after her time in Panevėžys Correctional Facility: “It seems that you could manage anything. Nothing can be scarier than [the prison].” Therefore, the lessons of prison included not only rethinking one’s own life but also developing the ability to control the expression of emotions and strategies for releasing them.

The interviews show that most women cultivate and maintain emotional privacy. As a result, many emotions, including shame, guilt, anger, frustration, and despair, are repressed and kept inside. The inmates avoid being emotionally open both because of emotional claustrophobia (the possibility of being hurt by one’s openness) and emotional contagion (succumbing to negative feelings expressed by others). While some women mentioned that they shared their feelings with their friends or within groups of inmates, the majority of them believed that they should not display their emotions, particularly vulnerability, weakness, and pain, to other women. They feared that if they allowed themselves to be vulnerable, they could easily be humiliated. The inmates’ vulnerability could be exploited and used for manipulation and embarrassment. Women who were either emotionally reserved or openly expressed their emotions, especially negative ones, highlight differences in emotion management, which can be described in terms of internalizing and externalizing emotions or “bottling up” and “discharging” them.

Discussion

Emotions are challenging to observe, identify, and describe, especially when researchers work in radically different prison environments. However, this study shows that emotions are central to the inmates’ everyday lives, even when they exist in latent forms. Prison is filled with negative emotions that inmates have to deal with on their own or with the help of their relatives, prison staff, and psychologists.

Data from a previous quantitative survey conducted in 2016 in Lithuanian prisons reveals that a quarter of women in Panevėžys Correctional Facility considered the conditions of imprisonment to be bad, and almost half (47.7%) said that the conditions had worsened during the period of their imprisonment. Poor conditions in Lithuanian penitentiaries are a regular subject of discussion on the politicians’ agendas, in the media, and in court hearings. In 2018, Lithuanian national courts awarded 820,000 euros in compensation to prisoners for inhumane, torturous, and degrading conditions. Several hundred thousand euros in compensation were paid out based on amicable agreements with the Government of the Republic of Lithuania that were filed with and reached before the European Court of Human Rights alone. Poor detention conditions are most often linked to dormitory-type prison facilities, which become a source of emotional dissatisfaction and fatigue for the inmates (Sakalauskas et al., 2020).

This study suggests that in the prison environment, the suppression of emotions is the primary method used by inmates to manage their emotions. Negative emotions are often concealed from others, as they are viewed as a weakness. Some prisoners preferred to distract themselves from their emotions by engaging in group activities, talking or playing games. For many, keeping their minds busy was essential to avoid the negative effects of the prison environment. My research also showed that openly displaying emotions was not an acceptable strategy for emotion management; instead, emotions were often filtered and expressed in a restrained way. Women were generally more likely to internalize difficult emotions. There was no clear strategy for transforming and altering the negative impact of difficult emotions through direct engagement. The prevalence of emotional suppression among both male and female prisoners has been confirmed by numerous studies that highlighted the importance of prisoners constructing a “mask” or “shield” to protect themselves from other inmates (de Viggiani, 2012; Jewkes, 2005; Laws, 2022).

It has become commonplace to assume that women and men have different emotional tasks to perform daily. Hochschild (1983) argues that women manage negative emotions by suppressing them and turning them into overt sweetness. In contrast, men hide fear and vulnerability by behaving aggressively. The prison environment corrects these ideas. As the research shows, similar to men’s prisons (Petkevičiūtė, 2015), the norm of emotional restraint prevails in Panevėžys Correctional Facility. It functions as an instrument for adaptation to the prison environment and for coming to terms with the punishment. The norm of emotional restraint or “bottling up” also prevails when expressing positive emotions such as joy and admiration. Although positive emotions can help build friendly relationships with other inmates and foster a sense of camaraderie in the work environment, most female inmates felt that there was no space for the release of emotions in the Correctional Facility. Emotional independence was demonstrated by being emotionally strong and presenting oneself as a tough person.

At the same time, it was the reality of being a woman in a penitentiary. Some informants argued that women who openly expressed negative emotions, including aggression and anger, resembled men, as it was believed that men were more likely to externalize complex emotions such as anger, hatred, and aggressiveness. This view undermines the perception of emotionality as an essential component of femininity (Evans & Wallace, 2008; Fivush & Buckner, 2000). At the same time, it suggests that emotional competence in prison is related to the ability to hide emotions and to open up to only a limited number of inmates who become emotional support networks. Consequently, women limited their participation in emotion work comprised of creating and maintaining social and emotional bonds. It is, therefore, possible to argue that the limited emotionality of women in prison is not only due to gender but also to the specificity of the prison, which is based on mutual mistrust and emotional claustrophobia. The institutional arrangements of the prison make female inmates targets of emotional stagnation and force them to distance themselves from their feelings. Emotional suppression is thus considered a relatively universal prison experience, whether it is a women’s or men’s prison (Laws, 2018).

The fear of emotional contamination noted by prison researchers is the reason behind the pervasiveness of emotional suppression, with negative externalization being heavily discouraged by most inmates. Suppression served as a crucial and effective psychological defense mechanism that helped to reduce the impact of painful emotions and harsh realities experienced by prisoners. There appears to be a strong similarity with the findings of Grounds (2004), who discovered that prisoners often suppress their painful emotions, avoid communication, and keep their distance to deal with stress and pressure. However, this study also highlights the importance of positive emotions as a social glue in the life of inmates and how it enables them to build a supportive community within the prison. When prisoners share their emotions and ways of coping with one another, it fosters a sense of camaraderie and understanding. This emotional connection between inmates contributes significantly to the formation of social bonds, providing them with the necessary emotional support they need.

This study examines emotional expressions within their local context, rather than treating emotions as distinct entities (Beatty, 2019; Laws, 2022). While it may be possible to consider the study of imprisonment that focus on separate emotions like anger, fear, and sadness, such an approach contradicts the interconnectivity of emotions. Positive and negative emotions often cannot be easily separated. Moreover, studying emotions inevitably raises questions about the inseparability of qualitative research strategies from emotions (Drake & Harvey, 2014; Jewkes, 2012). This study is also based on the assumption that there is always some emotional content between researchers and research participants when interpreting the stories of female inmates (Jewkes, 2014; Reiter, 2014), and therefore it is important to bear in mind the anxiety and other feelings of the researchers that may have influenced the interpretations of the inmates’ stories (Phillips & Earle, 2010). To prioritize the unique experiences of incarcerated women, emotional responsiveness and acknowledgment of their criminal histories were emphasized in this study.

The article attempts to voice, document, and reveal the multiple and multi-layered experiences of women’s encounters with the Lithuanian penal system. Focusing on direct contact with women prisoners, it provides a thick summary of women’s prison experiences, interpreted in the light of their opinions, explanations, doubts, and beliefs. Furthermore, by attempting to provide a more nuanced understanding of the emotional experiences of prisoners, this study aligns with recent critical studies of imprisonment that have emphasized the emotional complexity of imprisonment and sought to reintegrate emotions into academic discussions (Crawley, 2004; Crewe et al., 2014; Laws, 2019, 2022; Liebling, 2014).

Conclusion

The article offers insight into the emotional competencies of incarcerated women, which not only help them create and maintain interpersonal relationships but also express their attitude toward the lived reality in prison. The results of the study shed light on how female inmates understand their emotional well-being and develop ways to manage their emotions. The findings show that being in prison can lead to a lot of stress and negative feelings because of the limited space and constant presence of other inmates. The poor living conditions, particularly the shared dorm-style accommodations, also contribute to emotional dissatisfaction and exhaustion.

In the Panevėžys Correctional Facility, women experience emotional claustrophobia, which is the fear of being hurt by openly expressed emotions. They also have to manage their emotions due to the “emotional contagion” effect, where negative emotions from other women can affect their mood. Emotions are contagious, and some women complain of prisoners’ negative energy in dormitory-style facilities. As a result, the women feel the need to maintain a tough facade and engage in facade management to cope with these challenges.

However, emotions also serve as social glue among inmates, as they try to form small, dependable groups for emotional support. The shared experience of imprisonment enables them to empathize with each other, fostering understanding and compassion. By engaging in various routines and activities like cooking, gaming, and talking, women prisoners reinforce their social bonds.

During the interviews, the women shared insights on emotional literacy and competencies that aided them in managing their emotions and dealing with challenges in prison. They found that these skills helped them maintain positive relationships and cope with feelings of loneliness, abandonment, and despair. Overall, emotional competencies proved to be a valuable social resource for adapting to the prison environment.

To effectively address emotional management in prisons, a comprehensive approach is necessary. This includes providing mental health support, training staff to manage their emotions and interactions, improving living conditions, implementing rehabilitative programs, and fostering a positive and supportive environment within the prison system. As the study results show that women in prison tend to avoid sharing their experiences with others and professionals working in the institution, the availability of psychological support for women prisoners in prison, with a view to their well-being and mental health, should be improved. Using specialists (psychologists) from external organizations and social partners can help increase women prisoners’ willingness to seek psychological help. It should be noted that the principle of confidentiality is fundamental in providing psychological assistance. Interventions and programs aimed at improving emotional intelligence can also have a positive impact on the social dynamics and emotional well-being of incarcerated women. By acknowledging the role of emotions as a social glue in the prison setting, it becomes possible to develop effective strategies to improve conflict resolution, communication, and overall well-being of prisoners.

Despite the limitations of this research, the study of the emotional aspects of imprisonment provides tools to rethink the new penology and culture of control in prisons. The analysis of emotions allows us to look at gender-differentiated experiences of imprisonment and the ways that (mis)trust between inmates, their emotional well-being, and competition for power function in the correctional system. This study not only extends previous research on the relation of imprisonment to experiences of emotional isolation and the pain of incarceration (Laws, 2018, 2022) but also points to the importance of emotional competencies based on emotional restraint and relatively rigorous management of emotions in the correctional facility.

Further research on women’s prisons should acknowledge the multiplicity of emotional norms and their central role in shaping the relationships between inmates, which are regulated by institutional feeling rules. By observing the dynamics of emotions, it would also be possible to see how emotional orders are created and what alternative ways could be employed to maintain emotional balance and a positive emotional climate among inmates.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Artūras Tereškinas

Ethical Considerations

The research was conducted with the approval of the Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work has received funding from the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT),agreement no. S-MIP-19-39.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Aebi

M. F.

Cocco

Molnar

(2023). SPACE I - 2022 – Council of Europe annual penal statistics: Prison populations. Council of Europe and University of Lausanne.

Beatty

(2019). Emotional worlds: Beyond an anthropology of emotion. Cambridge University Press.

Boris

Parreñas

R. S.

(Eds.). (2010). Intimate labors: Cultures, technologies, and the politics of care. Stanford University Press.

Bosworth

Campbell

Demby

Ferranti

S. M.

Santos

(2005). Doing prison research: Views from inside. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 249–264.

Crawley

(2004). Emotion and performance: Prison officers and the presentation of self in prisons. Punishment & Society, 6(4), 411–427.

Crawley

(2011). Managing prisoners, managing emotion: The dynamics of age, culture and identity. In Karstedt

Loader

Strang

(Eds.), Emotions, crime and justice (pp. 102–121). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Crewe

(2009). The prisoner society power, adaptation and social life in an English prison. Oxford University Press.

Crewe

(2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 509–529.

Crewe

Hulley

Wright

(2017). The gendered pains of life imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology, 57, 1359–1378.

10.

Crewe

Warr

Bennett

Smith

(2014). The emotional geography of prison life. Theoretical Criminology, 18(2), 56–74.

11.

Davidson

Milligan

(2004). Embodying emotion, sensing space: Introducing emotional geographies. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464936042000317677

12.

de Viggiani

. (2012). Trying to be something you are not: Masculine performances within a prison setting. Men and Masculinities, 15(3), 271–291.

13.

Drake

D. H.

Harvey

(2014). Performing the role of ethnographer: Processing and managing the emotional dimensions of prison research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(5), 489–501.

14.

Duschinsky

Wilson

(2014). Flat affect, joyful politics and enthralled attachments: Engaging with the work of Lauren Berlant. International Journal of Politics Culture and Society, 28(3), 179–190.

15.

Evans

Wallace

(2008). A prison within a prison? The masculinity narratives of male prisoners. Men and Masculinities, 10, 484–507.

16.

Fassin

(2016). Prison worlds: An ethnography of the carceral condition. Polity Press.

17.

Fischer

A. H.

Manstead

A. S.

(2008). Social functions of emotion. In Lewis

Haviland-Jones

J. M.

Barrett

L. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (Vol. 3, pp. 456–468). The Guilford Press.

18.

Fivush

Buckner

(2000). Gender, sadness and depression: The development of emotional focus through gendered discourse. In Fischer

A. H.

(Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 232–253). Cambridge University Press.

19.

Garrihy

Watters

(2020). Emotions and agency in prison research. Methodological Innovations, 13(2), 1–14.

20.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of the self in everyday life. Penguin Books.

21.

Greer

(2002). Walking an emotional tightrope: Managing emotions in a women’s prison. Symbolic Interaction, 25, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2002.25.1.117

22.

Grossberg

(1992). We gotta get out of this place: Popular conservatism and postmodern culture. Routledge.

23.

Gross

J. J.

(2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–20). The Guilford Press.

24.

Grounds

(2004). Psychological consequences of wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 165–182.

25.

Hatfield

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge University Press.

26.

Hearn

(2008). Feeling out of place? Towards the transnationalizations of emotions. In Fineman

(Ed.), The emotional organization: Passions and power (pp. 184–201). Blackwell Publishing.

27.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

28.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1990). Ideology and emotion management: A perspective and path for future research. In Kemper

T. D.

(Ed.), SUNY series in the sociology of emotions. Research agendas in the sociology of emotions (pp. 117–142). State University of New York Press.

29.

Hughes

Trimble

T. J.

O’Rourke

(2021). The experiences of young offenders (aged 18–21) on protection in an Irish prison: Using an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Journal of Criminal Psychology, 11(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-04-2020-0015

30.

Illouz

(2008). Saving the modern soul: Therapy, emotions, and the culture of self-help. University of California Press.

31.

Illouz

(2009). Emotions, imagination and consumption: A new research agenda. Journal of Consumer Culture, 9(3), 377–413.

32.

Jalili Idrissi

. (2020). Prison space, social control and relationships in a post-Soviet women’s prison [University of Plymouth Research Theses, The University of Plymouth].

33.

Jewkes

(2005). Men behind bars: ‘doing’ masculinity as an adaptation to imprisonment. Men and Masculinities, 8(1), 44–63.

34.

Jewkes

(2012). Autoethnography and emotion as intellectual resources: Doing prison research differently. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(1), 63–75.

35.

Jewkes

(2014). An introduction to ‘doing prison research differently. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(4), 387–391.

36.

Katz

Pallot

(2014). Prisoners’ wives in post-Soviet Russia: ‘For my husband I am pining! Europe Asia Studies, 66(2), 204–224.

37.

Kruttschnitt

Gartner

(2005). Marking time in the golden state: Women’s imprisonment in California. Cambridge University Press.

38.

Laws

(2018). Emotions in prison: an exploration of space, emotion regulation and expression [PhD dissertation, Wolfson College].

39.

Laws

(2019). The return of the suppressed: Exploring how emotional suppression reappears as violence and pain among male and female prisoners. Punishment & Society, 21(5), 560–577.

40.

Laws

(2022). Caged emotions: Adaptation, control and solitude in prison. Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Laws

Crewe

(2016). Emotion regulation among male prisoners. Theoretical Criminology, 20(4), 529–547.

42.

Liebling

(1999). Doing research in prison: Breaking the silence? Theoretical Criminology, 3(2), 147–173.

43.

Liebling

(2009). Women in prison prefer legitimacy to sex. British Society of Criminology Newsletter, 63, 19–23.

44.

Liebling

(2014). Postscript: Integrity and emotion in prisons research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(4), 481–486.

45.

Nussbaum

(2003). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge University Press.

46.

O’Reilly

Parker

(2013). Unsatisfactory saturation: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190–197.

47.

Petkevičiūtė

(2015). Laisvės atėmimo bausme nuteistų vyrų adaptacija Lietuvos pataisos namuose [Adaptation of incarcerated men in Lithuanian correctional institutions]. [PhD dissertation, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas].

48.

Phillips

Earle

(2010). Reading difference differently? Identity, epistemology and prison ethnography. British Journal of Criminology, 50(2), 360–378.

49.

Piacentini

Slade

(2015). Architecture and attachment: Carceral collectivism and the problem of prison reform in Russia and Georgia. Theoretical Criminology, 19(2), 179–197.

50.

Reiter

(2014). Making windows in walls: Strategies for prison research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(4), 417–428.

51.

Rustin

(2009). The missing dimension: Emotions in the social sciences. In Sclater

S. D.

Jones

D. W.

Price

Yates

(Eds.), Emotion: New psychosocial perspectives (pp. 19–35). Palgrave Macmillan.

52.

Sakalauskas

Jarutiene

Kalpokas

Vaičiūnienė

(2020). Kalinimo sąlygos ir kalinių socialinės integracijos prielaidos [Conditions of imprisonment and preconditions for the social integration of prisoners]. Teisės institutas.

53.

Seigworth

G. J.

Gregg

(2010). An inventory of shimmers. In Seigworth

G. J.

Gregg

(Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 1–28). Duke University Press.

54.

Slade

Vaičiūnienė

(2018). In comparative perspective: The effects of incarceration abroad on penal subjectivity among prisoners in Lithuania. European Journal of Criminology, 15(2), 217–234.

55.

Slotboom

A.-M.

Kruttschnitt

Bijleveld

Menting

(2011). Psychological well-being of incarcerated women in the Netherlands: Importation or deprivation? Punishment & Society, 13(2), 176–197.

56.

Staller

K. M.

(2021). Big enough? Sampling in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 20(4), 897–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211024516

57.

Tereškinas

Petkevičiūtė

(2013). Gero gyvenimo fantazijos ir įkalintasis vyriškumas: Alytaus pataisos namų atvejis [Good life fantasies and incarcerated masculinity: The case of Alytus correctional facility]. Lyčių studijos ir tyrimai, 11, 28–37.

58.

Tereškinas

Petkevičiūtė

Bučaitė-Vilkė

Indriliūnaitė

(2016). Vyrai nusivylimo ekonomikose: Tarp gero gyvenimo ir socialinės atskirties [Men in the economies of disappointment: Between the good life and social exclusion]. Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

59.

Tereškinas

Vaičiūnienė

Nikartas

Jarutienė

(2021). Moterys Lietuvos baudžiamojo teisingumo sistemoje: nuo baudimo praktikų iki baudimo patirčių [Women in the Lithuanian criminal justice system: From penal practices to punishment experiences]. LSMC Teisės institutas.

60.

Vaičiūnienė

Tereškinas

(2017). Transformations in prison subculture and adjustment to imprisonment in Post-Soviet Lithuanian penitentiary institutions. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 31(3), 659–218.