BY INTERACTING WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENTS, PEOPLE DEVELOP EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE IN SPECIFIC SETTINGS. TRADITIONAL PRISON SETTINGS DO NOT CORRESPOND TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH INMATES HAVE DEVELOPED THEIR EXPECTANCIES. WHEN ARCHITECTURAL AND SOCIAL CUES COMBINE TO SUGGEST TO THE INMATE THAT SOLITARY OR SMALL GROUP ASSOCIATION IS PRODUCTIVE IN SECURING NEEDS, THE INMATE'S DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS IS WEAKENED. MOST PRISONS EXERT NUMEROUS SUBTLE AND OVERT PRESSURES THAT PROMOTE INMATE POLARIZATION AND GANG ACTIVITY WHILE DISCOURAGING COLLABORATIVE SOCIAL INTERACTION. HIGH-DENSITY LIVING SPACES, CONSPICUOUS USE OF SECURITY FEATURES, ARRANGEMENT OF FURNITURE TO MAXIMIZE OBSERVATION AND MINIMIZE INMATE GROUPING, AND FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE PRIVACY AND PERSONAL SPACE NEEDS ARE AMONG FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE INMATE'S PERCEPTION THAT HIS ENVIRONMENT IS BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND UNRESPONSIVE TO HIS NEEDS. THE SECURITY-ORIENTED ENVIRONMENT SERVES AS A REMINDER TO INMATES THAT ANY ACTIVITY, INCLUDING COLLABORATIVE DECISIONMAKING, TAKES PLACE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PRISON STAFF ALLOWS IT TO TAKE PLACE. IF MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION BY INMATES IN PRISON DECISIONMAKING IS TO TAKE PLACE, DESIGN FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO NONSOCIAL BEHAVIOR MUST BE ELIMINATED, THE PRISON ENVIRONMENT MUST BE FREED OF ARCHITECTURAL CUES THAT OVEREMPHASIZE SUPERORDINATE-SUBORDINATE ROLES AND IMPLY PREOCCUPATION WITH CONTROL, INTERIOR SPACES MUST BE MADE FLEXIBLE, AND INMATES SHOULD HAVE A VOICE IN THE STRUCTURE AND REGULATION OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED.