The Role of Perceived Legitimacy and Its Effect on Prison Adaptation: A Longitudinal Study on a Chinese Juvenile Prison

Abstract

Research into offenders’ adaptation to prison environment has been a topic of enduring interest. Recently, perceived legitimacy in corrections has attracted considerable attention and emerged as an important area of research in the prison settings. The purpose of this study is to examine the factors associated with perceived legitimacy in corrections, and document its effect on juvenile offenders’ adaptation to the institutional environment of a Chinese youth prison. Data for the analysis were collected from the lone youth prison located in an autonomous region with more than 47 million persons of varying ethnicity. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), the findings suggest a significant effect for perceived legitimacy on juvenile offender adaptation to prison programs. The final model was able to explain 61% of variation in the outcome variable and identify several prominent contributors to perceived legitimacy. Policy implications were highlighted in the “Discussion and Conclusion” section.

Keywords

perceived legitimacy juvenile offenders prison adaptation

Introduction

Offenders’ adaptation to prison environment has been a topic of enduring interest because it is crucial to the safety and security of both prisoners and correctional staff (Boessen & Cauffman, 2016; Cao, Zhao, & Van Dine, 1997; Crewe, 2011). For example, inmates’ attitudes toward benefits of educational and vocational programs have received significant attention because there is a positive link between positive assessment of the programs and their institutional or post-institutional behaviors such as a positive increase in motivation to participate in rehabilitative programs, to observe institutional rules (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Cochran, 2012; Harvey, 2007), and to resist recidivism (Chui, 2005; Cochran, 2014; Duwe & Johnson, 2016; for a review, see Davis et al., 2014).

In this regard, the issue of legitimacy of authority (e.g., correctional officers) has recently attracted considerable research interests and emerged as an important area of research in the prison settings (Tyler, 2010). Several studies have focused on the positive role of perceived legitimacy among offenders vis-à-vis adaptation to the institutional environment because it refers to the extent to which individuals are willingly to comply, to accept the authority, and to support the decisions made by prison authorities that have control over their lives (e.g., Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Franke, Bierie, & MacKenzie, 2010; Reisig & Mesko, 2009). Historically speaking, the concept of legitimacy has been a major element of academic inquiry in political philosophy and sociology since the advent of modern social thought after the Enlightenment. The discussion of legitimacy ranges widely across types of formal leadership structures and associated public support (Weber, 1922/1978), ideal-type arrangements of socioeconomic structures (Parsons, 1967), the operation of political systems/public support (Easton, 1976), and how police should carry out their work (Tyler, 1990). Relevant research on legitimacy and procedural justice, for example, concludes that citizens are more likely to accept the outcome of an enforcement action if they believe police officers act legitimately and respectfully (e.g., Reisig, Tankebe, & Mesko, 2012).

The prison setting is unique and often depicted as a place that deprives inmates of personal freedoms and requires total submission to authority (Cao et al., 1997). However, a number of well-designed recent studies demonstrated that these are important elements of perceived legitimacy at play, and that these perceptions predict offenders’ adaptation to incarceration such as their interactions and communications with correctional officers and other inmates (e.g., Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Franke et al., 2010). In their randomized experiment of adult prisoners’ perceptions of the relative legitimacy of prisons and boot camps, for example, Franke et al. (2010) reported that perceived legitimacy is inversely related to levels of supervision with the prison (but not the boot camp), suggesting the security levels have significant impacts on the offenders.

This phenomenon is likely to be particularly true in juvenile prison where the correctional staff more likely plays a guardian role as opposed to a punitive enforcer of rules (Harvey, 2007). To the best of our knowledge, little information is available on the possible link between perceived legitimacy of juvenile facility correctional officers and juvenile offenders’ prison adaptation to rehabilitative programs and associated correctional activities. This is because educational and vocational programs are important components of prison environment (e.g., Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Davis et al., 2014). Recent research on the post-release interaction between counseling psychologists and adult parolees suggests that a trusting relationship between offender and counselor can account for as much as 30% of successful completion of an evidence-based treatment program (Blasko, Friedmann, Rhodes, & Taxman, 2015).

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of important factors (e.g., perceived legitimacy) on juvenile offenders’ adaptation to institutional-sponsored programs in a Chinese youth prison. More specifically, it is operationalized as juvenile offenders’ assessment of their attitudes and benefits of educational and vocational programs in prison. The data used in the analysis were collected from the only juvenile prison in an autonomous region with an ethnically diverse population of more than 47 million citizens. Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted at 2 points in time. The survey instrument included questions regarding the perceived legitimacy of the correctional officers and indicators of juvenile offenders’ prison adjustment. Because all of the juveniles in the sample were arrested by the police prior to their current incarceration, a measure of attitudes toward the police was incorporated in the analysis. Based on the system theory derived from the noted political scientist David Easton, we are interested in the role of attitudes toward the police in an institutional environment.

Rationale for This Study

This study makes at least two significant contributions to the existing literature. First, relevant studies tend to treat legitimacy as a rather static phenomenon associated with personal perceptions of encounters with authority (Franke et al., 2010; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Recently, it has been argued that legitimacy should be conceptualized as an ongoing process of dialogue between the recipients of authoritative action and the authority taking that action (Tankebe, 2013). Following this argument, individual perceptions of legitimacy and willingness to comply at Point 1 in time may not automatically translate into the same level of perceived legitimacy and willingness to comply at Point 2 in time. It is also the case that perceived legitimacy in corrections is quite different from perceived legitimacy in the police (e.g., Crewe, 2011; Liebling, 2011). Correctional officers interact and supervise the same group of prisoners on a daily basis while citizens’ interaction with police officers is typically infrequent and sporadic.

Second, research on legitimacy impacts in policing tends to assume that compliance with police directions is derived from personal positive experience of interactions with the police. If an individual believes that the process of a police officer’s handling of an incident is fair, he or she is more likely to obey the order regardless of the nature of the outcome (Tyler, 1990). This rationale is well established in the literature, and is often seen as being rooted in the process of rational calculation. There may be other avenues that can explain an individual’s endorsement of legitimacy. For example, David Easton (1976), the noted political scientist, argued that governmental agencies are interrelated and can be conceptualized as a political system. Positive support to one agency can “spill over” to another agency (Easton, 1976). In this study, we expand the scope of the research to explore the link between juvenile offenders’ evaluation of the police and their perceived legitimacy in juvenile corrections. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the link between attitudes toward the police and perceived legitimacy in corrections.

Literature Review

Prison Adaptation and Perceived Legitimacy

A large body of literature exists on a variety of prisoners’ adaptation issues. Some studies focus on the “pains” associated with prisoners’ adaptation, such as fear and anxiety over personal safety concerns (Bottoms, 1999; Harvey, 2007; Liebling, 2004). Others focus on the positive side of adaptation such as personal autonomy and maintenance of sense of identity and positive adaptation to the environment (e.g., Dhami, Ayton, & Loewenstein, 2007; Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013). In addition, rehabilitation programs such as educational and vocational programs can be a challenge for inmates in the prison setting. It has been well documented that attitudes toward and benefits of rehabilitative programs can facilitate prisoners to adjust their prison life. Positive attitudes toward rehabilitation and vocational programs can enhance inmates’ knowledge and skills and make the institutional environment more humane and “livable” (Davis et al., 2014).

Adaptation to institutional environments can be particularly challenging for juvenile offenders as it is often the case that it is their first experience in a prison-like setting (Boessen & Cauffman, 2016). S. L. Brown and Ireland (2006) found that juvenile offenders’ anxiety and level of depression tended to decrease in prison after 6 to 9 months, suggesting that the initial period of confinement is the key to a juvenile offender’s adaptation and the development of new patterns of normalized behavior. Similar findings are also reported in research carried out on adult prisons that supportive role of the staff can lead to better adaptation among inmates (e.g., Cochran, 2012; Jiang & Winfree, 2006). There is no exception among parolees. Blasko et al. (2015) reported that the parolees’ trust of the parole officer is a key mediator of their smooth transition from prison life to normal life in a community.

Since the 1950s, two broad approaches are commonly employed to account for variation in prisoners’ adaptation. The importation approach posits that prison life and associated adaptation are heavily influenced by external factors such as demographics, previous criminal record, and types of crimes committed (Dhami et al., 2007; Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Toch, 1977). In contrast, the internal approach reflects the belief that personal experiences associated with incarceration, such as deprivation of freedom and the negative influence of prison subcultures, have significant effects on prisoners’ adaptation (Cao et al., 1997; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Sykes, 1958). Several studies also examined the link between positive interactions and prison adaptation. The positive interaction refers to the staff–inmate interaction from a procedural justice standpoint of view. Specifically, if the correctional officers are perceived as legitimate, compliance of inmates can be expected, such as enrollment in educational and vocational programs (Liebling, 2011; Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013). For example, using a sample of 207 juvenile offenders serving sentences in the Netherlands, Van der Laan and Eichelsheim (2013) found that positive interaction with staff and/or other inmates can significantly increase offenders’ sense of autonomy, personal safety, and well-being. A consensus exists among contemporary scholars and practitioners that research on prison adaptation should incorporate factors derived from both importation and internal approaches (e.g., Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013).

In his discussion on Franke et al.’s (2010) prison study on perceive legitimacy, Tyler (2010) raised an interesting argument that experiences in incarceration can be positive or at least neutral if those incarcerated experience fairness from the authorities. This argument suggests that there can be a positive link between perceived legitimacy and adaptation to prison programs. More specifically, perceived legitimacy is viewed as a natural extension of relevant research that has been taking place in policing since the 1990s (Tyler, 2010). In the past, it was broadly thought that perceived legitimacy may not be an appropriate topic in the prison setting because incarceration and strict enforcement of rules cannot go hand-in-hand with self-directed willingness to comply with the authority (e.g., Sykes, 1958). Findings from recent research, however, support very strongly that legitimacy is a very critical factor in determining the quality of prisoners’ lives behind bars (e.g., Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Franke et al., 2010).

From both political philosophical and sociological perspectives, legitimacy is a “must” to maintain effective operation of governmental entities and generate support for social institutions from citizens (Easton, 1976; Parsons, 1967). Tyler (1990, p. 5) noted that the concept of legitimacy can be understood as “acceptance by people of the need to bring their behavior into line with the dictates of an external authority” (p. 25). The key issue is an individual’s willingness to show compliance and cooperation with legal authority regardless of the outcome in terms of personal interests (Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007; Tyler, 1990).

There is continuing debate over the proper formal definition of the concept of perceived legitimacy, and previous research has highlighted several key elements of perceived legitimacy. Several scholars have proposed that the concept of perceived legitimacy should include both fairness and respectfulness (Bottoms, 1999; Reisig et al., 2012; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Similarly, using a large citizen sample in London, Tankebe (2013) found that perceived legitimacy can be operationalized by a three-factor model featuring procedural fairness, lawfulness, and distributive fairness. It seems most reasonable to argue that respectfulness and fairness are the “building blocks of the concept of legitimacy.” Perceived legitimacy in policing is likely not directly comparable with perceived legitimacy in prison.

Liebling (2011), for example, found that prison work features the ongoing exercise of authority during frequent interactions between correctional officers and inmates. The environment for issuing a citation for traffic violation to a local resident is quite different from that of a prison setting in which the exercise of authority is omnipresent (Liebling, 2011). The prison setting features “hard power” in a total institution, as is well described by Crewe (2011). In an important expansion of our understanding of prison settings, Nye (2004) developed the concept of “soft power” and defined it as the ability to achieve compliance through both persuasion and attraction as opposed to the use of coercion and deterrence.

While acknowledging the suppressive nature of the prison setting generally, Crewe (2011) has built upon the concept of soft power and argued that prisoners’ willingness to comply with the rules remains possible, “. . . even while depriving people of their freedom, it can achieve some level of interior legitimacy if the manner in which it treats them is fair and respectful” (p. 465). Furthermore, Crewe (2011) highlighted several key factors of legitimacy that can be applied to prison operations, including neutrality of procedure (fairness), trustworthiness of the authority’s motives (trust), and the consideration of personal sensitivities among prisoners during interactions with them. Similarly, during their study on treatment program outcomes among parolees, Blasko et al. (2015) found that the genuineness of parole officers’ caring for their clients and their willingness to offer assistance are the most important elements of perceived legitimacy among parolees. Not surprisingly, the results derived from their evaluation research showed that caring and fairness (which tap into the concept of legitimacy) are inversely related to rearrests (Blasko et al., 2015).

It is reasonable to assume that correctional officers’ genuineness of caring and willingness to provide assistance are likely key to juvenile offenders’ adaptation to prison environment for two reasons. First, juvenile institutions are more likely to be oriented toward the rehabilitation model than adult prisons (Kim et al., 2013). In Hong Kong, for example, the juvenile detention center is decidedly rehabilitative in nature, featuring far less restrictive rules than that in adult facilities and a variety of educational/vocational programs for the juvenile offenders that are not commonly found in adult prisons (Chui, 2005). Second, juvenile offenders are at the very point of transition from adolescence to adulthood, and genuine caring and provision of assistance can be thought of as key aspects of perceived legitimacy. Marsh and Evans (2009) noted that prison staff can profoundly influence how juvenile offenders view institutional authorities and comply with the rules. It follows, then, that helping, caring, showing respect, and extending trust are likely the key elements of perceived legitimacy in the juvenile prison context.

An important feature of legitimacy concerns its likely dynamic nature. Tankebe (2013) has argued convincingly that legitimacy can be conceptualized as involving a continuous dialogue between power-holders and their subordinates. Applying this rationale to the correctional setting, it is likely that the nature of interactions between inmates and correctional officers may change over time. Several scholars have noted this dynamic feature of correctional staff–prisoner relationship, and suggest that an “enduring” feature of prison management is the need for continuous negotiation with a skeptical and complex prison population (Crewe, 2011; Liebling, 2011).

Another often overlooked feature of the research on perceived legitimacy concerns the extensive interconnections among the branches of government and social institutions in a political or social system. For example, Easton (1957) coined the term “political system theory” and argued that political legitimacy is not an isolated phenomenon, but rather has connections across each branch in a political system. He argued that perceived legitimacy and specific support established in one aspect of government can spill over to another branch and the system as a whole in the form of diffuse support (Easton, 1976; Jang, Lee, & Gibbs, 2015). For example, the public attitudes toward the police or the “gate keeper” have received extensive attention. A review of relevant literature in the early 2000s revealed more than 100 published articles that focus on the public attitudes toward the police, including public satisfaction, effectiveness of operation, and perceived legitimacy in the society (B. Brown & Benedict, 2002; Luo, Ren, & Zhao, 2017; Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2013). It is self-evident that research on legitimacy in the criminal justice system started with police legitimacy (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Following this line of Easton’s argument, perceived legitimacy may not only arise from personal experiences of a favorable interaction with an authority but may also arise from an individual’s experience with a similar authority within the same overall system of government. For example, favorable public attitudes toward the police may have a significant positive effect on citizens’ perceptions of the courts. In their study on public confidence in order-maintenance institutions across three culturally diverse countries (the United States, Turkey, and Taiwan), Cao, Zhao, Ren, and Zhao (2015) found that respondents’ confidence in the police and the court is highly correlated, and that this pattern holds across all three countries. The observed results suggest that similar to Easton’s argument, public sentiment toward government agencies can generate diffuse support across the political system (Cao et al., 2015). In the review of the relevant literature on perceived legitimacy in corrections, not one study has incorporated the hypothesized link between the police and corrections. Several survey-based studies have included items that measure attitudes toward different branches of the criminal justice system, but never examined them separately. Franke et al. (2010), for example, used a scale of 12 items to tap into perceived legitimacy in corrections, employing items such as “Most police will try to help you,” “Prisons offer bogus programs,” “Police and judges will say one thing and do another,” and “Cops and guards are pigs.” It is possible, however, that the police and corrections are both separate and distinct aspects of perceived legitimacy but related factors vis-à-vis political system considerations.

Juvenile Correctional Institutions in China

Generally speaking, in China, there is one juvenile prison in each province or autonomous region. As the only juvenile prison in X province, it houses offenders from age 14 to 18. The juvenile prison employed 435 correctional officers (including one warden, one political commissar, and eight senior officers at deputy-warden level) at the time of the study. For offenders who are older than 18, they could be still held in the institution as long as their remaining sentences are less than 2 years. This institution was established in the capital of X province in 1965. At the time of survey in 2014, the average age of the incarcerated juvenile offender was 16.82 (very close to our sample of 16.81). The institution was awarded the title of “National Excellence in Youth Rights Protection” by the Ministry of Justice and the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League in 2012.

Article 75 of the Correction Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates three primary goals of managing a juvenile prison. The first goal is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders while they are serving their time. This rehabilitation includes the provision of educational programs, vocational training, the enhancement of interpersonal communication skills, and psychological/mental health services. The second goal is to punish juvenile offenders for the crimes they committed, and incarceration is used as the vehicle to achieve that goal of deprivation of freedom. The final goal is to make inmates participate in work activities in prison for the purpose of learning how to make an honest living “by working.” The administration guidelines for facilities are set forth by Management Specifications of Juvenile Prison. The original version of the guidelines was issued by the Ministry of Criminal Justice in China on May 6, 1999. That document sets forth three principles: education, value change, and salvation. It reinforces the rehabilitation model and outlines the proper role of correctional staff within the juvenile institution. Specifically, Article 24 stipulates that the duty and proper conduct of correctional staff entail following the Confucian examples of proper relationships between teacher and student, between parents and children, and between doctor and patient. The literature on the implementation of rehabilitation in juvenile prison lends support to the conclusion that the supervision over and treatment of convicted juvenile offenders are very different from that obtaining for adult offenders in prison (Zhou & Shao, 2016).

The implementation of educational and vocational programs in the juvenile prison receives technical and financial supports from the Provincial Education Administrative Bureau. Similar to the government policy, the juvenile prison provides 9-year compulsory education to juvenile offenders, primarily from Grade 3 to Grade 9. In addition, it also offers a variety of vocational programs such as Chinese calligraphy, Chinese ink painting, cooking, pastry making, electronic component processing. Active participation and successful completion in these programs could not only help the juvenile inmates to earn credits for sentence commutation or parole but also enable them to gain the vocational certificate for finding a job after releasing. In addition, it is assumed that active participation in these programs can improve their communications skills and reduce prison rule violations.

Method

Data

The site of this study is the large Autonomous Region X in China.¹ While the vast majority of Chinese people are of the Han nationality, accounting for more than 90% of China’s population (National Bureau of Statistics of P.R. China, 2011), there are 55 officially recognized non-Han ethnic minority groups scattered across China. Several major minority groups live in the five areas designated as autonomous regions (equivalent to provinces) where the percentage of a particular ethnic minority group is high. Statistics from the most recently conducted national census show that by the end of 2011, the population of Autonomous Region X was more than 47 million; approximately 41% of that population are ethnic minorities (National Bureau of Statistics of P.R. China, 2011).

The subjects of this study were adjudicated male juvenile offenders serving time in the juvenile correctional institution in this Autonomous Region. The sample reflects the population of all the offenders who were incarcerated less than or equal to 180 days at the time of the first wave of survey. A longitudinal sample of adjudicated male juvenile offenders is considered ideal to capture prison adaptation to educational and vocational programs and test three specific hypothetical propositions. The extant literature documents the factors that need to be included in this analysis of prison adaptation. Out of concern for the relatively low level of literacy among the targeted population, the method of face-to-face interviews was preferred over the use of self-administered paper-and-pencil surveys. The face-to-face interviews were conducted at 2 points in time with a 6-month separation, and average length of interview lasted about 45 min. All interviews were conducted in a secure, designated private room within the institution where only the researchers (a professor and 10 graduate students from the flagship university in this autonomous region) and the juvenile offenders were permitted to be present for the interview. The members of the research team received an intensive 6-hr training class in a local university prior to the initiation of the project. The training covered the content of the instrument, the interview techniques to be employed, and security procedures to be followed within the correctional facility. Participation in the interview was voluntary. The researchers, university-based graduate students, informed the juvenile offenders regarding the purpose of this study, their rights to decline participation, and assurance of confidentiality prior to the start of the interview. Over the course of the study, only a few inmates declined participation, and many juvenile offenders appreciated the opportunity to talk with the researchers and share their thoughts about being in prison.

The first wave of data collection began on January 2 and ran to January 14, 2014. The prison population on January 2, 2014, was 1,540. The interview subjects were juvenile offenders who were admitted into the prison in the second half of 2013 (n = 846). Among them, 138 were released in the same year. In addition, 13 did not participate due to illness or being in the segregation unit (n = 5) or unwillingness to participate (n = 8). The final eligible sample was 695 at Wave 1. The second wave of the survey took place from July 10 to July 25, 2014, and 162 juvenile offenders did not participate in the second data collection because they served their sentence and were released prior to the survey. Consequently, there were 533 Wave 1 juvenile offenders who remained in prison at the point of Wave 2. Of them, 17 did not participate due to illness/in the segregation unit (n = 7) or declined to participate (n = 10). The final sample of inmates with participation in two waves of the survey included 516 juvenile offenders.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this study, adaptation to prison programs at Wave 2, is a latent variable and includes five observed items. These five items attempted to measure the extent to which juvenile offenders were able to adjust to both their psychological and physical circumstances in prison. Particularly, we tried to assess the factors associated with positive prison adaptation vis-à-vis the premise that rehabilitation is the philosophical principle and supervisory style obtaining in Chinese juvenile facilities as well as in Western countries (Chui, 2005; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Zhou & Shao, 2016). The juvenile prison administration permitted us to make an assessment of juvenile offenders’ views of the rehabilitation. According to the Regulations on the Administration of Juvenile Offenders’ Correctional Institutions published in 1999, all juvenile offenders under the age of 18 should attend the educational and vocational programs during incarceration. Specifically, the prison programs should be tailored to address the needs of juvenile offenders. According to Compulsory Educational Law, Section 21 (2006) in China, the educational expenses are funded by the local government. Close to 90% of the juvenile offenders in the sample did not complete the compulsory requirement. In addition, there are other educational programs such as refreshing of illiteracy or language usage for the remaining 10% in the juvenile prison.

The research literature on positive adjustment among juvenile offenders is well documented in Western countries (e.g., Cochran, 2012, 2014; Harvey, 2007; Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013). In line with this research, five items are included as the outcome variable, such as “This institution provides me with sufficient educational and vocational programs as well as other entertainment activities,” and “The educational and vocational programs offered here are very helpful, and I am willing to participate” (see Table 1 for the complete list of the items).² Juvenile offenders were asked to rate these items on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The results of an exploratory factor analysis revealed that these five items load on a single factor, reflecting an overarching perception of prison adaptation among the juvenile offenders (α = .916, eigenvalue = 3.788 at Wave 2). In addition, prison adaptation at Wave 1 has the same five items (α = .914, eigenvalue = 3.741).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 516).

Variables	Measure	M	SD	Frequency (%)
Dependent variables	Ordinal (1-5)
Prison adaptation at W2
A1: This institution provides me with sufficient educational and vocational programs as well as other entertainment activities.		3.67	0.98
A2: The educational and vocational programs offered here are very helpful, and I am willing to participate.		3.85	0.82
A3: After participating in these programs, I feel that I am having more positive attitudes toward my life during the incarceration.		3.79	0.83
A4: After participating in these programs, I have learned how to reduce the pressure during the incarceration.		3.69	0.87
A5: After participating in these programs, I have learned how to communicate with peers during the incarceration.		3.77	0.81
Explanatory variables
Attitudes toward the police at W1	Ordinal (1-4)
P1: Police are courteous.		2.60	0.94
P2: Police treat citizens equally.		2.75	0.85
P3: Police are effective in controlling crime and protecting lives and property.		2.88	0.80
P4: I have trust in the police.		2.58	0.89
P5: In general, I like police.		2.64	0.88
Perceived legitimacy at W1	Ordinal (1-5)
C1: Correctional officers are fair to everyone.		3.89	0.89
C2: Correctional officers are respectful.		3.95	0.86
C3: I have a favorable view of correctional officers.		3.79	0.93
C4: Correctional officers are good at communicating with me.		3.96	0.83
C5: If there is a need in my studies and life, I will talk to correctional officers.		3.86	0.90
C6: In general, correctional officers are willing to assist me.		4.07	0.73
C7: In my daily life, correctional officers often help me.		3.91	0.83
Prison adaptation at W1	Ordinal (1-5)
A1: This institution provides me with sufficient educational and vocational programs as well as other entertainment activities.		3.82	0.97
A2: The educational and vocational programs offered here are very helpful, and I am willing to participate.		3.95	0.86
A3: After participating in these programs, I feel that I am having more positive attitudes toward my life during the incarceration.		3.93	0.88
A4: After participating in these programs, I have learned how to reduce the pressure during the incarceration.		3.79	0.92
A5: After participating in these programs, I have learned how to communicate with peers during the incarceration.		3.9	0.87
Perceived Legitimacy at W2	Ordinal (1-5)
C1: Correctional officers are fair to everyone.		3.74	0.86
C2: Correctional officers are respectful.		3.8	0.83
C3: I have a favorable view of correctional officers.		3.65	0.88
C4: Correctional officers are good at communicating with me.		3.89	0.74
C5: If there is a need in my study and life, I will talk to correctional officers.		3.76	0.79
C6: In general, correctional officers are willing to assist me.		3.94	0.70
C7: In my daily life, correctional officers often help me.		3.77	0.81
Control Variables
Education level	Range (1-7)	3.78	0.96
Ethnicity	(0 = Han, 1 = Minority)			40.70
Location	(0 = Urban, 1 = Rural)			69.50
Age	Range (14-19)	16.81	0.96
Offense type	(0 = Property, 1 = Violent)			94
Length in prison (days)	Range (17-378)	183	102.76
Family visit	Range (1-5)	4.37	0.83

Note. W1 = Wave 1; W2 = Wave 2

Explanatory Variables

The two variables measuring perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 and at Wave 2 are likewise latent factors, including a total of seven items.³ They were recently employed in similar studies of perceived legitimacy in correctional settings. More specifically, Brunton-Smith and McCarthy (2016) included measures such as “I received support from staff,” “I trust the officers in this prison,” “I have been helped significantly with a particular problem.” Accordingly, several items related to the unique juvenile prison setting were featured in the latent factor such as the concept of genuine caring, timely help, and provision of ongoing assistance (Blasko et al., 2015; Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007). These seven items in question are reported in Table 1. The results of an exploratory factor analysis revealed that these seven items at Wave 1 and at Wave 2 were loaded on a single factor, reflecting the conceptual framework of perceived legitimacy of correctional officers over this 6-month period (perceived legitimacy at Wave 1: α = .928, eigenvalue = 4.917; perceived legitimacy at Wave 2: α = .929, eigenvalue = 4.943). This finding is consistent with the conventional approach within corrections research that is to conceive of perceived legitimacy among prison offenders as a unitary factor captured on a composite addictive scale (e.g., Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Franke et al., 2010; Reisig & Mesko, 2009).

Attitudes toward the police captured at Wave 1 features a total of five items commonly employed in studies of public perceptions of the police (see Table 1 for a complete list of items).⁴ Similarly, an exploratory factor analysis reveals that the five items belonged to a single factor (α = .878, eigenvalue = 3.365). Citizen perceptions of the police clearly reflect the multi-dimensional nature of the police, such as overall image (Brick, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2009; Hurst, Frank, & Browning, 2000; Leiber, Nalla, & Farnsworth, 1998; Wu, Lake, & Cao, 2015), attribution of police effectiveness in crime control (Hurst, 2007), and personal trust in and satisfaction with the police (Brick et al., 2009; Hurst et al., 2000; Leiber et al., 1998; Wu et al., 2015).

Finally, four demographic variables are included in the analysis. Education level is coded as an ordinal variable, ranging from 1 = illiteracy to 7 = graduation from senior high school (5 = graduation from junior high school); ethnicity is coded as 0 being Han and 1 being ethnic minority; age is measured as the natural age in years of a respondent at the time of the interview; location of residence is measured by 0 being urban area and 1 being rural area. These four demographics (education level, ethnicity, age, and location of residence) are important for juvenile offenders’ prison adaptation based on the importation perspective, which argues that demographic characteristics have significant effect on prisoners’ behaviors during the incarceration. More specifically, the importation perspective posits that some demographic characteristics are not required during the incarceration (e.g., Cao et al., 1997; Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013).

In addition, time in prison and offense type are also included because the relevant literature suggests that time having spent in prison is an important variable. Boessen and Cauffman (2016), for example, found that length in prison is a significant predictor of institutional offending among juvenile offenders in their longitudinal study (also see Dhami et al., 2007). Similarly, Duwe and Johnson (2016) noted that length of stay in prison is significantly correlated with prison adjustment. The length in prison is measured by the number of days prior to the first face-to-face interview. Likewise, offense type of crime prior to this conviction is often used to control for pre-institutional behavior (Cao et al., 1997; Duwe & Johnson, 2016). Offense type of crime is coded as 0 = property crime and 1 = violent crime. Family visit, an important prosocial source of support, is included in this study. Major criminological theories such as social control, social bonding, and general strain theory all highlight the importance of personal attachment to a conventional institution because it can facilitate an inmate’s adaptation in prison (Duwe & Johnson, 2016). In a study of inmates incarcerated in Florida, Cochran (2012) reported that consistent prison visitation is associated with a decline of disciplinary reports. Family visit is responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree. Similar to attitudes toward the police, these demographic variables as well as length in prison, offense type of crime, and family visit are used to measure the importation approach to examine juvenile offender adaptation to institutional life.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is used for the analyses conducted because it has the advantage of being able to incorporate latent variables derived from observed measures, and can control for the direct and indirect effects of exogenous and endogenous variables simultaneously (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). This is particularly true when longitudinal data are employed in the analysis. In this study, all analyses were conducted by using Mplus version 6, and the model parameters were estimated using the maximum likelihood algorithm. A variety of absolute and relative (or incremental) indices were consulted to assess model fit. One of the absolute fit indexes includes χ² statistics, and the accepted rule is that χ²/df needs to be below 5 for a large sample (Wheaton, Muthén, Alwin, & Summers, 1977). Another absolute fit indicator is the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and, in more recent studies, the cutoff points of RMSEA have been reduced to below .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) to constitute a judgement of good fit.

The Conceptual Model

Based on our literature review of prison adaptation and perceived legitimacy, we developed three primary propositions to test the relationship between the dependent variable and four explanatory variables (please see Figure 1). The first proposition is that attitudes toward the police have a direct impact on perceived legitimacy of correctional officers at Wave 1, and possibly at Wave 2. The assumption here is that the functions of government branches in the same system are interconnected (Easton, 1957). Consequently, the attitudes toward one agency often exert direct influence on the other (Cao et al., 2015). However, the research literature is not clear with respect to the duration of any spillover effect from one agency to others in the same system—in this case, the criminal justice system. Prison is at the receiving end of the criminal justice system, and juvenile offenders’ perceived legitimacy can be affected by other branches within that system. In addition, all of the inmates surveyed had personal encounters with the police (arrest) prior to their current incarceration. It seems reasonable to speculate that their sentiments toward the police may have a spillover effect on perceived legitimacy of correctional officers (e.g., Easton, 1976).

Figure 1.

Theoretical model of prison adaptation.

The next proposition is that perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 is a significant predictor of juvenile offenders’ adaptation to prison environment at Wave 1 and perceived legitimacy at Wave 2. This proposition is derived from the literature that perceived legitimacy measuring juveniles’ evaluation of their personal relationship with correctional officers has a significant effect on their prison adaptation. The rationale of this proposition is that compliance with prison programs and activities is conducive to the development of perceived legitimacy of correctional officers (Tyler, 2010). A rich body of literature suggests there is a close link between attitudes and self-assessment of behavioral change in many areas of social life such as communication with correctional officers and other offenders (e.g., Cochran, 2014; Crewe, 2011). Our final proposition is that juvenile offenders’ adaption at Wave 1 will have a significant and direct effect on the dependent variable, prison adaptation at Wave 2. This is because the relationship that adaptation to prison environment at Wave 1 can have a significant effect on adaptation at Wave 2 has been well documented in the literature (Blasko et al., 2015; Cochran, 2012, 2014; Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013).

Seven variables measuring the importation approach are also included in the analysis. They are education level, age, ethnicity, location, length of time in prison, offender offense types, and family visit. These variables are known to be related in different degrees to offenders’ adaptation to the prison environment (Cao et al., 1997; Franke et al., 2010; Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013). They are known to have an impact on attitudes toward the police, and on the perceived legitimacy of correctional officers at Wave 1 and Wave 2.

Findings

The descriptive statistics for each of the variables included in the analysis are reported in Table 1. Because this study uses SEM with confirmatory factor analysis, the means of all of the manifest variables are reported for initial assessment of the appropriateness of the model for the data to be analyzed. For the dependent variable, the means of all five observed variables representing prison adaptation at Wave 2 suggest that respondents tend to rate prison adaptation positively, with the items ranging from a high of 3.85 out of 5 (“the educational and vocational programs offered here are very helpful and I am willing to participate”) to a low of 3.67 out of 5 (“this institution provides me with sufficient educational and vocational programs as well as other entertainment activities”).

Four explanatory factors are used to predict the dependent variable, prison adaptation at Wave 2, in the analysis. The first factor is the rating of police officers. The mean ratings of these items suggest that juvenile offenders viewed the police positively, with the lowest rating registering at 2.58 out of 4 (“I have trust in the police”). This finding is consistent with previous studies of juvenile offenders reported both in China and in the United States (Leiber et al., 1998; Ren, Zhang, Zhao, & Zhao, 2016). Similarly, the mean ratings of the 14 items related to perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 and Wave 2 show a similar pattern of positive sentiment. It is interesting to note that the mean ratings of items measuring perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 are slightly higher than the mean ratings of the items at Wave 2. For example, the mean of correctional officers are fair to everyone at Wave 1 was 3.89 out of 5, while the mean of the same item at Wave 2 was 3.74. The prison adaptation at Wave 1 shows that all five items were positively rated.

The demographic background variables show that the average age of the juvenile offenders was 16.81 years old. Ethnic minority offenders accounted for 40.7% of the respondents surveyed. More than two thirds (69%) of the juvenile offenders hailed from rural areas. About 88.7% of them did not graduate from junior high school (M = 3.78). The descriptive statistics also show that 94% of the offenders committed violent crimes prior to this current incarceration. The average rating of family visit was 4.37 out of 5. Finally, the average number of days of incarceration was 183 days (6 months).

The results from the SEM analysis are displayed in Figure 2. The factor attitudes toward the police is a significant predictor of perceived legitimacy at Wave 1, with a large coefficient of .428. Not surprisingly, the R² of perceived legitimacy of correctional officers at Wave 1 is at .234. Similarly, attitudes toward the police has a significant but much weaker effect on prison adaptation at Wave 1. It is interesting to note that attitudes toward the police has no direct effect on perceived legitimacy at Wave 2, and on the outcome variable prison adaptation at Wave 2. This finding suggests that the external influence can be cross-sectional in nature. It is true that branches of government can have direct effect on each other as suspected (Easton, 1957), but the length of time such influence lasts may be rather limited. Perceived legitimacy of correctional officers at Wave 1 produced a significant and direct effect on prison adaptation at Wave 1. The coefficient is surprisingly high at .695, suggesting a close link between perceived legitimacy and personal adaptation to the prison environment. This is consistent with previous findings that a good counselor–client relationship is conducive to the successful completion of a treatment program among parolees (Blasko et al., 2015). As expected, perceived legitimacy of correctional officers at Wave 1 is a significant predictor of perceived legitimacy of correctional officers at Wave 2 (β = .473).

Figure 2.

Empirical model of prison adaptation.

The perceived legitimacy of correctional officers at Wave 2 is the most significant predictor of prison adaptation at Wave 2, while the perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 has no direct effect on the outcome variable. Prison adaptation at Wave 1 has a significant effect on prison adaptation at Wave 2, suggesting a continuity in juvenile offenders’ adjustment to prison environment. Among the three demographic variables, offense type, length in prison, and family visit, only age and length of time in prison are significant predictors of perceived legitimacy at Wave 1. Age is positively correlated, while length of time in prison is negatively correlated with perceived legitimacy at Wave 1. Finally, the goodness-of-fit statistics calculated indicate that the theoretical model fits the data well, with only one correlation between error residuals of observed variables (χ²/df = 2.25).⁵ Similarly, the values of comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) are .941 and .934, respectively; these values are within the recommended range of values for a good model registering at .90+ (Bentler, 1990). Finally, the value of RMSEA is .049, below the customary cutoff point of .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For simplicity of visual presentation and ease of interpretation of findings, only significant standardized coefficients are reported in Figure 2. The SEM model explained about 62% of the variance of perceived legitimacy at Wave 2.

Discussion and Conclusion

Three research propositions were set forth in this study. The results of this study were largely consistent with our research propositions. The first proposition was that there is a significant effect of attitudes toward the police on perceived legitimacy at Wave 1, and possibly at Wave 2. The rationale of this proposition derives from the system theory developed by David Easton (1957) and the claim that citizen evaluations tend to produce spillover effects across different branches in the same system (Easton, 1976). For example, public negative views of the police can spill over to their perceptions of correctional institutions in the same criminal justice system. Moreover, the importation perspective posits that prisoners’ behaviors can be affected by previous experience (Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Toch, 1977). The findings reported in Figure 1 suggested that the direct spillover effect of attitudes toward the police is cross-sectional; the direct effect holds in Wave 1 and disappears at the second wave of the interview process.

The second and third propositions concern the influence of perceived legitimacy at Waves 1 and 2 on adaptation to prison at Waves 1 and 2. More specifically, the focus was the two-by-two relationships from both the cross-sectional angle and the longitudinal angle. The rationale for investigating these propositions is anchored in the extensive literature on the importance of favorable attributions of legitimacy in explaining the outcome of treatment programs and compliance to the authority of law enforcement (Blasko et al., 2015; Reisig et al., 2007; Tyler, 1990). Accordingly, successful adaptation to prison programs can be viewed as the result of the legitimate authority. More specifically, juvenile offenders who believe correctional officers can be trusted, are fair, are genuinely caring, and seek to be helpful are more likely to feel positive in a variety of rehabilitative programs sponsored by the prison authority.

An interesting argument in the literature on perceived legitimacy, but overlooked in corrections research, concerns the temporal effect of perceived legitimacy. Tankebe (2013), for example, argued that perceived legitimacy can be viewed as a continuous dialogue between power-holders and their subordinates as the “meaning” of interaction between correctional officers and prisoners depends on the dynamic prison environment (Crewe, 2011; Liebling, 2011). The results reported here suggest that the association between perceived legitimacy and adaptation at both waves of the survey is very significant. The coefficients of perceived legitimacy are about .695 at Wave 1 and .698 at Wave 2. This means that the magnitudes of the respective coefficients at Waves 1 and 2 are very similar and stable from a cross-sectional analysis standpoint. The findings reported here lend support to the perceived legitimacy literature that a “buy in” is a necessary step prior to behavioral change such as acceptance of authority and feeling positive about prison programs. However, it is important to note that perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 has no direct effect on adaptation to prison at Wave 2. This is an interesting finding in that it may suggest that Tankebe’s (2013) argument regarding the temporal nature of legitimacy has its merit.

Why did the direct effect of perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 on the outcome variable, prison adaptation, at Wave 2 disappear despite the fact that the cross-sectional association between perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 and prison adaptation at Wave 1 was very strong? Additional analyses regarding the stability of perceived legitimacy, and prison adaptation across 2 points of time, were completed. The results of these analyses are reported in Table 2. To make a contrast of the differences, we selected respondents who rated the top 23.2% and the bottom 23.9% on the composite scale of perceived legitimacy at Wave 1.⁶ From descriptive statistics of the variables reported in Table 2, the mean ratings of perceived legitimacy among respondents from the top group actually went down from 4.74 out of the 5 at Wave 1 and 4.16 at Wave 2, a substantial drop. In contrast, the mean rating of the same item from the bottom group moved upward to 3.00 at Wave 1 and 3.28 at Wave 2, respectively, a substantial increase. This finding lends support to Tankebe’s (2013) speculation that legitimacy can be a process of dialogue between the power-holders and their subordinates, and level of perceived legitimacy experiences changes. At this point, we are not certain if the decline of ratings for the inmates in the top group is due to some type of a “high expectation” effect that tends to cause downward adjustment over time or not. Similarly, the upward change reported in the low group may have resulted from a period of time wherein additional attention was given by the correctional staff. These results may explain why perceived legitimacy at Wave 1 did not have a direct impact (only indirect effect) on prison adaptation at Wave 2.

Table 2.

Change in Mean Ratings of Perceived Legitimacy and Prison Adaptation Based on the Rating of Perceived Legitimacy at Wave 1: The Top Group and the Bottom Group.

	Perceived legitimacy
	W1	W2
The bottom group (n = 123) (23.9%)	3.00***	3.28***
The bottom group (n = 123) (23.9%)	(SD = 4.27)	(SD = 5.03)
The top group (n = 137) (23.2%)	4.74***	4.16***
The top group (n = 137) (23.2%)	(SD = 2.31)	(SD = 4.36)

***

p < .001.

In regard to the demographic variables, offense type, length in prison, and family visit, our findings suggest that the inclusion of these variables was of limited utility. Family visit is positively related to attitudes toward the police at Wave 1. Age is positively associated with perceived legitimacy at Wave 1, while length in prison is negatively correlated with perceived legitimacy at Wave 1. However, the negative relationship between length in prison and prison adaptation became insignificant at Wave 2. This finding suggests that juvenile offenders tend to perceive the prison authority negatively at their initial entry of prison while the negative attitudes disappeared after they had stayed in prison for a while.

The rest of these importation variables failed to achieve statistical significance. We offer two plausible reasons in speculating as to why demographics and criminogenic variables had virtually no effect on the five factors. The first speculation concerns the homogeneity of juvenile offenders in the study. The 1,540 juvenile offenders incarcerated in the prison were considered the “cream” of juvenile offenders in the autonomous region of 47 million population who had committed very serious crimes. Most of them, for example, had limited education beyond junior high school, and 94% of them were violent juvenile offenders. In their study of 543 youth committed to several facilities in Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon, Marsh and Evans (2009) found that the use of juvenile offenders’ demographics to predict their relationship with prison staff is very unproductive. They noted, “Although research suggests that disadvantaged youth benefit most from mentoring interventions, research also indicates that youth demographics such as gender, age, and ethnicity are largely unrelated to outcomes in mentoring relationships” (Marsh & Evans, 2009, p. 48; also see DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Grossman & Tierney, 1998). There is little doubt based on the interview data collected in the juvenile prison that the incarcerated youth hail from socially disadvantaged groups. Second, it is possible that data collected from Chinese prisons may reflect similar issues. For example, Jiang, Lambert, Liu, Kelley, and Zhang (2018) examined the effects of work environment variables on organizational commitment among 322 employees in two separate prisons located in Southern China. The variables measuring work environment contributed significantly to the variation in employee job commitment, but none of the demographics except for age at the time of the survey yielded significant association.

Policy Implications and Limitations

Prison adaptation for juvenile offenders is extremely important given the fact that positive support can facilitate adaptation to prison environments and reduce recidivism (Duwe & Johnson, 2016). Therefore, examining the positive influences that can support a “healthy” adaptation is an important and timely research topic for China and all other countries dealing with at-risk youth. More specifically, this study offers two important policy implications for the prison setting. The findings reported here represented an extension of prior research on perceived legitimacy, investigating the important political relationship between perceived legitimacy and positive prison adaptation. We found that the association is very significant based on the R² in the model reported here. Derived from the previous literature (Blasko et al., 2015; Franke et al., 2010; Reisig & Mesko, 2009), we identified four essential elements of perceived legitimacy: fairness, respectfulness, genuine caring, and willingness to offer ongoing assistance. These four elements can serve as the basic value orientations used to select and subsequently train correctional staff. It is important to make correctional staff aware of the fact that perceived legitimacy is able to explain more than half of the variance of positive adaptation. Second, our findings suggested that perceived legitimacy is not static in nature, and the trust-based relationship can change over time (Crewe, 2011). The bottom line is clear and straightforward: Perceived legitimacy cannot be taken for granted. Correctional staff needs to keep in mind that a supportive relationship is significantly related to juvenile offenders’ adaptation to prison programs. In addition, prison adaptation leads to a reduction in institutional rule violation and recidivism after release.

There are several limitations that need to be taken into proper consideration. First, the sample of this study is a juvenile prison in an autonomous region of China with 47 million residents. Little is known if our perceived legitimacy findings can be repeated in other juvenile prisons. Next, if perceived legitimacy is conceptualized as a dialogue between power-holders and subordinates (Tankebe, 2013), then prison settings are an ideal place to test this process of dialogue. Correctional staff and prisoners are bound together within a common system whether they like or not. In such circumstances, perceived legitimacy plays knowingly an important role. To further disentangle the continuity of legitimacy, longitudinal data featuring multiple waves are required. Currently, we used longitudinal data with only two waves. In addition, the questionnaire was taken off in interview form, which could be introducing socially desirable answers, especially in an authority-oriented culture in prison. Last, due to the limitation of our dataset, it is impossible to incorporate all of the relevant variables in our model, which may lead to a certain degree of bias in our results. Hence, we call for more studies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the editor, as well as 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.

ORCID iDs

Xinting Wang

Hongwei Zhang

Notes

References

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238.

Blasko

B. L.

Friedmann

P. D.

Rhodes

A. G.

Taxman

F. S.

(2015). The parolee-parole officer relationship as a mediator of criminal justice outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 722-740.

Boessen

Cauffman

(2016). Moving from the neighborhood to the cellblock: The impact of youth’s neighborhoods on prison misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 200-228.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. In Tonry

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 26, pp. 205-281). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Brick

B. T.

Taylor

T. J.

Esbensen

(2009). Juvenile attitudes towards the police: The importance of subcultural involvement and community ties. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 488-495.

Brown

Benedict

W. R.

(2002). Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and police implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25, 543-580.

Brown

S. L.

Ireland

C. A.

(2006). Coping style and distress in newly incarcerated male adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 656-661.

Brunton-Smith

McCarthy

D. J.

(2016). Prison legitimacy and procedural fairness: A multilevel examination of prisoners in England and Wales. Justice Quarterly, 33, 1029-1054.

Byrne

B. M.

(2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Cao

Zhao

Ren

Zhao

(2015). Do in-group and out-group forms of trust matter in predicting confidence in the order institutions? A study of three culturally distinct countries. International Sociology, 30, 674-693.

11.

Cao

Zhao

Van Dine

(1997). Prison disciplinary tickets: A test of the deprivation and importation models. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 103-113.

12.

Chui

W. H.

(2005). Detention center in Hong Kong: A young offender’s narrative. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41, 67-84.

13.

Cochran

J. C.

(2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 433-440.

14.

Cochran

J. C.

(2014). Breaches in the wall: Imprisonment, social support, and recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 200-229.

15.

Crewe

(2011). Soft power in prison: Implications for staff–prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 455-468.

16.

Davis

L. M.

Steele

J. L.

Bozick

Williams

M. V.

Turner

Miles

J. N.

. . . Steinberg

P. S.

(2014). How effective is correctional education, and where do we go from here? The results of a comprehensive evaluation. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR564.html

17.

Dhami

M. K.

Ayton

Loewenstein

(2007). Adaptation to imprisonment: Indigenous or imported? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1085-1110.

18.

DuBios

D. L.

Holloway

B. E.

Valentine

J. C.

Cooper

(2002). Effectiveness of mentoring program for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-197.

19.

Duwe

Johnson

B. R.

(2016). The effects of prison visits from community volunteers on offender recidivism. The Prison Journal, 96, 279-303.

20.

Easton

(1957). An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics, 9, 383-400.

21.

Easton

(1976). Theoretical approaches to political support. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 9, 431-448.

22.

Franke

Bierie

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2010). Legitimacy in corrections: A randomized experiment comparing a boot camp with a prison. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 89-117.

23.

Grossman

J. B.

Tierney

J. P.

(1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation review, 22(3), 403-426.

24.

Harvey

(2007). Young men in prison: Surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.

25.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

26.

Hurst

Y. G.

(2007). Juvenile attitudes toward the police: An examination of rural youth. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 121-141.

27.

Hurst

Y. G.

Frank

Browning

(2000). The attitudes of juveniles toward the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23, 37-53.

28.

Irwin

Cressey

(1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10, 145-155.

29.

Jang

Lee

Gibbs

J. C.

(2015). The influence of the national government on confidence in the police: A focus on corruption. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43, 553-568.

30.

Jiang

Lambert

Liu

Kelley

T. M.

Zhang

(2018). Effects of work environment variables on Chinese prison staff organizational commitment. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51, 275-292. doi:10.1177/0004865817720628

31.

Jiang

Winfree

L. T.

(2006). Social support, gender, and inmate adjustment to prison life: Insights from a national sample. The Prison Journal, 86, 32-55.

32.

Kim

Merlo

A. V.

Benekos

P. J.

(2013). Effective correctional intervention programmes for juveniles: review and synthesis of meta-analytic evidence. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 15(3), 169-189.

33.

Leiber

Nalla

Farnsworth

(1998). Explaining juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. Justice Quarterly, 15, 151-171.

34.

Liebling

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

35.

Liebling

(2011). Distinctions and distinctiveness in the work of prison officers: Legitimacy and authority revisited. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 484-499.

36.

Luo

Ren

Zhao

(2017). The effect of micro-level disorder incidents on public attitudes toward the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40, 395-409.

37.

Marsh

S. C.

Evans

W. P.

(2009). Youth perspectives on their relationships with staff in juvenile correction settings and perceived likelihood of success on release. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 46-67.

38.

Mazerolle

Bennett

Davis

Sargeant

Manning

(2013). Legitimacy in policing: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9, 1-147.

39.

National Bureau of Statistics of P. R. China. (2011). China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

40.

Nye

(2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

41.

Parsons

(1967). Sociological theory and modern society. New York, NY: Free Press.

42.

Reisig

M. D.

Bratton

Gertz

(2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005-1027.

43.

Reisig

M. D.

Mesko

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 41-59.

44.

Reisig

M. D.

Tankebe

Mesko

(2012). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 14, 147-164.

45.

Ren

Zhang

Zhao

(2016). Delinquent subculture and juvenile offenders’ attitudes toward the police in China. Police Quarterly, 19, 87-110.

46.

Schumacker

Lomax

R. G.

(2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

47.

Skeem

J. L.

Louden

J. E.

Polaschek

Camp

(2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397-410.

48.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-548.

49.

Sykes

G. M.

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

50.

Tankebe

(2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103-135.

51.

Toch

(1977). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

52.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

53.

Tyler

T. R.

(2010). Legitimacy in corrections: Policy implications. Criminology and Public Policy, 9, 127-134.

54.

Tyler

T. R.

Fagan

(2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231-275.

55.

Van der Laan

Eichelsheim

. (2013). Juvenile adaptation to imprisonment: Feelings of safety, autonomy and well-being, and behaviour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 10, 424-443.

56.

Weber

(1978). Economy and society ( Roth

Wittich

, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)

57.

Wheaton

Muthén

Alwin

Summers

(1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In Heise

D. R.

(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84-136). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

58.

Lake

Cao

(2015). Race, social bonds, and juvenile attitudes toward the police. Justice Quarterly, 32, 445-470.

59.

Zhou

Shao

(2016). The meaning of juvenile offender socialization of education and the existing issues. Youth Exploration, 201, 81-87. (In Chinese)