The Influence of Rehabilitative and Punishment Ideology on Correctional Officers’ Perceptions of Informal Bases of Power

Abstract

Maintaining order is a key goal for prison managers. Much of the research on order maintenance focuses, however, on disruptions of order, even when order is more common. Examining factors related to perceptions on how officers get inmates to comply is, therefore, an important consideration. Using a survey of correctional officers from a Mid-Atlantic state, this study considers three dimensions of French and Raven’s theory on the bases of power. The focus is to examine correctional orientation and compliance regarding three dimensions of power that rely on informal control and relationships. The results indicate that officers’ belief in rehabilitative ideals is consistently related to the dimensions of legitimate, referent, and expert control. Other individual and organizational factors are also related to dimensions of power. Implications for policies and for future research are discussed.

Keywords

correctional officer correctional ideology bases of power

Introduction

The size of the imprisoned population in the United States is extraordinary, considering that today there are more than 1.4 million inmates being watched by half a million employees across thousands of prisons (Maguire, 2012). The control of the prison environment ultimately lies in the hands of the officers, administrators, and staff. Maintaining order in prison is essential for the safety of all, yet we know little about compliance in prison. The primary focus has been on the breakdown of order rather than the maintenance of it, as illustrated with literature emphasizing collective action by prisoners (e.g., Colvin, 1992, 2007; Steiner, 2009; Useem & Goldstone, 2002; Useem & Kimball, 1989; Useem & Piehl, 2006; Useem & Reisig, 1999); individuals’ violence, such as inmates’ rule breaking, disciplinary infractions; inmate on inmate violence (e.g., Camp, Gaes, Logan, & Saylor, 2003; S. A. French & Gendreau, 2006; Huebner, 2003; Steiner, 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008); or inmate on staff violence (e.g., Huebner, 2003). Given this, a shift in focus examining efforts related to maintaining order is warranted and suggested by Marquart (2008) who advises concentrating on “why don’t they [inmates] riot.” A facet of this equation lies within the understanding of the officers’ perceptions and means of gaining control within the prison environment.

One organizational theory used to explore how officers gain compliance is J. R. P. French and Raven’s (1959) bases of power (Hepburn, 1985; Stichman & Gordon, 2014; Stojkovic, 1984, 1986). In prison, order can be achieved through five types of power: coercive (e.g., physical force), reward (formal and informal benefits), expert (skills), legitimate (respect for the officer’s position), and referent (respect for the officer himself or herself). Although there has been criticism on the lack of clarity in defining these power bases (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Rahim, 1989; Rahim & Buntzman, 1991), this typology is the most widely used of all the power definitions and applied to numerous organizations and situations (e.g., Aquinis, Nesler, Quigley, Lee, & Tedeschi, 1996; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990, 1994; Raven, 1988). Among correctional employees, research suggests that some types of power may be more effective than others in changing behavior and leading to greater commitment to the organization by employees (Rahim & Buntzman, 1991; Stichman & Gordon, 2014; Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2007).

Intuitively, correctional staff influence affects the day-to-day interactions and compliance among inmates; as discussed in the literature, they play a pivotal role in the daily environment. Therefore, considering officers’ perception of how they view the characteristics, functions, and impact of their job on the environment is critical (Kifer, Hemmens, & Stohr, 2003; Liebling, 2000; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2013). It is the precise balance in the relationship between officers and inmates that upholds harmony through the use of legitimacy and power (Liebling, 2004; Sparks, Bottoms, & Hay, 1996). Research indicates positive staff to prisoner relationships and use of informal interactions are more likely to exist when the existence of rehabilitative ideals are present or held by officers (Crewe, Liebling, & Hulley, 2011). And while some information exists, to date, examining the perceived means of gaining compliance of inmates among correctional staff has not considered correctional orientation. Given this, the present study examined officer orientation to predict perceptions toward the base of power that rely on building a culture of legitimacy, informal control, respect, and understanding rather than the use of physical or incentives to gain compliance. That is, the goal was to advance the literature through the analysis of officer perceptions of correctional orientation and belief in the use of referent, expert, and legitimate bases of power to maintain order.

Power in Organizations

Historically, organizations are described as social groupings constructed to seek particular goals and are characterized by divisions of labor and the power to achieve objectives (Etzioni, 1964). Compliance in an organization is essential as its success depends on the ability to control participants; power is a mechanism to make people obey (Etzioni, 1964). Participants’ compliance and contributions to the organization are enhanced by the various inducements they receive from the organization (March & Simon, 1961). Such organizational qualities are viewed as applicable today.

In a prison, power relationships can be experienced or perceived as accute circumstances, as there are more clear distinctions between rulers and subjects (Cressey, 1965; McCleery, 1960; Stohr & Collins, 2009; Thomas & Petersen, 1977). Correctional officers are critical to achieving the goals of the prison organization (Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2008). If staff believe themselves to be powerless in their jobs, they are likely to be ineffective in maintaining order (Stohr & Collins, 2009). Power has many different definitions and dimensions; some view only the coercive dimension of it (i.e., people have power by getting someone to do something he or she otherwise would not do), while others define power as the product of exchange relationships in organizations (Stojkovic et al., 2007). It is this exchange relationship that affects the organizational culture in prisons, allowing maintenance of order to be achieved even in the absence of the physical presence of correctional staff.

The present study focused on the bases of power that do not require the presence of an officer (Raven, 1988), expert, legitimate, and referent to identify the extent to which individual and organizational factors influence the use of such compliance measures. Legitimate power is based on a person’s perception that another has a genuine right to order him or her to act in a certain way (J. R. P. French & Raven, 1959). In prison, this power originates from the structural position of the officer and his or her formal authority to command (Cressey, 1965; Goffman, 1961; Hepburn, 1985). In other words, the officer has power simply because he or she is an officer; the obedience lies in the person’s organizational position rather than as a result of the person’s individual characteristics (Weber, 1961). Many correctional officers believe their power over prisoners resides in the officers’ incumbency in office (Hepburn, 1985; Lombardo, 1981). Other scholars state that legitimate power does not just originate from the position or the “institutionalization of authority” but in the inmates’ acceptance that the officer has the right to occupy that position (Carson, Carson, & Roe, 1993). In fact, Stichman (2003) found that many inmates do accept that officers have the right to be obeyed.

A correctional officer has expert power if prisoners perceive him or her as having some special skill or knowledge (Hepburn, 1985). In custody-oriented facilities, officers may view their ability to resolve disputes as expert power (Hepburn, 1985). Inmates might be reluctant, however, to accept officers’ expertise in controlling a prison (Stichman, 2003). Regardless, there is a belief that conformity may be achieved in officers’ power over inmates resulting from ones reputation for competency in their job and good judgment (Hepburn, 1985).

The final base of power, referent power, is where prisoners obey an officer because of their respect and admiration for those officers. This power differs from legitimate power because referent power is defined as respect for the person, not the position. Fair and impartial officers tend to get more respect from inmates (Morris & Morris, 1963; Sykes, 1958). Given this, a climate of impartiality can achieve inmate compliance to a higher degree even with the absence of a physically present officer.

Although the research investigating bases of power within the prisons is limited (e.g., Hepburn, 1985; Marquart, 2008, Stichman, 2003; Stichman & Gordon, 2014), the findings suggest support for consideration of legitimate, expert, and referent power. For example, Hepburn found that legitimate and expert powers were considered the most important reasons why inmates comply. The results imply that officers believe their control over prisoners is based on their job positions and on their reputations for competence and good judgment. In addition, Stichman (2003) identified that many inmates accepted both the institutionalization of authority and the officers’ right to occupy that office, showing support for both legitimate and referent power.

Correctional Orientation

When considering the exchange relationship necessary to establish respect or legitimacy between people, as found with expert, legitimate, and referent power, it is essential to examine the correctional orientation of officers. This is true as correctional orientation has been shown to be a pivotal factor in the type and effect of interactions between officers and inmates on a daily basis (Farkas, 1999; M. Gordon, 2006). Specifically, belief in a rehabilitative philosophy is influential in establishing positive inmate relationships.

Broadly conceived correctional orientation examines two major philosophies: support for rehabilitation and support for punishment (Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd, 1993). In essence, a punitive ideology assumes inmates should be punished for wrongdoings (Blevins, Cullen, Frank, Sundt, & Holmes, 2006), and a rehabilitative view emphasizes the importance of treating specific criminogenic factors (Griffin, 2002). On face value, the two dimensions of correctional orientation appear divergent; however, research has found that they are not always discordant. That is, correctional employees may support both philosophies to varying degrees as is true when examining the general public (Cullen, Pealer, Fisher, Applegate, & Santana, 2002, Pickett & Baker, 2014; Pickett, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2014).

Prior research has considered the influence of correctional orientation on a variety of individual and organizational factors. Examination of individual experience stems from the concept of importation regarding inmate behavior (Irwin & Cressey, 1962). Similar to inmates, it suggests that the employee characteristics shape their beliefs, attitudes, and work experiences (Blevins, Cullen, & Sundt, 2007; Britton, 1997; Sundt & Cullen, 2002; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). The influence of organizational factors is formed after the prisonization model echoing that prison itself affects those who work or live within the environment (Lombardo, 1981). Research indicates the prisonization model, or combination of organizational factors and job function, influences responses, interactions, and attitudes toward various aspects of the daily routine (Sundt & Cullen, 2002; Van Voorhis et al., 1991).

Correctional orientation is associated with a variety of organizational elements that influence the efficacy of the institutional environment. To illustrate, the belief in rehabilitative ideals is linked to positive organizational citizenship, organizational commitment, interactions with inmates, and job satisfaction (Caeti, Hemmens, Cullen, & Burton, 2003; Farkas, 1999; Lambert, Barton-Bellessa, & Hogan, 2013; Lambert & Hogan, 2008; Lambert, Hogan, Barton, & Elechi, 2009). In turn, many of the factors affect the organizational climate through relationships with employee turnover, burnout, safety, fairness, and leave time (Baker, Gordon, & Taxman, 2014; Griffin, Hogan, Lambert, Tucker, & Baker, 2010; Lambert & Paoline, 2010; Taxman & Gordon, 2009).

Examining the influence of support for rehabilitation and support for punishment with identified uses of power becomes important for a variety of reasons. First, knowing if and in what manner correctional orientation is linked to factors influencing compliance is central in considering respect and cooperation within the environment. Second, administrators view the attainment and adherence of organization philosophy, or lack thereof, as dependent on officers’ agreement with such values (J. Gordon, 1999). Correctional orientation is also influential on the interaction between officer and inmate (Farkas, 1999; Hogan, Lambert, & Barton-Bellessa, 2012; Robinson et al., 1993). And, finally, research suggests more positive relationships and interactions between officers and inmates occur when officers possess favorable attitudes toward rehabilitation (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Molleman, van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2013).

Method

The goal of the present study was to build on the knowledge regarding the role of correctional philosophy and officer compliance. It was hypothesized that officers who possess positive attitudes toward rehabilitative philosophy would be more likely to report support for each base of power. This support is due to the importance of fostering a positive inmate to staff relationship to promote and maintain a safe environment for both variables. To address this issue, the present study used secondary analysis of data from a survey of correctional officers in a Mid-Atlantic state. In cooperation with the state’s Department of Corrections (DOC), the surveys were mailed to each institution and distributed to each correctional officer in the state during spring 2006; an accompanying letter emphasized the confidentiality of the responses, the importance of the officers’ completing the survey, the contact information of the researchers, and instructions for completing and returning the study. Survey packets were provided to each institution with less than a 30% response rate. The final number of returned surveys was 1,273 (N = 6,983), which is an 18.2% response rate. A response rate of 18% may not be viewed as high, comparative to other research; however, as the goal is to examine perceptions predicting relatively exploratory measures, an acceptable threshold is viewed as above 10% as indicated by Rogelberg et al. (2003) and Rogelberg and Stanton (2007).

The sample was mostly non-White (51%; of those categorized as non-White, 98.8% identified themselves as Black/African American), male (64.5%), had received a high school diploma/GED as the highest degree (69.2%), and worked in a medium-security prison (64.7%). A majority of officers had worked for the DOC for more than 5 years (69.4%), with an average time of 10.2 years (SD = 7.2). The average age was 43.44 years (SD = 9.8). Due to the response rate of 18.23%, the sample characteristics were compared with the population. When compared with the correctional officer population in the state, the sample was slightly older (population mean = 39.4 years) and had worked longer in the prisons (population mean = 5.14 years). Finally, the sample also appeared to over-represent low medium security (sample: 43%; population: 27%) and under-represent maximum security (sample: 17%; population 27%).

Measurement

Dependent variables

Examination of officer perceptions toward the use of three bases of power served as the primary dependent variable. Recall, although there are five bases of power espoused and measured in prior research, the present study’s focus was on legitimate, expert, and referent because each relies on informal exchange relationships and the absence of the physical presence of an officer. Originally, each base of power was measured with two to five items designed to examine the different aspects of each type of power, and the creation of scales was intended. Unfortunately, due to limited variation on some questions or negligible reliability analysis, the items were not combined. Given this, single-item measures were used for all dependent variables. The items chosen to represent each power base had the greatest amount of variation, the clearest fit with the definition of the power base, and parallel phrasing among the three items.

Legitimate power asks whether “inmates respect the position of the correctional officers.” Expert power states “inmates listen to me because of my expertise.” And referent power is measured with “inmates respect me personally.” These items were created for this study based on J. R. P. French and Raven’s (1959) definitions to get at the simple meaning of each power base. Each item contained a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). Table 1 indicates that officers tend to perceive that they use referent, expert, and legitimate power to gain inmate compliance. An ordinal logit model, specifically the proportional or cumulative odds model, was used for the analysis. Ordinal logit models are extensions of logistic models, which are used when the dependent variable is dichotomous (O’Connell, 2006).

Table 1.

Descriptive Information for Measures.

Item/scale	N	Range	Median	M	SD
Dependent variables
Legitimate power	1,206	1-5	4	2.47	0.70
Expert power	1,201	1-5	4	2.65	0.70
Referent power	1,194	1-5	4	2.86	0.63
Independent variables (scales)
Rehabilitation support	1,229	1-5	4	4.09	0.63
Incapacitation support	1,229	1-5	3.4	3.37	0.73
Control variables
Age (range = 20-74)	1,143	20-74	44	43.43	9.82
Non-White	1,124	0-1	1	0.51	0.50
Male	1,221	0-1	1	0.67	0.47
HS degree or greater	1,203	0-1	0	0.30	0.46
Length with DOC	1,243	0-35	9	10.22	7.45
Security level	1,257	1-4	2	2.38	0.973
Organizational commitment	1,228	1-5	3.44	3.37	0.78
Procedural justice	1,226	1-5	3.07	3.09	0.70
Distributive justice	1,220	1.08-5	3	3.01	0.46

Note. HS = high school; DOC = department of corrections.

Independent variables

Officers’ beliefs regarding the purposes of incarcerating inmates could influence their views on how to get inmates to obey (Hepburn, 1985); therefore, their views regarding punitive philosophy or correctional orientation were considered. Likewise, correctional orientation has been correlated with a number of varying work-related factors among the institutional setting (Blevins et al., 2006, 2007; Caeti et al., 2003; Farkas, 1999; Lambert & Hogan, 2008; Lambert et al., 2009, 2014). Again, the possession of correctional philosophy is also influenced by informal control through the development of positive relationships (Beijersbergen et al., 2013; Crewe et al., 2011).

The survey included items asking “the best way to reduce crime is . . .,” with a corresponding Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The rehabilitation support scale (Cronbach’s α = .833) combines four items dealing with getting criminals effective treatment, making sure that treatment is matched to their needs, and providing more treatment. The incapacitation support scale (Cronbach’s α = .815) combines five items on keeping criminals (drug, violent, and nonviolent) in prison/jail and off the streets. Higher scores in each of these scales or variables indicate more support for the goal. Based on the scale means listed in Table 2, it appears that officers are generally supportive of each of these goals of corrections.¹

Table 2.

Ordinal Logit Models for Legitimate, Expert, and Referent Power.

Variables	Legitimate		Expert		Referent
Variables	b (SE)	OR	b (SE)	OR	b (SE)	OR
Intercept 1	0.74 (.75)		−0.32 (.75)		−2.62*** (.82)
Intercept 2	3.45 (.76)		2.51 (.75)		−0.18** (.80)
Intercept 3	6.99 (.79)		5.41 (.76)		3.26*** (.81)
Rehabilitation support	0.40** (.10)	1.49	0.33*** (.10)	1.39	0.44*** (.11)	1.55
Incapacitation support	−0.12 (.09)	0.88	0.06 (.09)	1.06	−0.19* (.10)	0.83
Age	0.00 (.01)	1.00	0.00 (.01)	1.00	−0.00 (.01)	1.00
Non-White	0.20 (.14)	1.23	0.03 (.13)	1.03	−0.12 (.14)	0.89
Male	0.01 (.15)	1.01	0.22 (.14)	1.23	0.13 (.16)	1.14
HS degree or higher	−0.05 (.14)	1.05	0.10 (.69)	1.10	−0.01 (.07)	0.99
Length at DOC	0.02 (.05)	1.02	0.04*** (.05)	1.04	0.01 (.01)	1.01
Security level	−0.21*** (.06)	0.81	0.03 (.06)	1.03	−0.05 (.07)	0.95
Organizational commitment	0.40*** (.12)	1.49	0.17 (.12)	1.17	0.11 (.14)	1.12
Procedural justice	0.35** (.13)	1.42	0.28* (.13)	1.32	0.14 (.14)	1.15
Distributive justice	−0.01 (.18)	1.0	−0.29 (.18)	0.75	−0.30 (.19)	1.53
Model χ²	119.48***		51.79***		30.34***
Nagerkelke R²	.13		.06		.04

Note. HS = high school; DOC = department of corrections.

p≤ .05. **p≤ .01. ***p≤ .001.

Control variables

Consideration of correctional officer perceptions on a variety of issues reveals the importance of considering personal and organizational factors due to significant findings and/or mixed findings (Farkas, 1999; M. Gordon, 2006; J. Gordon, 1999; Kifer et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 2013). Given this, the present study examines a number of variables to fully understand the extent of the primary relationship between correctional orientation and perceptions of compliance.

Personal characteristics

For the personal characteristics, age (in years), gender (1 = male, 0 = female), race (1 = non-White, 0 = White), education (1 = high school diploma or greater, 0 = less than high school diploma), and length of experience in DOC (in years) are considered. These variables were chosen because previous research has demonstrated connections between them and the bases of power (Hepburn, 1985).

Organizational characteristics

There are three organizational characteristics entered into the models. Each of these has been found in the organizational research to be influential on officers’ views of their jobs (e.g., Britton, 1997; Lambert et al., 2008), on job satisfaction (e.g., Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006), in the bases of power (Hepburn, 1985), or in serving as a contextual factor to shape the climate within the prison (Baker et al., 2014; Beijersbergen et al., 2013). Whether officers believe that they are proud to be a part of their prison, are treated as valued employees, and have the authority to do their work could influence their interactions with inmates. Therefore, a number of organizational variables were included.

First, organizational commitment (Cronbach’s α = .895) is a scale of nine items asking officers whether what the organization stands for is important to them, whether they feel a strong sense of belonging, and whether the organization recognizes employees for good performance (Taxman & Gordon, 2009). Higher scores showed greater commitment to the organization (Table 1). Officers’ views of how they are treated by the administration could in turn be reflected in how they treat their subordinates in that organization; therefore, these senses of justice are vital to understanding how they get inmates to obey.

Second, procedural justice, an additive 13-item scale (Cronbach’s α = .855), and distributive justice, an additive 9-item scale (Cronbach’s α = .773), are included. Procedural justice includes whether officers believe that the procedures for advancing in the organization are known and fair, and distributive justice focuses on whether job rewards and punishments are given fairly (Taxman & Gordon, 2009). These scales were derived from Sweeney and McFarlin (1997; Taxman & Gordon, 2009). Each item making up these two scales was on a 5-point scale (0 = never to 5 = always). Higher scores demonstrated that officers believe that their procedures are fair and that any benefits or punishments are distributed fairly (Table 1).

Finally, the security level where the officers were employed was included in the models. Security level was measured on a 4-point scale ranging from lowest security (1) to highest security (4). Security levels can influence how officers view their jobs and the inmates.

Testing for the possibility of collinearity, correlations between the independent and control variables, variance inflation scores, and tolerance levels were all examined. All were within acceptable levels, indicating no collinearity.²

Findings

Each power base was examined through multivariate models; all three models were significant, demonstrating that these variables explained more than the null model. Overall, examination of the primary independent variables of interest revealed belief in rehabilitation is significantly related to each base of power and belief in punishment is insignificant across all but one model (see Table 2). The only power base related to punishment orientation (i.e., incapacitation) was referent power. Officers who believed that they had the personal respect from inmates were less likely to support punishment.

In examining the multivariate model for legitimate power, belief in rehabilitation was significantly related to the use of legitimate power; those officers who had more of a rehabilitative orientation were more likely to say that inmates respected the correctional officer position. In addition, three organizational variables were significantly related to this power base. Officers in lower security levels, those with more organizational commitment, and those who thought that the procedures were fair believed that they relied more on legitimate power.

There are some similarities in the relationships between the independent and control variables and buying into expert power and referent power. Like with legitimate power, support for rehabilitation was significantly related to both power bases: Officers who supported rehabilitation believed that inmates obeyed them because of their expertise and that inmates had more respect for them personally. Unlike legitimate power, there was one personal characteristic that was linked to expert power, officers who had worked at the state’s DOC longer were more likely to agree that inmates obeyed them because of the officers’ expertise. Similar to legitimate power, procedural justice was also significantly positively linked with expert power, indicating that officers who believed that the prison administrations’ procedures and process regarding promotion, job assignments, and other duties were fair believed that they had more expertise.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of the study support the primary hypothesis showing officers who possess rehabilitative correctional philosophies felt they had more legitimate, referent, and expert power as a mean of gaining compliance. Officers with these orientations believe they deserve and get respect because of their position. That is, rehabilitation-oriented officers seek to help inmates more and believe that inmates recognize this fact, thus, creating more personal respect for the officers. Likewise, officers who perceived a sense of personal respect from inmates were less likely to support punishment. The importance of such findings is comparable with the literature discussing ways in which perceptions toward “helping” are influential in shaping a positive, humane, fair, and transcending environment (Beijersbergen et al., 2013; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008). Furthermore, creating an environment that balances and enhances the sense of legitimacy and safety is shaped by the perceptions and interactions officers have with inmates (Kifer et al., 2003; Liebling, 2000).

Similarly, the literature stresses the fundamental importance of procedural justice in shaping a secure environment. To illustrate, Beijersbergen et al. (2013) espoused that procedurally just perceptions influence the overall climate and welfare of the inmates and staff. The results of this study indicate officers who perceive the organization as procedurally just are more likely to support legitimate and expert power, which involves an exchange relationship between the officer and inmate. This indicates officers who are committed to the organizational goals feel a sense of support from administration in the event institutional conflicts arise, so they rely on developing and maintaining relationships with inmates rather than a need to use threats or accommodate inmates to gain inmate cooperation. It is possible that officers who feel they are heard, supported, and respected by their organization reflect this in how they interact and supervise inmates on a daily basis.

In this specific instance, it appears there is balance and support from the administrative ranks that penetrate to line staff in developing a safe environment through organizational encouragement and backing. While the findings are suggestive of a proper balance, it is important to continually examine the efforts. To illustrate, frequent monitoring and assessment of administrative support and institutional rules are important because when the rules are inconsistent and the administration does not support the correctional staff, such problems can undermine officers’ referent, legitimate, and expert powers.

Among the organizational factors examined, security level was most important for legitimate power. This finding indicates that officers who work in more secure environments are less likely to support the use of legitimate authority to gain inmate compliance. In many respects, such a finding is not surprising. The literature discusses the importance of a strong exchange relationship between the officer and inmates to promote compliance in the examined manners. Likewise, research stresses the importance of the quantity of time and interactions between officers and inmates as essential to develop and strengthen relationships that will promote reasonable, courteous, and impartial relationships (Beijersbergen et al., 2013; Emmers-Sommer, 2004; Fairweather, 2000). Within the higher level closed-security environments, the frequency and duration of contacts may not be significant enough to develop essential relationships for officers to rely on order maintenance without their physical presence, which is essential for legitimacy to occur.

Interestingly, the present study does not find much support in predicting power when considering the officer’s personal characteristics. The present study uncovered the amount of experience did matter for expert power, suggesting that officers who had been around longer were more comfortable dealing with inmates and had more trust in their own abilities. Although this is unusual, given the past literature examining the bases of power (Hepburn, 1985) that indicates relationships between individual factors and power, it is not surprising as the present study includes a large sample size, numerous institutions, and many institutional predictors not examined in the prior institutional compliance literature. In addition, such insignificant relationships between varied officer characteristics and compliance are more consistent with the larger literature on correctional personnel where limited or mixed support is uncovered (Farkas, 1999; M. Gordon, 2006; J. Gordon, 1999; Kifer et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 2013).

Overall, such findings have implications regarding the prison environment. Officers who possess support toward rehabilitation or are interested in helping promote change and feel there is support from administration are more likely to use compliance measures that rely on exchange relationships. A sense of using referent, legitimate, and expert power requires officers to interact with inmates to a higher degree to gain a sense of position, knowledge, and fairness. Prior research stresses the importance of developing positive interactions between officer and inmates combined with officer behavior and characteristics to create a humane and safe prison environment (Beijersbergen et al., 2013; Crewe et al., 2011; Emmers-Sommer, 2004). The combination of supportive perceptions toward rehabilitation and a procedurally just organization on the reliance on referent, expert, and legitimate control is influential on shaping an environment concerned with the inmates’ welfare and outcomes when released (Beijersbergen et al. 2013). Perhaps within institutions where staff hold more punishment-oriented philosophies, the importance of dialogue, voice, and cultural enhancements may be encouraged to promote supportive exchange or relationships.

Although this study helps fill the knowledge gap, there are some limitations. First, the responding officers were not completely representative of all correctional officers in the state. Second, we use single-item measures to tap each measure of power. It is possible that the items used are not adequately covering the full conceptual nature of each item. Third, while there is consideration of institutional factors, they are limited. Inclusion of additional items such as the number of serious incidents, inmate composition, and even staff composition in terms of the percentage of minority and female officers may shed additional light on the factors examined. Next, one model had modest explanatory power, but the others were weak. Therefore, more investigation is needed on which variables influence these perceptions more. And, finally, the response rate questions the type of respondents, possibly suggesting those with strong motivation to be heard, whether positive or negative, responded. So it is possible the sample misses the most indifferent officers; nevertheless, as Rogelberg and colleagues (2003) suggested, it is more likely that nonresponse is due to passive rather than purposeful nonresponse.

Future research should examine the link between officers’ and inmates’ views at one institution to see how similar they are. Inmates could be obeying the rules for various reasons, which may be different from what the officers believe. Next, officers’ perceptions of power might not be indicative of their actual behavior. For example, officers may see themselves as using more expert power, but in practice, they use more coercion. Therefore, future research can examine what officers think they do to maintain order as well as their behavior in maintaining order. These power bases could also be linked with inmate behavior. Do prisons with officers who use more expert, referent, and legitimate power have more or fewer disciplinary problems than do prisons where officers rely more on coercion and reward?

Officers’ power and authority have evolved and potentially been diminished over the last few decades, and they have fought to keep what power and authority they do have. Discovering the officers’ use of power along with which bases of power are more effective in getting compliance can help both officers and inmates. Certain types of power, such as expert and referent, have been demonstrated in other organizations to affect performance and compliance with managers’ wishes (e.g., Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990, 1994; Rahim, 1989; Rahim & Buntzman, 1989) and positive attitudes toward superiors and acceptance of the organizational goals (Aquinis et al., 1996; Raven, 1988). Therefore, officers’ credibility with inmates could also be enhanced when these powers are used. By understanding the bases of power officers’ use, management of prisons can become more efficient.

The measurement of punitive and rehabilitative support may also be altered to reflect changes in the prison environment and advancements in measurement. Although the present study utilizes a widely used and reliable measure of punishment philosophy, the measures lack current contextually specific items, and additional literature suggests alternative ways of measuring. Future research should consider the expansion of the measures to include situational factors or scenario items and consider enhancement of questions to include varied direction. To illustrate, the inclusion of specific programs, rewards, or control techniques available in the institutions will provide specific contextual understanding of the philosophical dimensions. Likewise, the current general crime literature suggests the importance of not only situational attributes but also, more recently, the consideration of direction in measurement (see Pickett & Baker, 2014). Inclusion of both context and varied measurement should enhance our knowledge in the areas of punitive ideology among correctional staff, thus enhancing our training and policies to create favorable institutional climates.

Footnotes

Appendix

Correlation Matrix for All Variables.

Legitimate

1.0

Expert

.39**

1.0030

Referent

.24**

.34**

1.0

Rehabilitation

.14**

.09**

.12**

1.0

Incapacitation

−.08**

.01

−.05

−.03

1.0

Age

.10**

.11**

.04

.09**

−.08**

1.0

Non-White

.09**

.01

−.01

.14**

−.17**

.02

1.0

Male

−.01

.06*

.01

−.12**

.09**

.02

−.33**

1.0

HS degree or higher

−.01

.05

.08*

−.03

.02

−.01

−.07*

1.0

Length at DOC

.12**

.18**

.06*

.03

−.14**

.43**

.01

.13**

−.04

1.0

Security level

−.12**

−.05

−.09**

.08**

−.12**

−.02

.06*

−.14**

.02

1.0

Organizational commitment

.25**

.14**

.06*

.14**

−.06*

.13**

.10**

.02

−.04

.06

−.10**

1.0

Procedural justice

.25**

.14**

.06*

.09**

−.10**

.08*

.08**

.02

−.02

.10**

−.10**

.68**

1.0

Distributive justice

.17**

.04

.01

.09**

−.07*

.08**

.11**

.02

−.02

.03

−.00

.55**

.58**

Note. HS = high school; DOC = department of corrections.

p≤ .05. **p≤ .01. ***p≤ .001.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Faye S. Taxman at GeorgeMasonUniversity for allowing them to use her dataset. They also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

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

Aquinis

Nesler

Quigley

Lee

Tedeschi

(1996). Power bases of faculty supervisors and educational outcomes for graduate students. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 267-287.

Bacharach

Lawler

(1980). Power and politics in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baker

Gordon

Taxman

(2014). A hierarchical analysis of correction officers’ procedural judgments of correctional institutions: Examining the influence of transformational leadership. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/07418825.2013.877517

Beijersbergen

Dirkzwager

Molleman

van der Laan

Nieuwbeerta

(2013). Procedural justice in prison: The importance of staff characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 20, 1-22.

Blevins

Cullen

Frank

Sundt

Holmes

(2006). Stress and satisfaction among juvenile correctional workers: A test of competing models. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 55-79.

Blevins

Cullen

Sundt

(2007). The correctional orientation of “child savers”: Support for rehabilitation and custody among juvenile correctional workers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45, 47-83.

Britton

(1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do race and sex matter? Criminology, 35, 85-105.

Caeti

Hemmens

Cullen

Burton

(2003). Management of juvenile correctional facilities. The Prison Journal, 83, 383-405.

Camp

S. B.

Gaes

G. G.

Logan

N. P.

Saylor

W. G.

(2003). The influence of prisons on inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20, 501-533.

10.

Carson

P. P.

Carson

K. D.

Roe

C. W.

(1993). Social power bases: A meta-analytic examination of interrelationships and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1150-1169.

11.

Colvin

(1992). The penitentiary in crisis: From accommodation to riot in New Mexico. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

12.

Colvin

(2007). Applying differential coercion and social support theory to prison organizations: The case of the penitentiary of New Mexico. The Prison Journal, 87, 367-387.

13.

Cressey

(1965). Prison organizations. In March

(Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 1023-1070). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

14.

Crewe

Liebling

Hulley

(2011). Staff culture, use of authority and prisoners quality of life in public and private sector prisons. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 94-115.

15.

Cullen

Pealer

Fisher

Applegate

Santana

(2002). Public support for correctional rehabilitation in America: Change or consistency? In Roberts

Hough

(Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment: Public opinion, crime, and justice (pp. 128-147). Portland, OR: Willan.

16.

Emmers-Sommer

T. M.

(2004). The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 399-411.

17.

Etzioni

(1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

18.

Fairweather

(2000). Psychological effects of the prison environment. In Fairweather

McConville

(Eds.), Prison architecture: Policy, design and experience (pp. 31-48). Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.

19.

Farkas

(1999). Correctional officer attitudes toward inmates and working with inmates in a “get tough” era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 495-506.

20.

French

J. R. P.

Jr. Raven

(1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright

(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 259-269). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

21.

French

S. A.

Gendreau

(2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185-218.

22.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York, NY: Doubleday.

23.

Gordon

(1999). Do staff attitudes vary by position? A look at one juvenile correctional center. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 81-94.

24.

Gordon

(2006). Correctional officer control ideology: Implications for understanding a system. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 225-239.

25.

Griffin

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

26.

Griffin

Hogan

Lambert

Tucker

Baker

(2010). The issue of job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in burnout of correctional staff: A preliminary examination. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 239-255.

27.

Hepburn

(1985). The exercise of power in coercive organizations: A study of prison guards. Criminology, 23, 146-164.

28.

Hinkin

Schriesheim

C. A.

(1990). Relationships between subordinate perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations, 43, 221-237.

29.

Hinkin

Schriesheim

C. A.

(1994). An examination of subordinate-perceived relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and leader bases of power. Human Relations, 47, 779-799.

30.

Hogan

Lambert

Barton-Bellessa

(2012). Evaluation of CHANGE, an involuntary cognitive program for high-risk inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51, 370-388.

31.

Huebner

(2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117.

32.

Irwin

Cressey

(1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10, 142-155.

33.

Kifer

Hemmens

Stohr

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

34.

Lambert

Hogan

(2008). The importance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 96-118.

35.

Lambert

Barton-Bellessa

Hogan

(2014). The association between correctional orientation and organizational citizenship behaviors among correctional staff. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 953-974.

36.

Lambert

Hogan

Griffin

(2008). Being the good soldier: Organizational citizenship behavior and commitment among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 56-68.

37.

Lambert

Hogan

Barton

Elechi

(2009). The impact of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on correctional staff support for rehabilitation and punishment. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 22, 109-122.

38.

Lambert

Paoline

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

39.

Liebling

(2000). Prison officers, policing, and the use of discretion. Theoretical Criminology, 3, 178-187.

40.

Liebling

(2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality and prison life. Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.

41.

Lombardo

(1981). Guards imprisoned: Correctional officers at work. New York, NY: Elsevier.

42.

Maguire

(Ed.). (2012). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/

43.

March

J. G.

Simon

H. A.

(1961). The theory of organizational equilibrium. In Etzioni

(Ed.), Complex organizations: A sociological reader (pp. 61-70). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

44.

Marquart

(2008). Addicted to prisons and asking “Why don’t they riot?” Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 153-158.

45.

McCleery

(1960). Communication patterns as bases of systems of authority and power. Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison, Social Science Research Council (Pamphlet 15).

46.

Morris

T. P.

Morris

P. J.

(1963). Pentonville: A sociological study of an English prison. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

47.

O’Connell

A. A.

(2006). Logistic regression models for ordinal response variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Pickett

Baker

(2014). The pragmatic American: Empirical reality or methodological artifact? Criminology, 52, 195-222.

49.

Pickett

Chiricos

Gertz

(2014). The racial foundation of Whites’ support for child saving. Social Science Research, 44, 44-59.

50.

Rahim

M. A.

(1989). Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction with supervision: Evidence from a national sample of managers. Journal of Management, 15, 545-556.

51.

Rahim

M. A.

Buntzman

(1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 123, 195-210.

52.

Rahim

M. A.

Buntzman

G. F.

(1991). Impression management in organizational conflict. In Giacalone

R. A.

Rosenfeld

(Eds.), Applied impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions (pp. 157-174). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

53.

Raven

(1988). Social power and compliance in health care. In Maes

Spielberger

C. D.

Defares

P. G.

Sarason

I. G.

(Eds.), Topics in health psychology (pp. 229-244). New York, NY: John Wiley.

54.

Robinson

Porporino

Simourd

(1993). The influence of career orientation on support for rehabilitation among line staff. The Prison Journal, 73, 162-177.

55.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Conway

J. M.

Sederburg

M. E.

Spitzmuller

Aziz

Knight

W. E.

(2003). Profiling active and passive nonrespondents to an organizational survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1104-1114.

56.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Stanton

J. M.

(2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195-209.

57.

Sparks

Bottoms

Hay

(1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

58.

Steiner

(2009). Assessing static and dynamic influences on inmate violence levels. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 134-161.

59.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2008). Inmate versus environmental effects on prison rule violations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 438-456.

60.

Stichman

(2003). The sources and impact of inmate perceptions on correctional officer power. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

61.

Stichman

Gordon

(2014). A preliminary investigation of the effect of correctional officers’ bases of power on their fear and risk of victimization. Journal of Crime and Justice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2014.929975

62.

Stohr

Collins

(2009). Criminal justice management: Theory and practice in justice-centered organizations. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

63.

Stojkovic

(1984). Social bases of power and control mechanisms among prisoners in a prison organization. Justice Quarterly, 1, 511-528.

64.

Stojkovic

(1986). Social bases of power and control mechanisms among correctional administrators in a prison organization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 15-166.

65.

Stojkovic

Kalinich

Klofas

(2007). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

66.

Sundt

Cullen

(2002). The correctional ideology of prison chaplains: A national survey. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 369-385.

67.

Sweeney

P. D.

McFarlin

D. B.

(1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 82-98.

68.

Sykes

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

69.

Taxman

Gordon

(2009). Do fairness and equity matter? An examination of organizational justice among correctional officers in adult prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 695-711.

70.

Tewksbury

Higgins

(2006). Prison staff and work stress: The role of organizational and emotional influences. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 247-266.

71.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

(2008). Correctional orientation of prison staff. The Prison Journal, 88, 207-233.

72.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2013). Law-enforcement officials’ views of sex offender registration and community notification. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15, 95-113.

73.

Thomas

C. W.

Petersen

D. M.

(1977). Prison organizations and inmate sub-cultures. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

74.

Useem

Goldstone

(2002). Forging social order and its breakdown: Riot and reform in U.S. prisons. American Sociological Review, 67, 499-525.

75.

Useem

Kimball

(1989). States of Siege: U.S. prison riots, 1971-1986. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

76.

Useem

Piehl

A. M.

(2006). Prison buildup and disorder. Punishment & Society, 8, 87-115.

77.

Useem

Reisig

(1999). Collective action in prisons: Protests, disturbances, and riots. Criminology, 37, 735-759.

78.

Van Voorhis

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T

. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional officers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 28, 472-500.

79.

Weber

(1961). The three types of legitimate rule. In Etzioni

(Ed.), Complex organizations: A sociological reader (pp. 4-13). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.