Professional Orientation and Pluralistic Ignorance Among Jail Correctional Officers

Abstract

Research about the attitudes and beliefs of correctional officers has historically been conducted in prison facilities while ignoring jail settings. This study contributes to our understanding of correctional officers by examining the perceptions of those who work in jails, specifically measuring professional orientations about counseling roles, punitiveness, corruption of authority by inmates, and social distance from inmates. The study also examines whether officers are accurate in estimating these same perceptions of their peers, a line of inquiry that has been relatively ignored. Findings indicate that the sample was concerned about various aspects of their job and the management of inmates. Specifically, officers were uncertain about adopting counseling roles, were somewhat punitive, and were concerned both with maintaining social distance from inmates and with an inmate’s ability to corrupt their authority. Officers also misperceived the professional orientation of their fellow officers and assumed their peer group to be less progressive than they actually were.

Keywords

correctional officers jails professional orientation pluralistic ignorance

The recent rates of incarceration in the United States are among the highest the country has experienced and exceeds that of most other countries (Blumstein & Beck, 1999; Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011; West & Sabol, 2008). It is important to distinguish the differential incarceration trends in local jails from those of state and federal prisons, as the incarceration trend has a unique impact on jail facilities. During this time of substantial incarceration, jails in the United States have seen annual admission rates that are often 17 times that of prison admissions (O’Toole, 1997; Sabol, 2008a, 2008b). It is particularly problematic that jails often have been overlooked in the research setting given that they are the most common correctional facility in the nation (Stephan, 2001).

Jails in the United States share many similarities with prisons, including management of personnel, inmates, and the specific challenges in administration of correctional institutions such as overcrowding and insufficient resources (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008; Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2006; Goss, Peterson, Smith, Kalb, & Brodey, 2002; Kimme, 1988; Klofas, 1990; E. E. Miller, 1978; O’Toole, 1997; Tartaro, 2003; Welsh, 1992). Yet, there are differences between jails and prisons that caution against direct comparison. Local jail administrators have challenges that are often not as pronounced in prison facilities. Unlike prisons, jails serve multiple functions and thus house a more diverse population of inmates, including disruptive drunks, juveniles, and accused violent offenders (Klofas, 1990; Mattick, 1974). They are also responsible for housing detainees before trial, and for holding probation and parole violators, mentally ill persons, court witnesses, inmates transferring to other facilities, and inmates awaiting placement in other facilities (Clear et al., 2006; Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007). Inmates suffering from mental health or substance abuse disorders are also increasingly problematic in jail facilities; yet, programming is less adequate in jails than in prison facilities (Abram & Teplin, 1991; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008; Clear et al., 2006; Goss et al., 2002; Guy, Platt, Zwerling, & Bullock, 1985; Kimme, 1988; Klofas, 1990; E. E. Miller, 1978; O’Toole, 1997; Tartaro, 2003; Teplin, 1990, 1994; Welsh, 1992).

Problems with staff are also often a primary concern among jail administrators (Del Carmen, Witt, Hume, & Ritter, 1990; Kellar, Jaris, & Manboah-Roxin, 2001). Many of the problems that local jail administrators are charged with managing stem from personnel issues such as professionalism, training, and staff shortages. They also face challenges in recruiting, and keeping qualified staff, and offering competitive salary (Kellar et al., 2001; Kerle, 1982; Kimme, 1988; Mattick, 1974; E. E. Miller, 1978; R. Miller, 1982; Ruddell & Mays, 2007; Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007). One of the most prevailing issues in staffing local jail facilities is the perception of low job prestige that characterizes the position of the jail correctional officer (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007). Jail employees are sometimes perceived as lower in status than other law enforcement and correctional employees, which has implications for the work environment of jail correctional officers (Gaines, Kaune, & Miller, 2000; Kerle, 1982).

Most research about correctional officer perspectives has been conducted within the context of state or federal prisons, often overlooking the context of jails. Because jails are so prominent in the United States, it is important to understand what impacts correctional officer attitudes about the nature of the correctional officer job as well as their perceptions of and treatment of inmates. The nature of correctional officer attitudes and perspectives in local jails is increasingly important when a substantial portion of correctional activity happens at the local level. Scholars have recently begun addressing the perspectives of correctional personnel in jails, though the most recent studies remain focused largely on the topics of job stress, job satisfaction, job burnout, educational attainment, cross-gender supervision, personnel turnover, job involvement, and correctional officer use of force (Alpert & Crouch, 1991; Castle & Martin, 2006; Griffin, 2002; Griffin, Hogan, & Lambert, 2012; Hemmens & Stohr, 2001; Jurik, Halemba, Musheno, & Boyle, 1987; Lambert, Hogan, Barton-Bellessa, & Jiang, 2012; Lambert & Paoline, 2010, 2012; Poole & Regoli, 1980; Summerlin, Oehme, Stern, & Valentine, 2010). Yet overall, there has been little recent research conducted in jails about the professional orientations of correctional officers (see Farkas, 1999; Kifer, Hemmens, & Stohr, 2003; Pogrebin & Poole, 1988; Zupan, 1986, for exceptions). More specifically, there is not much research about jail correctional officer attitudes regarding the topics of counseling roles, punitiveness, corruption of authority by inmates, and social distance from inmates, though one recent study explores how procedural and distributive justice impact correctional officer professional orientations (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton-Bellessa, 2011).

It is critical to examine officer professional orientation as the manner in which correctional officers perceive their job can govern the nature of their interactions with inmates and supervisors and affects their overall approach to their job duties and responsibilities. How correctional officers perceive both their work environment and inmates may also dictate how they are willing to respond to incidents involving inmates (Cook, 2009; Eigenberg, 1994). Officer stress and job satisfaction can also be affected by perceptions about their ability to be effective in working with inmates and their views about the quality of their own employment supervision (Britton, 1997; Cheeseman, Kim, Lambert, & Hogan, 2011; Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985).

One purpose of this study is to understand the way jail officers perceive their job and the inmates in part by examining their professional orientation. We also briefly examine whether these perceptions vary across gender, as a large body of prior research suggests that male and female correctional officers have distinct perspectives about their profession (Bazemore & Dicker, 1994; Farkas, 1999; Griffin, 2002; Jurik, 1985). The study sheds further light on research that suggests that officers have complex orientations about their profession, and often support seemingly opposing ideologies regarding how correctional institutions should operate (e.g., both punishment and rehabilitation). The professional orientation of officers examined in this study includes their attitudes about (a) counseling roles, (b) punitiveness, (c) corruption of authority by inmates, and (d) social distance from inmates. Finally, the study explores whether correctional officers misperceive the professional orientations of their peer group by examining the attitudes that officers attribute to other officers to see if they believe their peers to be more punitive than they actually are. This phenomena of incorrectly assuming that other group members embrace an attitude that is privately dismissed is termed “pluralistic ignorance” (Centola, Willer, & Macy, 2005; Cullen, Lutze, Link, & Wolfe, 1989; Katz & Allport, 1931, p. 152; Kauffman, 1981; Klofas & Toch, 1982; O’Gorman, 1975). The current study furthers the understanding of jail correctional officers’ professional orientations, gender differences in officer attitudes, and officer perceptions about the professional orientation of their fellow officers. Understanding officer perceptions in a jail setting is critical because jails are more prevalent than prison facilities and serve a unique function. It is therefore important to investigate whether findings about these topics from other facilities are applicable to jail facilities. In addition, research that does exist about these topics in particular is relatively rare and outdated. The current study attempts to address some of these deficits in the literature about jail correctional officers.

Prior Research

Professional Orientation of Correctional Officers

A historical image of the correctional officer is that of an uncaring, punitive, and security-oriented individual (Duffee, 1974; Kassebaum, Ward, & Wilner, 1964; Poole & Regoli, 1980). Yet scholarship conducted in prisons argues that these images are not based on reality, as correctional officers embrace treatment as well as custody as a goal of corrections, and often are professionally oriented (Klofas & Toch, 1982; Toch & Klofas, 1982; Whitehead, Linquist, & Klofas, 1987). Professional orientation refers to the perspective correctional officers have about the nature of their job, their job duties, their work environment, and inmates. Several scholars have defined a professionally oriented officer as one who embraces both job enrichment and the human service component of working with inmates. They are willing to work to improve institutions, and are not necessarily procustody, cynical, or unsympathetic toward inmates (Klofas & Toch, 1982; Toch & Klofas, 1982; Whitehead et al., 1987). Elements of professional orientation include officer perspectives about counseling roles, punitiveness, corruption of authority by inmates (concerns about whether dealing with inmates may invite corruption), and social distance from inmates (perspectives about appropriate distance in interactions with inmates).

The idea that correctional officers have complex attitudes about the goal of correctional institutions and recognize the importance of both treatment and custody is several decades old. In early research, Duffee (1974) found that prison correctional officers were less comfortable in contexts where more concern was shown for inmates (i.e., via rehabilitation) than in those where there was focus on concern for the community and prison management. While officers may be oriented toward custody and punishment as a main function of correctional institutions, they also recognize the importance of treating inmates’ problems. Jacobs and Kraft (1978) found that prison correctional officers supported both rehabilitating and punishing inmates, as well as protecting society as important goals of correctional institutions. A more recent study of both jail and prison staff suggests that while officers may place more emphasis on incapacitation, they still value rehabilitation as an important goal (Kifer et al., 2003). Much of the recent empirical evidence indicates that prison correctional officers believe in both treatment and punitive goals of incarceration and corrections (Cullen et al., 1989; Eigenberg, 2000; Shamir & Drory, 1981). An interesting finding from Farkas’ (1999) research in county jail facilities, however, is that though officers support rehabilitation, they may be hesitant to accept counseling inmates as one of their job roles.

Another element of professional orientation, corruption of authority, refers to a necessary component in the management of correctional institutions—the exchange relationship that exists between correctional officers and inmates (Sykes, 1958). Whitehead and colleagues (1987) operationalized corruption of authority by examining the extent to which prison correctional officers trust inmates and their perspectives on managing them. Eigenberg (2000) and Toch and Klofas (1982) found that prison correctional officers expressed concern over their ability to manage inmates as well as a hesitancy to trust them. Toch and Klofas also found that many prison correctional officers thought that leniency results in inmates taking advantage of officers, and most believed that it is a good principle not to get close to inmates. However, many prison correctional officers also disagreed that firmness and distance is the ideal method of managing inmates (Toch & Klofas, 1982).

Research in both prisons and jails also suggests that correctional officers believe in keeping social distance between themselves and inmates, yet they also believe in acting respectfully and compassionately toward them (Eigenberg, 2000; Farkas, 1999; Kassebaum et al., 1964; Shamir & Drory, 1981; Toch & Klofas, 1982). One interesting finding from a study in a jail setting was that career outlook may impact perceptions of social distance; specifically, jail correctional officers who used the position as a precursor to a career as a law enforcement deputy demonstrated more interest in social distance with inmates than officers interested in the correctional officer job (Pogrebin & Poole, 1988). The officers who placed more emphasis on the correctional officer job and the jail as a vital component of the agency were more prone to suggest that knowing inmates was a key to successfully performing the job (Pogrebin & Poole, 1988). A recent study examines several aspects of professional orientation among prison correctional officers, suggesting that perceptions of procedural and distributive justice influence orientations about punishment, corruption of authority, and social distance (Lambert et al., 2011).

One of the interesting findings of some research in this area suggests that attitudes about important aspects of correctional work can differ across gender. This is a particularly interesting line of research given the increase in female employees in correctional environments in recent decades (Kifer et al., 2003). Female officers may be more favorable to the human service component of correctional work than male officers (Farkas, 1999; Griffin, 2002; Jurik, 1985; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Kifer et al., 2003; Pogrebin & Poole, 1998; Walters, 1992). Farkas (1999) found that while females were more concerned than males about corruption of authority and were more favorable toward counseling roles, they were also more supportive of punitiveness than males. Jurik (1985) found gender to be significantly correlated with interest in the human service aspect of the job. Kifer et al. (2003) found that women were more supportive than men of the rehabilitative goal of corrections. In one study, females did show more support for rehabilitative versus custody approaches to their job (Walters, 1992). Another study found that males were more likely than females to develop punitive positions toward inmates (Bazemore & Dicker, 1994). This study extends the examination into the impact of gender on specific correctional officer attitudes.

Overall research on correctional officer professional orientation indicates that attitudes are multifaceted and not exclusively punitive or anti-inmate. Though research examining correctional officer perspectives has increased knowledge about the nature of these professionals, there are several lines of inquiry that remain underresearched in jail settings.

Pluralistic Ignorance

A topic that has garnered attention from scholars in social science is the phenomena of pluralistic ignorance: the idea that individuals inaccurately estimate the degree to which members of their group hold particular beliefs (Centola et al., 2005; D. T. Miller & McFarland, 1991). Scholars have examined this concept in several topic areas, including perceptions of support for drinking behavior among college students (Prentice & Miller, 1993), perceptions of support for racial segregation (Breed & Ktsanes, 1961; O’Gorman, 1975), and educator perceptions of support for using custodial methods to control students (Packard & Willower, 1972). The phenomena of pluralistic ignorance may emerge from misinterpretation of the position of others or from other people actually misrepresenting their position, a more likely prospect according to D. T. Miller and McFarland (1991). The reason people may misrepresent their position may be due to fear of social isolation or embarrassment, which may influence members of a group to portray beliefs in social settings that are rather divergent than the views they actually hold (Asch, 1951; D. T. Miller & McFarland, 1991).

An intriguing finding in research on prison correctional officers suggests that they often perceive their colleagues to be more favorable toward custody and opposed to noncustody work (such as counseling inmates) than they actually are (Cullen et al., 1989; Klofas & Toch, 1982). This exists when members of a group misunderstand the actual beliefs of their peer group (Kauffman, 1981). The first study to examine this issue with a prison correctional officer sample found that officers perceive their peers to be more aversive to inmates and less concerned with treatment than they actually are (Kauffman, 1981). Klofas and Toch (1982) found that prison officers generally overestimated the custody orientation of their peers and their preferred social distance from inmates while underestimating the levels of professionalism among their fellow officers. They also underestimated how many of their fellow officers believed that it is important to have compassion for inmates. This issue merits further investigation, especially because research on correctional officer perceptions of the attitudes of their peers has been undertaken primarily in prisons and includes limited topics. The presence of pluralistic ignorance may be particularly problematic in a jail setting. Although jails are less apt to address treatment needs of inmates than prisons, a humanistic approach to managing and communicating with inmates may have implications for both security and safety in facilities that experience heavy inmate turnover.

The current study examines correctional officer professional orientations, specifically their attitudes about (a) counseling roles, (b) punitiveness, (c) corruption of authority by inmates, and (d) social distance from inmates. We also explore whether professional orientations differ across officer gender. The study further examines correctional officer perceptions of their peer group concerning these same topics. This study is unique in exploring the topic of pluralistic ignorance among correctional officers toward two specific professional orientation items: adoption of counseling roles and corruption of authority by inmates. This study furthers inquiry into a topic that has received relatively little attention in general and has been traditionally overlooked in jail settings.

Method and Sample

Data were collected in 2008 from correctional officers in 13 Florida jails. The sample includes jails that agreed to participate and granted facility and staff access to researchers from all 67 total jail jurisdictions contacted in the state of Florida. We distributed 1,161 self-administered surveys to officers of all ranks who attended briefings during two separate shifts at each of the 13 participating facilities. The surveys were distributed to 41% of the 2,822 total officers employed at these jails.¹ The participants were asked to complete the survey and return them to the researchers through stamped and self-addressed return envelopes. The participants were advised that their participation was completely anonymous and voluntary.

The 13 participating jail facilities varied widely in their geographical location, size, personnel, housing, and supervision. The number of employed correctional officers at the participating jails ranged from 13 to 860 employed officers. The largest participating jail housed more than 3,000 inmates, while the smallest jail housed less than 100 inmates.² The participating jails were located in both urban and rural areas, and differed in geographical location across the state of Florida.

A total of 376 officers returned the surveys, a response rate of 32.4%.³ The sample of officers who returned surveys included 260 males (69%) and 115 females (31%; see Table 1). About 78% (n = 293) of the respondents were White and16% (n = 61) were Black. The sample was roughly identical to all officers employed at these facilities in terms of gender, yet the percentage of respondents who were White was slightly higher and Blacks slightly lower than the target population. While all the officers had at least a high school diploma or GED, most had also completed some education beyond this level. Almost half had received some college credit (48%, n = 181), about 21% (n = 78) had an associate’s degree, and 19% (n = 71) had a bachelor’s degree.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

	Codes	Sample (n = 376)	%	M	SD
Gender
Male	0	260	69.1
Female	1	115	30.6
Missing		1	0.3
Ethnicity
Hispanic	1	20	5.4
Non-Hispanic	0	352	94.6
Missing		4	1.1
Race
White	0	293	77.9
Black	1	61	16.2
Other	1	8	2.1
Missing		14	3.7
Education^a				3.23	1.31
HS or GED	1	38	10.1
Some college < 1 year	2	79	21.0
> 1 year college	3	102	27.1
Associates	4	78	20.7
Bachelors	5	71	18.9
Masters	6	6	1.6
Professional/doctorate	7	1	0.3
Missing		1	0.3
Age				4.38	1.94
18-25	1	26	6.9
26-30	2	40	10.6
31-35	3	58	15.4
36-40	4	79	21.0
41-45	5	71	18.9
46-50	6	44	11.7
51-55	7	29	7.7
56-60	8	18	4.8
Above 60	9	8	2.1
Missing		3	0.8
Political orientation				4.44	0.99
Extremely liberal	1	4	1.1
Very liberal	2	7	1.9
Liberal	3	26	6.9
Middle of the road	4	163	43.4
Conservative	5	119	31.6
Very conservative	6	28	7.4
Extremely conservative	7	11	2.9
Missing		18	4.8
Job satisfaction				6.92	2.09
Not at all satisfied	1	4	1.1
	2	11	0.9
	3	16	4.3
	4	14	3.7
	5	47	12.5
	6	39	10.4
	7	76	20.3
	8	86	22.9
	9	44	11.7
Extremely satisfied	10	38	10.1
Missing		1	0.3
Job stress				5.96	2.17
No stress	1	7	1.9
	2	18	4.8
	3	25	6.6
	4	35	9.3
	5	79	21.0
	6	50	13.3
	7	52	16.8
	8	45	12.0
	9	24	6.4
Extreme stress	10	23	6.1
Missing		8	2.1

Minimum education achieved.

More than half of the sample (56%, n = 208) was between 31 and 45 years of age at the time of data collection, while only 26% (n = 99) reported an age of 46 or older.

Data

Professional Orientation

The survey asked correctional officers questions about various aspects of their professional orientation using items taken directly from Whitehead et al. (1987). Respondents were asked several questions about their attitudes toward counseling roles, punitiveness, corruption of authority by inmates, and social distance from inmates.⁴ The statements about counseling roles included items such as “rehabilitation programs should be left to the mental health professionals,” and “if a correctional officer wants to do counseling, he should change jobs” (see Table 2). Response categories for all professional orientation items included strongly agree, agree, not sure, probably agree, not sure, probably disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Responses to the counseling roles items were coded so that higher values reflect more support for counseling roles and higher levels of professional orientation. The second professional orientation subtopic explored in this analysis is punitive orientation. Officers were asked three questions to gauge their level of punitive orientation, including “rehabilitation programs are a waste of time and money” and “improving jails for inmates makes them worse for officers” (see Table 2). These items were coded so that higher scores reflect greater punitive orientation and lower levels of professional orientation.

Table 2.

Professional Orientation Descriptive Statistics by Gender.

	n = 376	Number agreeing^a (percentage agreeing)^b	M^c (SD)	Male (n = 260)	Female (n = 115)	Mean gender difference^d
	n = 376	Number agreeing^a (percentage agreeing)^b	M^c (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	Mean gender difference^d
Counseling roles			3.33 (1.26)
Rehabilitation programs should be left to mental health professionals	372	132 (35.5)	3.30 (1.41)	3.32 (1.44)	3.28 (1.33)	0.04
Counseling is a job for counselors, not correctional officers	376	167 (44.4)	3.22 (1.55)	3.24 (1.56)	3.19 (1.54)	0.05
If a correctional officer wants to do counseling, he should change jobs	375	147 (39.2)	3.47 (1.61)	3.52 (1.59)	3.39 (1.65)	0.14
Punitive orientation			3.58 (1.08)
Rehabilitation programs are a waste of time and money^e	372	95 (25.5)	3.42 (1.44)	3.49 (1.43)	3.24 (1.43)	0.24
Improving jails for inmates makes them worse for officers^e	370	95 (25.7)	3.15 (1.56)	3.20 (1.55)	3.04 (1.57)	0.15
A military regime is the best way of running a jail^e	370	184 (49.7)	4.20 (1.41)	4.22 (1.41)	4.20 (1.37)	0.01
Corruption of authority			5.13 (0.79)
You can’t ever completely trust an inmate^e	374	303 (81.0)	5.06 (1.24)	5.05 (1.27)	5.09 (1.18)	−0.04
A good principle is not to get “close” to inmates^e	373	332 (89.0)	5.36 (1.02)	5.29 (1.09)	5.52 (0.84)	−0.22*
A personal relationship with an inmate invites corruption^e	372	334 (89.8)	5.45 (0.94)	5.39 (1.01)	5.59 (0.77)	−0.20*
You must keep conversations with inmates short and businesslike^e	372	279 (75.0)	4.80 (1.33)	4.77 (1.36)	4.88 (1.26)	−0.10
If an officer is lenient with inmates they will take advantage of him or her^e	373	288 (77.2)	4.96 (1.11)	5.04 (1.06)	4.78 (1.22)	0.26*
Social distance			3.73 (0.88)
A correctional officer should work hard to earn trust from inmates	371	147 (39.6)	3.39 (1.54)	3.22 (1.54)	3.75 (1.48)	−0.54
It is important for a correctional officer to have compassion	371	171 (46.1)	3.03 (1.33)	3.06 (1.32)	2.96 (1.36)	0.10
You get to like the inmates you supervise	372	56 (15.0)	4.09 (1.28)	4.18 (1.27)	3.89 (1.26)	0.28
Sometimes a correctional officer should be an advocate for an inmate	368	72 (19.6)	3.97 (1.33)	3.98 (1.34)	3.94 (1.28)	0.05
The way to get respect from inmates is to take an interest in them	371	51 (13.8)	4.21 (1.24)	4.18 (1.26)	4.28 (1.20)	−0.09

Includes responses “strongly agree” and “agree,” but does not include the response “not sure, probably agree.”

Valid percentage; includes responses “strongly agree” and “agree.”

Codes: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = not sure, probably agree, 4 = not sure, probably disagree, 5 = disagree, 6 = strongly disagree.

Mean difference tested through independent samples t test, *p < .05. **p < .01.

Reverse-coded item.

The respondents were asked five questions that addressed their concern about the ability of inmates to corrupt their authority. These statements included items such as “you can’t ever completely trust an inmate” and “a personal relationship with an inmate invites corruption” (see Table 2). These items were coded so that higher scores reflect more concern over corruption of authority or less professional orientation. The last professional orientation subtopic examined in this study is officer preference for social distance in their relationships with inmates. Officers were asked five questions to measure preference for social distance from inmates, including “it’s important for a correctional officer to have compassion” and “you get to like the inmates you supervise” (see Table 2). These items were coded so that higher scores reflect more preference for social distance from inmates or less professional orientation. We conducted an independent sample t test to further explore gender differences in correctional officer attitudes across all professional orientation items.

Pluralistic Ignorance

As previously noted, another goal of the research was to examine whether correctional officers accurately perceive the attitudes of their fellow officers regarding both inmates and their job. In addition to questions about their own professional orientations, officers were asked to estimate how officers in their facilities would answer questions about the professional orientation items. For each question gauging counseling roles, punitiveness, corruption of authority by inmates, and social distance from inmates, officers were asked to guess how other officers in their facility would answer each professional orientation question. They were further instructed to indicate whether all or most officers would agree or disagree with the items. The response categories allowed respondents to indicate whether almost all officers (more than 80%) or most officers (more than half but fewer than 80%) would agree or whether almost all officers (more than 80%) or most officers (more than half but fewer than 80%) would disagree with the statement. The responses to these questions were recoded into two categories, including overall agreement (which includes both the “almost all” and “most” would agree responses) and overall disagreement (which includes both the “almost all” and “most” would disagree responses). An independent sample t test was conducted to determine whether the expressed attitudes about the professional orientation items differ significantly from perceptions of how their group of peers would respond. The t tests were conducted across all professional orientation items to discover whether officers are pluralistically ignorant about the attitudes held by their peer group.

Results

Professional Orientation

Table 2 presents the results for professional orientation for the full sample and by gender. Full sample responses to items measuring correctional officer attitudes toward counseling roles indicated overall uncertainty about adopting counseling roles as part of the correctional officer job. The full sample response means of the counseling roles ranged from 3.22 (“Counseling is a job for counselors, not correctional officers”) to 3.47 (“If a correctional officer wants to do counseling, he should change jobs”; see Table 2). Recall that the response option of three indicated a response of “not sure, probably agree,” while the response value of four indicated “not sure, probably disagree.” There were no significant differences between males and females in response to the individual counseling role items, and these findings contrast previous research that indicated females as more favorable to the human service component of correctional work (Farkas, 1999; Griffin, 2002; Jurik, 1985; Kifer et al., 2003; Pogrebin & Poole, 1998).

As a whole, jail officers were somewhat punitive, and mean responses to these items ranged from 3.15 to 4.20 (see Table 2). The item producing the least punitive response among the full sample stated that “improving jails for inmates makes them worse for officers” (3.15). The item that garnered the most punitive response stated that “a military regime is the best way of running a jail” (4.20). The independent sample t test results indicated no significant difference between males and females in response to the punitive orientation items.

Responses for the corruption of authority items indicated that the sample was rather concerned with the corruption of their authority by inmates, which supports findings from previous research (Eigenberg, 2000; Toch & Klofas, 1982). The full sample response means ranged from 4.80 (indicating the least concern with keeping conversations short and businesslike) to 5.45 (indicating the most concern with personal relationships with inmates). These results indicated that officers as a group were more concerned with the effect of personal relationships over conversation on their ability to effectively manage inmates and exert their authority. The independent sample t tests indicated significant differences between males and females for three of the corruption of authority items. Female responses to the statement “a good principle is not to get ‘close’ to inmates” and “a personal relationship with an inmate invites corruption” indicated that they had more agreement with the item and therefore more concern over corruption of authority than males (see Table 2). Female responses to these items may reflect the difficulties presented by cross-gendered correctional supervision that may not be present for same-sex correctional supervision (Alpert & Crouch, 1991). Males had significantly higher responses to and more agreement with the statement “if an officer is lenient with inmates they will take advantage of him/her” than females did. Male responses to this item indicate more agreement with the item and more concern over leniency and corruption of authority than females (see Table 2). Other research has also found gender differences in beliefs about corruption of authority across gender (Eigenberg, 2000; Farkas, 1999).

The full sample showed some preference for social distance from inmates, similar to prior studies (Eigenberg, 2000; Farkas, 1999; Kassebaum et al., 1964; Shamir & Drory, 1981; Toch & Klofas, 1982). The item generating the most preference for social distance among the full sample stated, “The way to get respect from inmates is to take an interest in them” (4.21). The item with the lowest sample mean stated that “it is important for a correctional officer to have compassion” (3.03). The t test analysis revealed no significant differences between the gender subsamples on any social distance item (see Table 2).

With the exception of concern over corruption of authority, respondents in the full sample were somewhat moderate in their attitudes about professional orientation items. The t test results examining the gender differences in attitude, however, indicated that the only significant differences between the genders in response to the professional orientation items was that females showed more concern over two corruption of authority items than males did (see Table 2). Females were significantly more likely to be concerned with whether getting close to or having a personal relationship with inmates threatens their authority (a finding that mirrors prior studies that found gender was an important predictor of concern over corruption of authority; Eigenberg, 2000; Farkas, 1999).

Pluralistic Ignorance

A unique contribution of the current research was that it examined correctional officer perceptions about the professional orientations of their peer group and compared these perceptions with the attitudes that the group actually report. A visual inspection of percentages of the counseling role items indicated that 48% to 55% of the officers sampled did not support or accept counseling roles as part of their job, while 66% to 73% of officers perceived this to be true of their fellow officers (see Table 3). For example, only 54% of officers in the sample agreed that “counseling is a job for counselors, not correctional officers,” while 73% of officers believe their peer group would agree that counseling is not a job for officers. The independent sample t tests revealed significant differences between the attitudes that officers expressed and those they perceive the group of their colleagues to have. The means for actual officer expressions of counseling role items were significantly higher than the means for their perceptions of the attitudes of their fellow officers (see Table 3). Higher means for expressed attitudes indicated that officers were significantly more accepting of counseling roles than they perceive themselves and their peer group to be. These results suggest that officers in this sample were pluralistically ignorant about counseling roles and assumed their colleagues to be less accepting of counseling roles as part of the job function than they actually were. Though none of the studies discussed above specifically explored acceptance of counseling roles, Kauffman (1981) found that officers underestimated support for fellow officers to apply for a treatment position. Officers in that sample also overestimated aversion to treatment and counseling functions of the correctional environment (Kauffman, 1981).

Table 3.

Independent Sample t Tests Comparing Individual Attitudes With Perceptions of Group Attitudes.

	% agreement^a	M (SD)^b	Lower	Upper	t-value^c
Counseling roles
Attitudes^d: Rehabilitation programs should be left to mental health professionals	55	1.45 (0.50)	0.12	0.24	5.94**
Perceptions: Rehabilitation programs should be left to mental health professionals	73	1.27 (0.45)
Attitudes: Counseling is a job for counselors, not correctional officers	54	1.47 (0.50)	0.15	0.26	7.59**
Perceptions: Counseling is a job for counselors, not correctional officers	73	1.27 (0.44)
Attitudes: If a correctional officer wants to do counseling, he should change jobs	48	1.52 (0.050)	0.13	0.24	6.54**
Perceptions: If a correctional officer wants to do counseling, he should change jobs	66	1.34 (0.47)
Punitive orientation
Attitudes: Rehabilitation programs are a waste of time and money^e	44	1.44 (0.50)	−0.30	−0.18	−7.92**
Perceptions: Rehabilitation programs are a waste of time and money^e	68	1.68 (0.47)
Attitudes: Improving jails for inmates makes them worse for officers^e	38	1.38 (0.49)	−0.18	−0.08	−5.31**
Perceptions: Improving jails for inmates makes them worse for officers^e	51	1.51 (0.50)
Attitudes: A military regime is the best way of running a jail^e	71	1.70 (0.46)	−0.12	−0.02	−3.04**
Perceptions: A military regime is the best way of running a jail^e	77	1.77 (0.42)
Corruption of authority
Attitudes: You can’t ever completely trust an inmate^e	88	1.87 (0.33)	−0.12	−0.04	−4.07**
Perceptions: You can’t ever completely trust an inmate^e	95	1.95 (0.21)
Attitudes: A good principle is not to get “close” to inmates^e	93	1.93 (0.25)	−0.05	0.01	−1.15
Perceptions: A good principle is not to get “close” to inmates^e	95	1.95 (0.22)
Attitudes: A personal relationship with an inmate invites corruption^e	94	1.94 (0.23)	−0.04	0.01	−1.04
Perceptions: A personal relationship with an inmate invites corruption^e	95	1.96 (0.21)
Attitudes: You must keep conversations with inmates short and businesslike^e	83	1.82 (0.38)	−0.10	−0.01	−2.51*
Perceptions: You must keep conversations with inmates short and businesslike^e	88	1.88 (0.32)

% agreement indicates % who agree with the item (attitudes) and % who believe their peers agree with the item (perceptions).

1 = agree, 2 = disagree.

Mean difference tested through independent sample t test.

Attitudes reflect the percentage of sampled officers who agreed with this item, while perceptions reflect the percentage of sample officers who believed their colleagues would agree with this item.

Reverse-coded item.

p < .05. **p <.01. ***p < .001.

The results for punitive orientation items were quite similar. For example, while only 44% of officers in the sample tended to have a punitive orientation and agreed with the statement “rehabilitation programs are a waste of time and money,” most of the sample (68%) believed that their colleagues agreed with this statement and were punitive (see Table 3). A larger percentage of officers assumed that their peers agreed with the remaining punitive orientation items than actually did agree. These percentages imply that officers assumed their peers had more punitive correctional orientations than they actually did. According to the independent sample t tests, there were also significant differences between officer attitudes and their perceptions of those of their fellow officers. The means for actual officer expressions of all three items were significantly lower than the means for their perceptions of their fellow officer attitudes. Recall that higher means for these responses indicated more punitiveness regarding this item; therefore, the group of officers was actually less punitive than they anticipated themselves to be regarding rehabilitation programs and improvement and operations of jails. The findings in this section imply that, similar to prior research, officers misperceived their fellow officers to be more punitive than they actually were (Cullen et al., 1989; Kauffman, 1981; Klofas & Toch, 1982).

This study also uniquely contributed to the study of officer attitudes regarding corruption of their authority and their perceptions of how the group of their fellow officers perceived this issue. For two corruption of authority statements (“you can’t ever completely trust an inmate” and “you must keep conversations with inmates short and businesslike”), a larger percentage of officers assumed that their peers agreed than actually did agree (see Table 3). For example, only about 88% of the officers in the sample agreed with the statement “you can’t ever completely trust an inmate” suggesting concern over an inmate’s ability to corrupt their authority; however, when officers were asked to determine about how many of their fellow officers agreed with this statement, 95% of the officers in the sample indicated that their colleagues would agree. The independent samples t test also indicated that there were significant differences between officer attitudes and their perceptions of attitudes regarding these items. The t-values indicated that the means for perceptions of their fellow officer attitudes were higher than the means for their actual attitudes. Recall that these items were coded so that higher responses indicated more concern over corruption of authority; therefore, officers tended to believe that their colleagues were much more concerned with trusting and conversing with inmates than they actually were.

Officers in the sample were more accurate in their perceptions of their colleagues’ attitudes about the remaining corruption of authority items. Officers in the sample had relatively high levels of agreement for the items: “a good principle is not to get close to inmates,” “a personal relationship with an inmate invites corruption,” and “if an officer is lenient with inmates, they will take advantage of him or her.” There were no significant differences between the means for these items, indicating that officers had an accurate conception of their peers’ attitudes regarding relationships with inmates. Regarding the ability of inmates to corrupt officer authority then, officers had only moderate levels of pluralistic ignorance.

All of the comparisons for the social distance items suggested that officers perceived that their fellow officers had more preference for social distance than they actually expressed. For example, while 57% of the sample agreed with the statement “a correctional officer should work hard to earn trust from inmates,” only about 34% of the sample perceived that their fellow officers would agree with this statement (see Table 3). The results for the statements “it’s important for a correctional officer to have compassion,” “you get to like the inmates you supervise,” “sometimes a correctional officer should be an advocate for an inmate,” and “the way to get respect from inmates is to take an interest in them” were similar to those discussed above.

Independent sample t tests revealed significant differences between the attitudes that officers expressed and those that they perceived the group of their fellow officers to have. All sample means for officer perceptions of their fellow officer attitudes regarding social distance were significantly higher than actual officer attitudes. Because higher means indicated more preference for social distance, the findings indicated that officers in the sample perceived their group to prefer more social distance in relationships with inmates than they actually preferred. Prior research also found that officers tended to overestimate their preference for social distance and to underestimate their willingness to advocate and act compassionately for inmates (Kauffman, 1981; Klofas & Toch, 1982).

Overall, officers in this sample were incorrect in estimating the normative attitudes of their peers. The results indicate strong support for a case of pluralistic ignorance concerning adoption of counseling roles, punitiveness, and social distance from inmates. They were more willing to accept counseling roles as part of their job duties, they were less punitive, and they preferred less social distance from inmates than they perceived of their group of fellow officers. They were moderately less concerned over the ability of inmates to corrupt their authority than they perceived. These findings support prior studies that found officers to be more supportive of rehabilitation, less custody oriented, and less aversive to inmates than they expected (Cullen et al., 1989; Kauffman, 1981; Klofas & Toch, 1982).

Discussion and Conclusions

The findings of this research suggest that this sample of jail correctional officers includes people with multifaceted professional orientations. Officers were somewhat uncertain about accepting counseling roles as part of their job, were somewhat punitive, and were concerned with inmate ability to corrupt their authority. Female officers were also somewhat more concerned about an inmate’s ability to corrupt their authority than male officers were (similar to findings in Farkas, 1999), yet in contrast to prior research, there were no significant differences in punitiveness across gender (Bazemore & Dicker, 1994). The concern female officers expressed in this study could indicate overall worry about being particularly vulnerable targets for manipulation given that the corruption of authority items addressed the danger implicit in getting too close to inmates. Officers also showed some preference to keep social distance between themselves and inmates. Overall, these findings support much of the prior research on these topics that has been conducted in other types of facilities (Cullen et al., 1989; Eigenberg, 2000; Farkas, 1999; Jacobs & Kraft, 1978; Kassebaum et al., 1964; Kifer et al., 2003; Klofas & Toch, 1982; Pogrebin & Poole, 1988; Shamir & Drory, 1981; Toch & Klofas, 1982; Whitehead et al., 1987). Yet the findings are particularly interesting given the context of the research. Because inmate stays at jails are typically shorter than prison stays, officers may feel more able or compelled to keep social distance from inmates. Similarly, because jails are less likely than prisons to have treatment and education programs, officers employed in jails may be less familiar with the rehabilitative component of correctional systems and more comfortable with its custody objectives (Applegate & Sitren, 2008; Ruddell & Mays, 2007). Similarly, officers working in jails who do support the rehabilitative component of corrections may not be as situated as those working in prisons to embrace it as one of the responsibilities of their job. Even though they are not always situated to offer counseling and treatment programs, they have populations that may particularly benefit from these services as jail inmates suffer from mental health and substance abuse problems (Abram & Teplin, 1991; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008; Clear et al., 2006; Goss et al., 2002; Guy et al., 1985; Kimme, 1988; Klofas, 1990; E. E. Miller, 1978; O’Toole, 1997; Tartaro, 2003; Teplin, 1990, 1994; Welsh, 1992).

Officers tended to be rather pluralistically ignorant in their perceptions about their peer group beliefs. Officers perceived the group of their fellow officers to be less accepting of counseling roles and more punitive than they actually were. They also perceived their peers to prefer more social distance from inmates than they actually did prefer. In addition, they perceived their peers to be moderately more concerned over some aspects of an inmate’s ability to corrupt their authority. These findings offer support for the theory of pluralistic ignorance. While officers may themselves hold rather progressive attitudes about the nature of their job and dealings with inmates, they misunderstand their peers to be less progressive. Their interpretations of their peers’ belief systems are illusory.

There are several practical and policy implications associated with these findings. These misperceptions may contribute to fueling less progressive and more custody-oriented dialogue in group interactions. The impact of these cognitive errors may have implications for the experience of both officers during their careers and inmates during their incarcerations. In other words, if beliefs about group norms persist, officers may be more prone to exhibit and perpetuate less progressive and more punitive attitudes toward inmates and their treatment even if they would not do so otherwise. This is especially risky given that jails already may have a much smaller focus on rehabilitative philosophy due to type of inmate and length of stay (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007). In other words, jails may already be at risk for perpetuating punitiveness as a goal of corrections given that they have less educational and treatment programming in place than prisons typically do. Punitive attitudes can be exacerbated by perceptions of group norms if the perception is that the group prefers punitive and procustody orientations.

The perpetuation of the perception of punitiveness as a group norm that is, in reality, not supported also becomes problematic given that many jail inmates are unconvicted and eventually leave jail (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007). Continuing to foster only custody-oriented goals of correctional institutions has real implications in a society where inmates eventually return to the community (Petersilia, 2003; Travis, Soloman, & Waul, 2001). Some even suggest that the phenomena of pluralistic ignorance can impact individuals to change their previously held belief systems or reductions in group cohesion (D. T. Miller & McFarland, 1991). Though correctional institutions foster both correctional and inmate subculture systems that perpetuate the “us versus them” mentality, the tendency for this phenomena to develop may be less common in jail facilities that see high amounts of inmate turnover. Therefore, jails and jail administrators may be particularly situated to reduce some of the effects of this phenomena by increasing officer professionalism and reducing pluralistic ignorance.

The current research is limited in external validity and therefore its findings are limited to one state and the jails and officers who were willing to participate in the study. Jails and officers who were willing to participate may be rather different than those that did not participate, thus the findings may be an artifact of the types of officers and administrators that supported and participated in the research. Despite these limitations, the current research addresses a population and a context that generally has been overlooked in the literature, that of a correctional officer in a jail. The study also focuses on a topic that has been relatively ignored in much of the correctional officer literature. The research extends critical understanding of correctional officer attitudinal research to the jail context and explores both individual attitudes and perceptions of group attitudes about working in corrections and managing jails.

Future research should continue to investigate gender differences in professional orientation, particularly due to the lack of clarity that exists about whether differences exist. For example, though the current study found no differences in punitive attitudes, Farkas (1999) found female officers in a jail setting to be more punitive than male officers. As there are no gender differences in acceptance of counseling roles, other research findings that indicate that female officers prefer human service components of the job may not extend to this sample. Researchers should also continue to explore the issues of correctional officer professional orientation and pluralistic ignorance in jail settings to determine whether results of this study are generalizable to other settings. Specifically, scholars should continue to examine whether there are distinctions in correctional officer attitudes between prison and jail facilities given that the institutions serve distinct functions. Analysis of these issues should be extended to continue to disentangle the professional orientation of officers to determine whether other factors, such as institutional context, impact attitudes. In addition, researchers should examine correctional officer attitudes in a multivariate context to determine the impact of important variables while controlling for other factors. It is vital for researchers to continue this line of inquiry considering that jails serve a critical function in the correctional process and that correctional officers serve on the front lines in dealing with the correctional population.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abram

K. M.

Teplin

L. A.

(1991). Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: Implications for public policy. American Psychologist, 46, 1036-1045.

Alpert

G. P.

Crouch

B. M.

(1991). Cross-gender supervision, personal privacy, and institutional security: Perceptions of jail inmates and staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 304-317.

Applegate

B. K.

Sitren

A. H.

(2008). The jail and the community: Comparing jails in rural and urban contexts. The Prison Journal, 88, 252-269.

Asch

S. E.

(1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In Guetzkow

(Ed.), Groups, leadership and men: Research in human relations (pp. 177-190). New York, NY: Russell & Russell.

Bazemore

Dicker

T. J.

(1994). Explaining detention worker orientation: Individual characteristics, occupational conditions, and organizational environment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 297-312.

Blumstein

Beck

(1999). Population growth in U.S. prisons, 1980-1996. In Tonry

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 26, pp. 17-61). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Breed

Ktsanes

(1961). Pluralistic ignorance in the process of opinion formation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 382-392.

Britton

D. M.

(1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do race and sex matter? Criminology, 35, 85-106.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2008). Deaths in custody statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcrp/dictabs.cfm

10.

Castle

T. L.

Martin

J. S.

(2006). Occupational hazard: Predictors of stress among jail correctional officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 65-80.

11.

Centola

Willer

Macy

(2005). The emperor’s dilemma: A computational model of self-enforcing norms. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1009-1040.

12.

Cheeseman

K. A.

Kim

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

(2011). Correctional officer perceptions of inmates and overall job satisfaction. Journal of Crime & Justices, 34, 81-102.

13.

Clear

T. R.

Cole

G. F.

Reisig

M. D.

(2006). American corrections (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

14.

Cook

C. L.

(2009). Jail staff professional orientation & attitudes towards victimization. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304884756?accountid=11078

15.

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

Frank

(1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 505-534.

16.

Cullen

F. T.

Lutze

F. E.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

(1989). The correctional orientation of prison guards: Do officers support rehabilitation? Federal Probation, 53, 33-42.

17.

Del Carmen

R. V.

Witt

Hume

Ritter

(1990). Texas jails: Law and practice. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston Press.

18.

Dillman

(2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.

19.

Dillman

Dolsen

D. E.

Machlis

G. E.

(1995). Increasing response to personally-delivered mail-back questionnaires. Journal of Official Statistics, 11, 129-139.

20.

Duffee

(1974). The correction officer subculture and organizational change. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 11, 155-172.

21.

Eigenberg

(1994). Rape in male prisons: Examining the relationship between correctional officers’ attitudes toward male rape and their willingness to respond to acts of rape. In Braswell

Montgomery

Lombardo

(Eds.), Prison violence (2nd ed., pp. 145-165). New York, NY: Anderson.

22.

Gaines

Kaune

Miller

(2000). Criminal justice in action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

23.

Goss

J. R.

Peterson

Smith

L. W.

Kalb

Brodey

B. B.

(2002). Characteristics of suicide attempts in a large urban jail system with an established suicide prevention program. Psychiatric Services, 53, 574-579.

24.

Griffin

M. L.

(2002). The influence of professional orientation on detention officers’ attitudes towards the use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 250-277.

25.

Griffin

M. L.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

(2012). Doing “people work” in the prison setting: An examination of the job characteristics model and correctional staff burnout. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1131-1147.

26.

Guerino

Harrison

P. M.

Sabol

W. J.

(2011). Prisoners in 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf

27.

Guy

Platt

J. J.

Zwerling

Bullock

(1985). Mental health status of prisoners in an urban jail. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 29-53.

28.

Hemmens

Stohr

M. K.

(2001). Correctional staff attitudes regarding the use of force in corrections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 27-40.

29.

Jacobs

J. B.

Kraft

L. J.

(1978). Integrating the keepers: A comparison of black and white prison guards in Illinois. Social Problems, 25, 304-318.

30.

Jurik

N. C.

(1985). Individual and organizational determinants of correctional officer attitudes toward inmates. Criminology, 23, 523-540.

31.

Jurik

N. C.

Halemba

G. J.

(1984). Gender, working conditions and the job satisfaction of women in a nontraditional occupation: Female correctional officers in men’s prisons. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 551-566.

32.

Jurik

N. C.

Halemba

Musheno

Boyle

(1987). Educational attainment, job satisfaction, and the professionalization of correctional officers. Work and Occupations, 14, 106-125.

33.

Kassebaum

G. G.

Ward

D. A.

Wilner

D. M.

(1964). Some correlates of staff ideology in the prison. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 1, 96-109.

34.

Katz

Allport

F. H.

(1931). Students’ attitudes: A report of the Syracuse university reaction study. Syracuse, NY: Craftsman Press.

35.

Kauffman

(1981). Prison officers’ attitudes and perceptions of attitudes: A case of pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 18, 272-294.

36.

Kellar

Jaris

Manboah-Roxin

(2001). Texas jail survey 2001: A status report. Austin: Texas Commission on Jail Standards. Retrieved from http://www.tcjs.state.tx.us/index.php?linkID=300

37.

Kerle

(1982). The rural jail: Its people, problems and solutions. In Cronk

S. D.

Jankovic

Green

R. K.

(Eds.), Criminal justice in rural America (pp. 189-204). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Development, Testing, and Dissemination.

38.

Kifer

Hemmens

Stohr

M. K.

(2003). The goals of corrections: Perspectives from the line. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 47-69.

39.

Kimme

D. A.

(1988). The nature of new small jails. American Jails, 1, 40-51.

40.

Klofas

(1990). The jail and the community. Justice Quarterly, 7, 69-102.

41.

Klofas

Toch

(1982). The guard subculture myth. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 19, 238-254.

42.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton-Bellessa

S. M.

(2011). The association between perceptions of distributive justice and procedural justice with support of treatment and support of punishment among correctional staff. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 202-230.

43.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton-Bellessa

S. M.

Jiang

(2012). Examining the relationship between supervisor and management trust and job burnout among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 938-957.

44.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

(2010). Take this job and shove it: An exploratory study of turnover intent among jail staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 139-148.

45.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

(2012). Exploring potential antecedents of job involvement: An exploratory study among jail staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 264-286.

46.

Mattick

H. W.

(1974). The contemporary jails of the United States: An unknown and neglected area of justice. In Glaser

(Ed.), Handbook of criminology (pp. 777-848). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

47.

Miller

D. T.

McFarland

(1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In Suls

Wills

T. A.

(Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 287-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

48.

Miller

E. E.

(1978). Jail management: Problems, programs, and perspectives. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

49.

Miller

(1982). A needs assessment for small jails in the United States. In Cronk

S. D.

(Ed.), Criminal justice in rural America (pp. 205-229). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

50.

O’Gorman

H. J.

(1975). Pluralistic ignorance and White estimates of White support for racial segregation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 313-330.

51.

O’Toole

(1997). Jails and prisons: The numbers say they are more different than generally assumed. American Jails, 11, 27-31.

52.

Packard

J. S.

Willower

D. J.

(1972). Pluralistic ignorance and pupil control ideology. Journal of Educational Administration, 10, 78-87.

53.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

54.

Pogrebin

M. R.

Poole

E. D.

(1988). The work orientations of jail personnel: A comparison of deputy sheriffs and career line officers. Policy Studies Review, 7, 606-614.

55.

Pogrebin

M. R.

Poole

E. D.

(1998). Women deputies and jail work. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 14, 117-134.

56.

Poole

E. D.

Regoli

R. M.

(1980). Role stress, custody orientation, and disciplinary actions: A study of prison guards. Criminology, 18, 215-226.

57.

Prentice

D. A.

Miller

D. T.

(1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 243-256.

58.

Ruddell

Mays

G. L.

(2007). Rural jails: Problematic inmates, overcrowded cells, and cash-strapped counties. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 251-260.

59.

Sabol

W. J.

(2008a). Jail inmates at midyear 2007. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1005

60.

Sabol

W. J.

(2008b). Prison inmates at midyear 2007. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=840

61.

Schmalleger

Smykla

(2007). Corrections in the 21st century (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

62.

Shamir

Drory

(1981). Some correlates of prison guards’ beliefs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8, 233-249.

63.

Stephan

J. J.

(2001). Census of jails, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cj99.pdf

64.

Summerlin

Oehme

Stern

Valentine

(2010). Disparate levels of stress in police and correctional officers: Preliminary evidence from a pilot study on domestic violence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20, 762-777.

65.

Sykes

(1958). The society of captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

66.

Tartaro

(2003). Suicide and the jail environment: An evaluation of three types of institutions. Environment and Behavior, 35, 605-620.

67.

Teplin

L. A.

(1990). The prevalence of severe mental disorders among male urban jail detainees: Comparisons with the epidemiologic catchment area program. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 663-669.

68.

Teplin

L. A.

(1994). Psychiatric and substance abuse disorders among male urban jail detainees. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 290-293.

69.

Toch

Klofas

(1982). Alienation and desire for job enrichment among correction officers. Federal Probation, 46, 35-44.

70.

Travis

Soloman

A. L.

Waul

(2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

71.

Walters

(1992). Attitudinal and demographic differences between male and female correctional officers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 18, 173-189.

72.

Welsh

W. N.

(1992). The dynamics of jail reform litigation: A comparative analysis of litigation in California counties. Law & Society Review, 26, 591-625.

73.

West

H. C.

Sabol

W. J.

(2008). Prisoners in 2007. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=903

74.

Whitehead

Linquist

Klofas

(1987). Correctional officer professional orientation: A replication of the Klofas-Toch measure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 468-486.

75.

Zupan

L. L.

(1986). Gender-related differences in correctional officers’ perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 349-361.