The concept of studying prison behaviour, particularly adjustment after incarceration has evolved with the cause of time and has ultimately become a veritable source for understanding how prisoners employ personal adjustment characteristics in their respective socio-cultural, economic and demographic circumstances. These behaviours actually define social position of inmates and provide a better understanding of behavioural process that reduces the overall economic cost of adjusting problems within prison communities. The problem of adjustment is under-reported in common place within the Nigerian correctional Service. This study examined the role of prison environment as predictor of Prisoners’ adjustment among inmates: The mediatory role of resilience.Using a correlational survey design and systematic sampling technique, four hundred and seventy-six convicts responded to Prison Environment scale, resilience Scale, and Prison Adjustment Scale. Analysis of the data with Linear and multiple regression and Sobel statistics. Findings revealed that, Prison environment significantly predicted prisoners’ adjustment β.26, t 5.25’’, p< .01, Resilience significantly predicted prisoners’ adjustment β.18, t 2.25’, p< .05 Furthermore, the strength with which resilience mediated the relationship between prison environment and prison adjustment was significant. Thus, (Ƶ = 2.31, p., <. 05). It was recommended that, government may need to take into consideration the condition of the prison environment and resilience when designing programs toward promoting or enhancing psychologically well-adjusted prison inmate.

There has been great concern about how inmates adjust to prison life, the patterns of adaptation to imprisonment can have significant implications (Humber, Webb, Piper, Appleby & Shaw, 2013). The extent to which adaptations are predisposed by the prison environment itself and or influenced by the prisoners’ characteristics has been a matter of significant consideration (Africa Centre for the Prevention of Crime, 2010).

The discomforts of confinement affect prisoners in diverse ways (Jeff, Levin & Amit, 2010). Jimoh (2007), asserts that prisoners are exposed to a new culture of deprivation, solitude and alienation play a significant role in prisoner’s adjustment pattern. The combined impact of solitude, the emotional imbalance of prison life, and the separation from loved ones often lead to depression among incarcerated individuals (Ashkar & Kenny, 2008). 

These and many more circumstances pervading prison environment may lead to a myriad of behavioural concerns in the lives of these individuals and those of significant other within this category of people (Humber, et al., 2013). The increase in the number of cases self-mutilation in prison communities has agitated research interest and global concern (Africa Centre for the Prevention of Crime, 2010).  Therefore, it becomes important that understanding behavioural mechanisms that underlie prisoner adjustment in prison populations calls for research attention. 

Adjustment generally refers to utilization of skills and experiences that facilitate personal integration into the society to which one belongs (Weiten, Dunn, & Hammer, 2011). Similarly, adjustment also refers to the psychological processes through which people manage or cope with the demands or challenges of everyday life (Weiten et al., 2011). 

Bakare (1990) opined that adjustment connotes behaviours that enable a person to get along and be comfortable in his particular social settings; hence, such behaviour as nervousness, depression or withdrawing from the society is a question of adjustment. Adjustment can also be seen as the manner in which a person meets his environment, or seen as the way a person feels and behaves under new life situations and experiences (Jeff, Levin & Amit, 2010). 

Therefore, prisoners’ adjustment refers to the processes through which inmates manage and cope with the demands of the prison environment and its experiences. The extent to which an inmate’s adjustment to imprisonment is influenced by the prison environment itself (indigenous) or influenced by the prisoner’s ‘pre prison characteristics’ (imported) has long been of considerable debate (Dhami, Ayton, & Loewenstein, 2007). 

It is necessary to see prisoners’ adjustment as unique survival achievements towards the goal of maintaining one’s mind, spirit, and body in prison. The human experience of incarceration is intentionally hidden from society (Haney, 2001). In the present study, one of the possible predictors of Prisoners adjustment is Prison Environment.

Prison Environment

Perceived prison environment refers to the social, emotional, organizational and physical characteristics of a correctional institution as perceived by inmates and staff (Toch, 1977). It is often used synonymously with the term “prison climate”. The environment inmates are confined in consists of two distinct entities: structural and individual. The individual entities are not necessarily physical objects found in the prison environment. Rather, these structural entities are made up of eight environmental dimensions that address: personal freedom, inmate activities, support, structure, social relations, and emotional feedback for the inmate from the prison staff, and inmate privacy and safety (Toch, 1977). These eight dimensions are seen as making up the primary environmental concerns of the inmate that are shared among the prison population.

 The Nigerian prison environment with regard to amenities have been described as dehumanizing (Soyinka, 1972), and in spite of the public outcry by human rights organisations, most prison yards in Nigeria are overcrowded beyond capacity (Jimoh, 2007). Prisoners often face life threatening challenges and environmental situations such as overcrowding; having to be forcefully placed in the same cell with hardened criminals, being prevented from seeing loved ones which inevitably may lead to poor prisoner’s adjustment that may result to self-harm tendencies (Jeff et al., 2010). 

Currently, Nigeria prisons are housing 49,000 in two hundred and thirty four prisons out of which 20% are convicts while the rest are awaiting trial inmates (Amnesty International Report, 2012 cited in, Awopetu, 2014).. According to some studies outside Nigeria (Young, Palta, Dempsey, Skatrud, Weber, Badr, 1993; Wicklow & Espie, 2000) report that 20-30% of the United State prison population between the ages of 30-60 has scored relatively high on psychological distress measurements. The pain of imprisonment carries certain psychological cost. Whenever, one is imprisoned, he is likely to suffer certain deprivation; separation due to incarceration which can be a stressful experience and leads to poor level of prison adjustment. Studies on incarceration in Nigeria have been directed at the prevalence of violence in prison (Okunola,  Aderinto, & Atere, 2002). From the review of literatures, it seems most study done on incarceration have focused on the prevalence of imprisonment in Nigeria. There is dearth of study and empirical data on the connection between prison environment, and mediatory role of resilience on prison adjustment among prison inmates in Nigeria. Therefore, the present study attempts to address this knowledge in gap. The study is modest in that it attempts to determine the predicting roles of prison environment and the mediatory role of resilience in predicting prisoners’ adjustment in some selected prisons in western Nigeria. It is my hope that, this study moves towards a better understanding of the challenges this problematic behavior presents to mental health.

Resilience

Another variable of interest in this study that may predict prisoners’ adjustment is how resilient the prisoners are. Resilience is one of the psychological resources that could help prisoner cope with the challenges in the prison environment. Despite the vast body of research on resilience, there is little agreement on a single definition of resilience among scholars. In fact, it has been variously defined (Carle & Chassin, 2004). Resilience could be describe as a reference framework to describe the positive aspects and mechanisms in an individual, group, material, or system which, when facing a destabilizing and disruptive situation affecting their integrity and stability, enables them to hold up, cope, recover, and come out strengthened by it (Vaquero, Urrea, & Mundet, 2014). In short, resilience is best defined as the ability of a system to absorb disturbances and still retain its basic function and structure (Armstrong, Galligan & Critchley, 2011) and as the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity (Arslan, 2016).  Resilience is when, “Some individuals have a relatively good outcome despite having experienced serious stresses or adversities – their outcome being better than that of other individuals who suffered the same experiences” (Rutter, 2013).

Relatively assuming, a few researchers have showed that resilience has been found to play an essential part in decreasing depressive symptoms (Southwick & Charney, 2012) and trauma symptoms (Fan & Olatunji, 2013). Resilience exists in people who develop psychological and behavioural capacities that allow them to remain calm during crises and to move on from the incident without long-term negative consequences (Olatunji, Armstrong, Fan & Zhao, 2014).

Resilience have been significantly linked to health promoting and wellbeing, especially when faced with adversity (Ong, et al., 2006). However, not all individuals who experience unpleasant events in childhood will become troubled adolescence. People who demonstrate stable and healthy functioning levels and are able to adapt positively to the resilient individuals (Fan & Olatunji, 2013). 

Resilience is commonly explained and studied in context of a two-dimensional construct concerning the exposure of adversity and the positive adjustment outcomes of that adversity (Luther & Cicchetti, 2000). These two judgments, one is about a positive adaptation which is considered behavioural or social competence or success at meeting any particular task at a specific life stage, and the other about the significance of risk associated with negative life conditions that are related to adjustment difficulties. Therefore, the present study attempts to fill this lacuna by examining perceived prison environment as a predictor of prisoners’ adjustment among prison inmates in South-West Nigeria: The mediating role of resilience.

Statement of Hypotheses

1. Perceived prison environment will significantly predict prisoner’s adjustment in such a way that, as prison environment becomes conducive, adjustment to the prison increases among inmates.
2. Resilience will significantly mediate the relationships between perceived prison environments and prison adjustment among prisoners in such a way that, the introduction of resilience as mediator will enhance prisoners’ adjustment among inmates.

Research Design and Participants

The study adopted correlational survey design. The researcher is interested in knowing the predictive effect of the dependent variable (prison environment) on prison adjustment (dependent variables) and the Mediatory role of Resilience.

The population of study comprised representative of all prisoners from the six prison facilities in the south west part of Nigeria. They are as follows, Akure Medium Prison Olokuta Akure, Ondo State, Ilesha Prison, Osun State, Abeokuta Prison, Ogun State, Agodi prison, Ibadan, Oyo State, Kirikiri Maximum prison, Apapa Lagos State, and Ado-Ekiti Prison, Ekiti State.

Measures

Four major instruments were used to collect data from the respondents. They include;

Biographic Information Questionnaire: This contain the personal details of participants such as gender, age, religion, academic qualification, marital status, length of sentence.

Prison Environment Inventory:  This is made up of self-reported 48- items developed by Wright (1985). It has eight (8) sections namely, activities (1-6), emotional feedback (7-13), freedom (14-19), privacy (20-25), safety (26-31), social (32-37), structure (38-42) and support (43-48). The PEI-48 is a 4- item Likert format scale ranging from (that 0 = Never, 1 = Seldom, 2 = Often, and 3 = Always.) and some of the sample items include (1) There is at least one movie each week, (2) An inmate obtains training if he wants (3) Inmates have something to do every night. (4) The guards tell inmates when they do well. (5) The guards ask inmates about their personal feelings. The pilot study shows Cronbach alpha (α) = 83, but Cronbach (α) =.83 was reported for the present study. Composite scores above the mean score means supportive Prison While scores below the mean indicate Non-supportive prison.

Prisoner’s Adjustment Scale (PAQ): This is a 20 item self-report instrument PAQ developed by (Wrights, 1985). The PAQ assesses perceptions such as prisoners’ comfort around inmates, comfort with staff, feelings of anger, frequency of illness, trouble sleeping, fears of being attacked, physical fights, heated arguments with inmates etc. Participants responded by indicating their level of agreement to each item based on five-point scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Examples of the items include, I have discomfort around fellow inmates, have discomfort around staff, understand rules, have necessary training etc. The score above mean score indicate positive/ better prison adjustment, while score below mean score indicate poor level of prison adjustment.  Wright reported a Cronbach alpha of (α) =0.93 and the Guttman Split half reliability (r) =0.89.The pilot study shows Cronbach alpha (α) =67, but Cronbach (α)-.69 was reported for the present study. PAQ was interpreted in terms of the sum of the total aggregate score of the items. Scores above the mean indicate increased adjustment and scores lower than the mean indicate less adjustment.

Resilience scale:

Resilience was assessed using a resilience scale (RS-25) developed by Wagnild & Young (1993) to provide clinicians and researchers a shorter instrument to reduce participant burden. The RS-14 is a 7- item Likert format scale ranging from (1- strongly disagrees to 7- strongly Agree) and some of the sample question include (1.) I usually manage one way or another. (2) I fell proud that I have accomplished things in life (5.) I feel that I can handle many things at a time. Wagnild and Young (1993) reported reliability co-efficient of .91 the original RS. A Cronbach Alpha of (α) = .78 was reported for the present study. The scores above the mean indicate resilient Prisoners, while scores below indicate non resilient Prisoners.

Procedure

Six prison formations were randomly selected from the south western zone in Nigeria based on balloting. The choice of even numbers was arrived at via the ballot technique. That is odd and even were wrapped differently and all put together in a box. Individual prisoners were asked to pick one and he or she picked a wrapped paper upon which even numbers were written. Prisons facilities labeled even numbers on the list were selected. Approval was earlier obtained from the department of Psychology, Ekiti State University; that introduced me to the Prison facilities for the research purpose, with this approval; I was able to visit different prisons that were selected in the study. With permission and approval obtained from the respective prison authorities, the researcher used systematic sampling technique (i.e. odd and even numbers) on the list of prison inmates provided by each prison officials of the selected prisons to choose participants among the inmates that were involved in the research work.

Eighty (80) prisoners were randomly selected through simple balloting from each of the chosen prison. Hence, four hundred and eighty (480) prisoners were used for the study. However, two (2) questionnaires were not adequately completed, hence the reason for not including them in the processing of the result. Finally, four hundred and sixty-eight (478) questionnaires were adequately completed and returned questionnaire were used for the processing of the result of this study. Male=249 (52.1), Female =229(47.9), Christianity 397(83.1) Islam 81(16.9), Age mean=23.55, SD=3.49, N=478 Gender= mean=1.52, SD=500, N=478, Sentence Period mean=9.44, SD=12.68, N=460, Religion mean=1.17, SD=376, N=478, Prison Environment mean=60.61, SD=16.557, N=478, Religiosity mean=69.04, SD=18.094, N=478, Resilience mean=79.09, SD=13.254, N=478, Prisoner’s Adjustment mean=43.89, SD=9.667, N=478, Self-Harm Urges mean=33.29, SD=12.767, N=478.

The three instruments were packaged together as a questionnaire with 3 sections where section A seeks demographic information, Section B while section C, centers on Self-Harm and section F focus on prison Adjustment scale. These were administered to the participants by the researcher after necessary permissions have been sought which will give the researcher access into the yards. The instruments were collected immediately after completion. The exercise lasted for the period of six weeks with a week allocated for each prison. However, only one day in the week was used for each prison but no one could predict the very day permission would be granted to interact with the prisoners in the yards, possibly for security reasons.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the socio-demographic variables. The study hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis and t-test analysis.

Test of Relationship among the Study Variables

Pearson Product Moment correlation (PPMC) was used to inter-correlate the study variables in order to ascertain the extent and direction of relationships among them. The result is presented below.

                                                      Table 1: Correlation Matrix Showing the Mean, SD and the Relationship among the Study Variables
Perceived religious af..= Perceived religious affiliation **. Note: * p<.01, * <. 0.5, N 478. Gender was coded male 0 female 1.

The result in table 1.1 shows that Prisoners environment significantly correlated with Inmates’ adjustment [r = (476) =.29**p <.01], such that, when the prison environment is supportive the prisoner is better adjusted vice 

Hypothesis 1

                                                            Table 2 Showing Prison Environment, Resilience Predicting Prisoners’ Adjustment 

** p< 0 N=478>Prison environment significantly predicted prisoners’ adjustment β.26, t 5.25’’, p< .01, such that, the more conducive and supportive the prison environment is, the more adjusted the prisoners are to the prison environment. Resilience significantly predicted prisoners’ adjustment β.18, t 2.25’, p< .05 such that, the resilient prisoners are better adjusted to the prison environment, than those who are not resilient

                                         Table 3 Showing Resilience mediating the relationship between Prison Environment and Prisoners’ Adjustment 

Prison environment significantly predicted prisoners’ adjustment (β .29, t 6.66, p< .01).Resilience significantly predicted prisoners’ adjustment (β .18,t 3.91, p< .01).Prison environment significantly predicted Resilience (β .22, t= 4.86, p< .01).Prison environment significantly predicted prisoners’ adjustment (β .16, t= 03, p< .01).

When Resilience was introduced, the β reduce to .β .16, when resilience is .09. From the result of the analysis, it is therefore clear that there is partial mediation of resilience in the predictive influence of prison environment on the prisoners’ adjustment in the study.

                      Table 4: Sobel Summary Showing the Strength of Mediation between Prison Environment and Prison Adjustment by Resilience

The result of the Sobel test indicated that strength with which resilience mediated the relationship between prison environment and prison adjustment was significant. Thus, (Ƶ = 2.31, p., <. 05

It is evident that there is a relationship between the result of this present study and previous ones. The result of hypothesis one which stated that, prison environment, will significantly predict prisoners’ adjustment was accepted. This finding is consistent with the work of Parcel et al., (2000) and Denman et al, (2002), on impact environment has on the social adjustment mostly on Schools, Universities (Dooris, 2001; Whitehead, 2004) and hospitals (Pelikan, et al, 2001; Whitehead, 2004) as well as other organizations. Petersilia, (2003) asserts that the social deprivation of the jail custodial environment and its experience can have lasting effects the mental well-being of prisoners. The discordant conditions of the jail environment play a significant role in the social and professional development of the imprisoned and in the development of behavior that is adopted by the prisoners who eventually exhibit this behaviour when reabsorbed into the society leading to adjustment problems.

The result demonstrate that external cues and contingency factors  such as environment and resilience play significant roles in the prisoners adjustment, and one reason for this may be that conducive and supportive prison environment provides optimism towards life and significant others. For example, Tompkins, et al., (2007) who found that choosing to take illicit substance was frequently influenced by other prisoners; for example, being in prison at the same time with drug-using friends or sharing a cell with a drug-user could increase people’s inclination to engage in drug taking. Also, MacKenzie & Goodstein, 1986; McEwen, 1978; Osgood(1985) corroborates that if some leniency is given towards a regiment of choice and control, inmates can experience reduced level of stress, as well as abuse, injury, discomfort, and other negative byproducts of the prison environment. Invariably, though, not all inmates could be afforded leniency due to their disposition such as those in maximum protection prisons.

Similarly, empirical data such as, Swann and James, (1998) and Stark et al., (2006) support the fact that, social and environmental characteristics of the prison setting usually show degenerating effect on prisoners’ health. To help hold this assertion, Petersilia, (2003) examined the role of socialization within a custodial environment through the lens of the prison inmate. These author reported that analysis of the development of inmate behavior has been the socialization process that actually begins with incarceration in the jail system, and this alters in varying degrees, behavioural and physiological changes in prisoners.

From this finding, it’s obvious that prison has been implicated to have effect on prisoners’ adjustment and self-harm urge just as it was implicated to exacerbate, rather than lessen, individuals’ inclinations to use illicit drugs just as reported by (Lynch & Sabol,2004).Stover & Weilandt (2007) and Cope (2003) highlighted the associations of prison environment and drug use, these authors emphasized that prisoner’s often use drugs to counteract boredom or to “slip away” from the realities of prison life, in other words, drug intake is been used to pass time. In the same vein, Cope (2003) demonstrated how young offenders often manipulated their perception of time in prison through using different types of psychoactive substances. Smoking cannabis, for example, could make “time fly” in prison, although, cocaine was often avoided because of the brevity associated with its euphoria.

The result of this study also validate the second hypothesis that resilience will play a mediatory role between prison environment and prisoners adjustment. The finding indicates that, resilience showed a significant correlation with prisoners’ adjustment. Despite the growing report that prison inmates show signs of depression and melancholy, when ecological factors seem unsupportive, contemporary recent findings suggest otherwise, for instance, Wagnild (2003) who examined the role of morale, life satisfaction, and resilience reported a significant relationship, when correlated with prisoner adjustment in Pretoria, South Africa. However, variety of factors may be responsible, for this which include but not limited to, modern facilities and procedures, the role of technology, prison budgeting and noticeable increase in humanitarian activities scheduled for prisoners. Criminologists (Petersilia, 2003) have documented that over time ex-offenders become ‘embedded’ in criminality, and they gradually weaken their bonds to conventional society. After years of engaging in a criminal lifestyle, reestablishing these bonds with mainstream society becomes very difficult. Re-establishing societal bonds is a crucial aspect of all successful ex-offender re-integration.

The result of this finding is consistent with the results of Hardy, Wagnild & Young, (1990) and Concato, & Gill, (2004) who reportedly found inverse relationships between depression and resilience. Moreover, the finding corroborates the result of Nygren, Alex, Jonsen, Gustafson, Norberg& Lundman, (2005), who reported that mental health was correlated with resilience in women, but not men. Matsen, Best & Garmezy (1990) explained that three outstanding properties of resilient individuals are; the capacity to develop and progress despite of adverse and risky conditions and occurrence of positive consequences after experiencing them, the permanent capability to perform under stress and tension, and ability to return trauma caused by experiencing adverse situations in life. The result of this finding also, substantiates the work of Pattillo, Weiman & Western, (2004) who reported that resilient individuals participate more in health promoting behaviors, welcome involvement in daily activities, enjoy challenges, and prefer change to stability. The term resiliency generally refers to processes and factors that halt the growth path from risk of problem-causing behaviors and psychological damage and bring about adaptive consequences despite of adverse conditions (Mohammadi, 2005). Also the findings supported the works of Schaefer and Moos's model in (Schaefer & Moos, 1992), where it was reported that resiliency is the strongest predictor of posttraumatic growth related to childhood parentification; resilience explained 14% of the variance in PTG (Hooper, Marrota, & Lanthier, 2008).

Hypothesis two which state that, resilience will significantly mediate the relationship among prisoners’ adjustment, prison environment  was confirmed. The findings support the study by Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti & Wallace, (2006) who found that, resilience mediated the association between stress and negative mood, such that individuals who were more resilient showed less mood reactivity to and faster mood recovery from daily stressors. Also the result of this study is convergent with the findings of Moein & Ladan, (2015), which suggested that cognitive emotion self-regulation mediated by resiliency is able to directly or indirectly predict impulsivity and that the relationship between cognitive emotion self-regulation and impulsivity is not a simple linear relationship as other variables such as resiliency play an important mediating role (at least for positive strategies) in this regard.

The result established the assertion that resilience is considered a personality characteristic that mediates the negative effects of stress and promotes adaptation (Wagnild & Young, 1993). In addition to having particular personality characteristics, resilient individuals often rely on protective factors to help adjust to difficult times. According to the Resiliency model (Richardson, 2002) individuals experience disruption to their lives when a stressor is encountered, they rely on internal protective factors, such as self-reliance and good health, as well as external protective factors, such as social networks, to restore balance in their lives. Likewise, the result is in support of the findings of Meng, Xiao-Xi, YuGe & Lie (2015) which reported that resilience partially mediated in the relationship between stress and life satisfaction among Chinese medical students. Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti & Wallace, (2006) report that individuals who were more resilient showed less mood reactivity to and faster mood recovery from daily stressors.  Equally, Akbari & Khormaiee (2015) reported that resilience predicted healthy psychological state which played partial mediating role between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being among students.

First, self-reported survey approach was used in the generation of data. This method was chosen to accelerate the collection of a large amount of quantifiable data, and to protect the anonymity of the inmates. While survey data is acceptable in studies of this kind, it is recommended that future research utilize a mixed methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative techniques and independent sources to verify the survey data. 

Another shortcoming of this study is that of responder bias, which is common to all survey studies due to respondents’ belief of projecting a good image rather than be seen in different perspective. Similar to other research studies, this project is not without its own inadequacy. For instance, the sample size used for this research work may not guarantee generalization on this subject matter, to be true representatives of the entire number prison inmates we have in Nigeria prison facilities and by implication, the result of this work should be generalize with caution. 

It is imperative to state here that, only prison facilities from the South-West were randomly selected, and this only represent a fraction of the entire prison facilities in the country. Owing to the relative simplicity of this analysis there is always the possibility of omitting relevant variables. However, despite these limitations, this study represents one of the largest population-based studies of self-harm among this category of people.

In trying to understand the plights of inmates with focus on the prison environment, it is important to be cognizant of the varying circumstances that exist within prisons environment. These circumstances characterized by what Toch (1977) identified as part of prison environment dimensions (structure, privacy, support, activities, emotional support, freedom, social relations, and safety) such give rise to unpredictable environmental dimensions. These dimensions, and their comprising factors, make it difficult for prison facilities to address the ideal of rehabilitation yet alone those of deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution while trying to address and/or placate inmate concerns.

Additionally, the function of the prison and its impact on both inmate and guard contributes greatly to problems associated with these dimensions. The difficulties encountered with inmate concerns is heightened by the demands of society which argues for the barest of housing conditions, little or no recreational activities, and for stiffer, longer sentences while asking that those who are released be rehabilitated in hopes of reducing recidivism.

To potentially better the prison ideal of rehabilitation and reduce inmate concerns, effort and resources should be tailored to individual inmates rather than the total inmate population. This can start when offenders enter the prison by using sensitive psychological battery testing to help identify inmates who require specialized needs and placing them into the correct program.

These programs would contain the proper resources needed to specifically deal and address unique inmate problems. Inmates who receive specific treatment regimen may feel as if the criminal justice system views them as an individual rather than a number, and by so doing enhance their level of adjustment to the prison environment.

The findings of this present study have proved relevant to the Nigerian prison situation the theoretical positions of (Goleman 1998; Goltfredson 1998; Zohar & Marshall 2000; Zohar & Berman 2001; Akinboye, Akinboye & Adeyemo. 2002; Adeyemo 2007, 2008; & Jimoh 2007). On the basis of the above, the following recommendations were made;

The government may need to take into consideration the significant roles of prison environment, personality trait of prison inmates (resilience) when designing program toward promoting or providing a prison environment for psychologically well-adjusted prison inmate. While there is no magic bullet, if there was a simple and easy solution no doubt it would have been implemented years ago, some radical changes are needed if it will aid adjustment to the prison environment. There needs to be an inherent shift in the philosophy of prison in this country, and so the researcher recommends that the Ministry of interior in collaboration with that of ministry of Justice publishes a new statement on the purposes of prison, where the primary purpose is rehabilitation, reformation and reintegration which acknowledges that all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for their human rights.. In addition to using the prison environment scale across countries, attention should be given to studying the effects of the prison environment on cultural relativity, social class and ethnicity, comparing the results to determine how inmates from different cultures are affected by prison environment. Finally, a performance indicator is to be developed to help local authorities gauge and evaluate the success of inmate resilience and emotional wellbeing. Meanwhile, further studies on adjustment is required, especially if psychological factors such as personality types, emotional regulation, and emotional intelligence is considered.