Examining the Influence of Work–Family Conflict on Job Stress,Job Satisfaction,and Organizational Commitment Among Correctional Officers

Abstract

Correctional officers perform a unique job that can lead to various negative outcomes. Understanding factors that can have harmful effects on important organizational attitudes like job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment is imperative for the effective management of correctional institutions. Using survey data from 641 correctional officers employed at two Southwestern state-run prison facilities, the current study examines the influence of two measures of work–family conflict (WFC, strain- and time- based) on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment while controlling for many known antecedents of these variables. The results suggest that strain-based conflict is a significant predictor of job stress and job satisfaction, while time-based conflict only predicted job satisfaction. Neither measure of WFC had a significant relationship with organizational commitment. These findings are further contextualized in the discussion section with an emphasis on potential policy implications.

Keywords

correctional officers work–family conflict job stress organizational commitment job satisfaction

Correctional officers are the most important resource necessary for accomplishing the goals and objectives of the institution (Archambeault & Archambeault, 1982; Lambert et al., 2009). These officers frequently work in coercive environments (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Griffin, 2001) where they must manage and control inmates who may be unwilling to cooperate, dangerous, unpredictable, and/or volatile (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Tracy & Scott, 2006). For such reasons, correctional scholars often refer to correctional officers as “the backbone of correctional institutions” (Lambert, Kelley, & Hogan, 2013, p. 410).

Due to the distinctive work environment of correctional officers and the role these individuals play in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the institution, researchers have focused a considerable amount of time and energy toward understanding a number of key organizational attitudes associated with the healthy functioning of correctional institutions. Among these key organizational attitudes, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are often of central interest as they are significantly correlated with several important outcomes. Specifically, correctional officers who are not stressed, are satisfied with their job, and are committed to the organization experience increased job performance, prosocial organizational behavior, increased human service orientation, decreased absenteeism, and decreased turnover intent (Garner, Knight, & Simpson, 2007; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Hogan, Lambert, & Griffin, 2013; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lambert, Hogan, Kelley, Kim, & Garland, 2014; Lambert et al., 2009; Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Baker, 2005; Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Considering the outcomes associated with these organizational variables, it is important to understand what factors influence the levels of job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment because it may enhance institutional safety while simultaneously reducing fiscal costs.

One variable that has received attention among the predictors of these organizational attitudes is work–family conflict (WFC). WFC occurs when aspects of work and family are incompatible with one another (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Lambert, Hogan, Camp, & Ventura, 2006). A growing body of research suggests that WFC is a significant predictor of job stress (Armstrong, Atkin-Plunk, & Wells, 2015; Griffin, 2006; Lambert et al., 2006; Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Lambert, Altheimer, & Hogan, 2010a; Liu, Lambert, Jiang, & Zhang, 2017; Triplett, Mullings, & Scarborough, 1999). Conversely, the research concerning the relationship between WFC, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction is mixed (Armstrong et al., 2015; Hogan, Lambert, Jenkins, & Wambold, 2006; Lambert et al., 2006, 2007, 2010; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002a; Lambert, Hogan, Barton, Jiang, & Baker, 2008).

Although previous research has provided a solid foundation for WFC scholarship, there is still a considerable amount of room to develop this body of literature. The current study seeks to inform the WFC literature in several ways by following up and expanding on previous research (see Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2002a, Lambert et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2017). Similar to replication research, follow-up studies are a fundamental component of science because it helps to control for sampling error, artifacts (lack of internal validity), and fraud; generalize the results to a larger and/or different population; and authenticate hypotheses from previous research studies (Schmidt, 2009). The current study, therefore, examines the effect of WFC on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment from two prisons located in the Southwestern United States. Additionally, the current study controls for many known antecedents of job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment that previous research did not include in their analyses. Through the inclusion of such controls, the true strength of WFC will be better understood in the context of the outcome variables of interest. The results of this study not only provide a better understanding of these relationships but also offer a backdrop for policy recommendations concerning these organizational attitudes.

WFC

The unique job that correctional officers perform can potentially have a negative impact on their homelife. Although research regarding correctional officers focuses on many aspects of job duties and the work environment, a growing body of literature examines how workplace responsibilities and duties often conflict with correctional officers’ homelife resulting in problems in the workplace (Griffin, 2006; Lambert et al., 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013; Lambert & Hogan, 2010b; Lambert, Hogan, & Altheimer, 2010; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002a, 2002b, 2004; Triplett et al., 1999). Known as WFC, this dynamic arises when aspects of work and family are incompatible with one another in some manner and resulting problems spillover into the two domains—work life and homelife (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964; Lambert et al., 2006).

In general, WFC is broken into two major forms consisting of work-on-family conflict and family-on-work conflict (FWC; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). On the one hand, work-on-family conflict exists when negative aspects of the job permeate the family/social life. There are three categories of WFC: time-based conflict, strain-based conflict, and behavior-based conflict. Time-based WFC arises when the scheduling of work shifts or the amount of time spent at work interferes with homelife. Behavioral-based conflict occurs when the attitudes and behaviors necessary for the job (e.g., an overly authoritative attitude) permeate the homelife and family dynamics. When the demands and stress from the job negatively influence homelife, this is considered strain-based conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Netemeyer et al., 1996). FWC, on the other hand, occurs when harmful features of one’s homelife (e.g., divorce) negatively influence the employee at work (Netemeyer et al., 1996).

WFC Research

The importance of WFC is highlighted through the broad and extensive research produced by correctional scholars. For instance, research has found that various measures of both WFC and FWC are related to decreased life satisfaction and increased job burnout (Kinman, Clements, & Hart, 2017; Lambert et al., 2005; Lambert & Hogan, 2010b). Although these findings highlight the expansive influence of WFC, much of the research tends to focus on select workplace variables such as job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

WFC and Job Stress

Stress refers to the outcome experienced when an individual is subject to environmental conditions that place special physical and/or psychological demands on the individual (Sulsky & Smith, 2005). Within the correctional officer literature, job stress is associated with various negative outcomes (Bierie, 2012; Denhof & Spinaris, 2013; Griffin, Hogan, Lambert, Tucker-Gail, & Baker, 2010; Hogan et al., 2013; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lambert, 2004).

Extant literature on WFC among correctional officers suggests that this conflict can act as a stressor (Armstrong et al., 2015; Griffin, 2006; Lambert et al., 2006, 2007, 2010; Liu et al., 2017; Triplett et al., 1999). Griffin (2006) used a composite measure of WFC and found that among correctional officers, WFC was the most powerful predictor of stress for both men and women.¹ Similarly, among all staff at a maximum security private correctional facility, Lambert et al. (2007) found that WFC was a significant cause of stress, second only to role overload. It is important to note, however, that the robustness of WFC may be contingent on how it is measured. Lambert et al. (2006), for example, included measures of all three types of WFC, as well as a measure of FWC, and found that strain-based WFC was the only significant predictor of stress. Likewise, Armstrong, Atkin-Plunk, and Wells (2015) found that FWC and strain- and behavior-based WFC had a significant positive relationship with job stress among 441 officers employed at 13 different adult prison facilities. The significant effect of WFC on stress is not exclusive to the United States. Using all three types of conflict and FWC among 322 staff surveyed at two Chinese prisons, Liu, Lambert, Jiang, and Zhang (2017) found that strain-based conflict and behavior-based conflict were the only measures of WFC that had a significant positive effect on job stress. In general, the research examining the relationship between WFC and job stress demonstrates a consistent significant correlation that even transcends international boundaries.

WFC and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is “the fulfillment or gratification of certain needs that are associated with one’s work” (Hopkins, 1983, p. 7). Job satisfaction includes an assessment of whether an individual feels that his or her needs and expectations are being met within their particular job (Lambert et al., 2002b). Overall, the job satisfaction literature suggests that it is an important workplace attitude necessary for the proper functioning of a correctional facility (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Lambert et al., 2002b, 2009).

Research using disparate measures and samples to study the relationship between WFC and job satisfaction evidences mixed findings. Lambert, Hogan, & Barton (2002a) used a measure of time-based conflict and FWC among Midwestern correctional staff and found that time-based conflict had a significant negative influence on job satisfaction, but FWC did not. More recently, Armstrong et al. (2015) expanded the WFC literature by including measures of time-, strain-, and behavior-based conflict, as well as FWC. They found that strain- and behavior-based conflict and FWC had a significant negative relationship with job satisfaction. Similarly, Lambert et al. (2006) included a measure of the three aspects of WFC and FWC and reported that only strain- and behavior-based conflict had a significant inverse impact on job satisfaction. Even research using a composite measure of WFC has demonstrated statistical significance, although the effect varied by sex.² Lambert, Altheimer, and Hogan (2010a) found that the influence of a composite measure of time- and strain-based WFC had a significant inverse relationship with job satisfaction among female correctional staff employed at a private Midwestern security facility, but not men. In addition, FWC did not have a relationship with job satisfaction for men or women.

WFC and Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is characterized by a general commitment to an overall organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). More specifically, organizational commitment reflects a strong desire to preserve membership within the organization, willingness to work toward organizational goals, and acceptance of standards and goals outlined by the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). Three distinct forms of organizational commitment exist in the literature, which are continuance commitment, affective commitment, and normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The emotional attachment of an individual to the organization is considered affective commitment, whereas normative commitment refers to the employees feeling obligated to continue employment and pressured to meet the goals of the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Wiener, 1982). Continuance commitment is related to the understanding of the costs related to leaving the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Importantly, the success of correctional institutions relies on employees who are committed to the organization, which emphasizes the need to understand what influences levels of commitment (Lambert & Hogan, 2009).

The current body of research concerning WFC and organizational commitment highlights the complex relationship that these variables share. For example, Lambert et al. (2008) examined the relationship between organizational commitment and WFC using composite measures of WFC and FWC with staff from a high-security state prison and found that WFC decreased organizational commitment, whereas FWC had no relationship (see also Hogan et al., 2006). Additionally, using measures of strain-, behavior-, and time-based conflict and FWC, Lambert et al. (2006) found that time- and behavior-based conflict and FWC had a significant inverse relationship with organizational commitment. Other research, however, suggests negligible effects between WFC and organizational commitment. Lambert et al. (2007) found no relationship between a composite measure of WFC and organizational commitment. Similarly, Lambert, Altheimer et al. (2010) reported that there was no relationship between WFC, FWC, and organizational commitment, with one exception: FWC had a positive relationship with organizational commitment for women. The mixed results concerning the relationship between the different measurements of WFC and organizational commitment suggest a need for further research.

Current Focus

A growing body of research suggests that WFC is a significant predictor of several workplace variables that are integral to the proper functioning of correctional institutions. This study seeks to add to this body of literature by following up and building upon past research that examines WFC on various workplace outcomes. Similar to previous research, the current study explores the relationship of time-based and strain-based WFC on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment while controlling for key control variables. This study adds to the WFC literature by including the control variables quality of supervision, perceived dangerousness, role strain, job autonomy, and organizational support, which research suggests are significant predictors of job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (see Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Griffin & Hepburn, 2005; Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002b; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). Additionally, job stress is used as a control variable in the model predicting job satisfaction, and both job stress and satisfaction are included in the model predicting organizational commitment. These variables are included as controls because research suggests that they are significantly related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (see Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002b; Lambert & Hogan, 2009; Lambert & Paoline, 2008). Finally, in comparison to previous research that relied on data from a private prison (Lambert et al., 2006, 2007, Lambert, Altheimer, & Hogan, 2010a; Lambert et al., 2013), the current study uses responses from correctional officers employed at two state-run prisons in the Southwest³. Based on previous research, it is hypothesized that both measures of WFC will increase job stress while decreasing job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Method

Subjects and Procedure

Paper surveys were administered to all 1,234 security officers employed at two Southwestern prison complexes. Each of the prison complexes was comprised of several semiautonomous prison facilities, or prison units, that vary in size and security level. Between the two complexes, there were minimum, medium, and maximum security units. Each survey was accompanied by a cover letter from the research team that made it clear that the survey was being conducted by researchers from a local university, that participation was voluntary, and that their answers were completely anonymous. In addition, the cover letter included directions for those interested in entering a drawing to win a US$50 gift card (one per prison complex). Those who did not want to return the survey to the specially marked box within the prison unit were asked to use the self-addressed, prepaid postage to send the survey back to the university.

The Sample

A total of 1,234 correctional officers were surveyed at the two prison complexes and 664 surveys were returned, resulting in a 53.8% response rate. Of those surveys returned, 71.3% came from Prison 1, where 470 of the 850 (55.3% response rate) surveys were completed. At Prison 2, 194 of the 384 officers (50.5% response rate) who were solicited for the survey completed it, resulting in 28.7% of the overall completed surveys. The sample included line officers, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and majors. Whereas line officers comprised 84.3% of the sample, supervisors (i.e., sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and majors) made up 15.7% of the sample. It is important to note that the response rate among this specific population is common (see Hartley, Davila, Marquart, & Mullings, 2013; Taxman & Gordon, 2009; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). A technical error occurred during printing and a portion of the surveys did not print, which resulted in some missing data. These errors randomly occurred on 23 surveys. After removing these surveys, there was a sample size of 641. The representativeness of the sample was examined in comparison to the population. Compared to the population, the sample was slightly older with longer tenure, predominately male, and typically identify their race/ethnicity as Caucasian/White. The only significant difference was within the racial breakdowns between the sample and the population (χ² = 39.19; p < .01; Φ = .145), but the Φ statistic indicates that the strength of the association was weak suggesting that the difference was not large. These surveys were scanned into an electronic format, reducing the likelihood of human error in the process of data entry. Due to listwise deletion during the analysis, the final sample size varied from 497 to 515, depending on the model.

Dependent Variables

All of the dependent variables were measured by Likert-type scales, where each respondent indicated their degree of agreement or disagreement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The sum of the items that create the Likert-type scale was divided by the number of items in that scale to create scale scores that range from a low of 1 to a high of 5, with the higher value representing increased levels of that which is being measured. Reverse scoring of some items was required (see the Appendix for a list of all scale items).

An attitudinal self-report scale measured job stress (α = .725). The 4-item attitudinal self-report measure of stress used by Cullen, Link, Wolfe, and Frank (1985) and Crank, Regoli, Hewitt, and Culbertson (1995) was used to assess job stress among the officers and includes statements like “a lot of times, my job makes me very frustrated or angry.” This attitudinal stress scale has been found to be reliable elsewhere (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Griffin, 2006; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007) and has an acceptable reliability level for this analysis. Five questions were used to create a scale measuring job satisfaction (α = .858). An example of an item included in this scale is “I enjoy most of the work I do.” The Job Satisfaction Scale was based on the scale created by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) and has been used in other research examining correctional officer job satisfaction (see Griffin et al., 2010; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). An affective form (“I am proud to be employed with this organization”) of organizational commitment (α = .848) was created using 5 items based on a previous scale created by Mowday (1979) and recently validated by Vickovic and Griffin (2014).

Independent Variables

The items used to assess WFC include measurements of both time-based conflict and strain-based conflict. Time-based conflict assesses the pressure that arises when scheduling and time spent at work interferes with homelife and was measured with statements like “my job keeps me away from my family too much.” Items like “I find that my job has negatively affected my homelife” were used to measure strain-based conflict, which refers to when the negative aspects of the job influence homelife. The measures for time-based and strain-based conflict were each operationalized using two Likert-type scales including 3 items and were based on prior research conducted by Bacharach, Bamberger, and Conley (1991), Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981), Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000), and Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1992). Lambert, Hogan, and Altheimer (2010a), Lambert et al. (2013), and Triplett, Mullings, and Scarborough (1999) used similar measures that were validated among their samples. The sum of the items that created the Likert scales was divided by the number of items in that scale to create scale scores that range from a low of 1 to a high of 5, with the higher value representing increased levels of that which is being measured. The Cronbach’s α levels for time-based and strain-based conflict are α = .632 and α = .671, respectively. Research suggests that α levels of .60 or higher are acceptable (Carmines & Zeller, 1979; Gronlund, 1981; Taber, 2017). In addition, several published articles concerning correctional officers have used measurements with α levels below .63 concerning key variables, including WFC (Griffin, 2006; Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2002a, 2006, Lambert, Hogan, & Altheimer, 2010a; Triplett et al., 1999).

Control Variables

Several control variables were used in this analysis including role strain, perceived dangerousness of the job, job autonomy, quality of supervision, organizational support, age, gender, non-White, college degree, tenure, and supervisory status. The concept of role strain refers to conflict stemming from vague or contradictory directions and duties and can be broken down into two components: role conflict and role ambiguity (Crank, Regoli, Hewitt, & Culbertson, 1995; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). Most research assessing role strain uses a combined measure that includes aspects from both role conflict and role ambiguity. Consistent with previous research concerning role strain, the scale used in this study combines measures of both role ambiguity and role conflict and includes statements like “I work under conflicting policies and guidelines” (α = .778). The items for this scale are similar to ones used by Armstrong and Griffin (2004), Hepburn (1985), Hepburn and Knepper (1993), Poole and Regoli (1980), and Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). Correctional officers’ perception of role strain was measured using a 6-item scale. A 5-item scale, similar to one constructed by Cullen, Link, Cullen, and Wolfe (1989), was used to assess perceived dangerousness of the job (α = .666), which examines correctional officers’ perception of the danger associated with their job. Statements like “In my job, a person stands a good chance of getting hurt” were used to measure perceived dangerousness of the job.

The autonomy to make decisions in the workplace was measured using a 4-item scale called job autonomy (α = .600), which was based on scales constructed by Curry, Wakefield, Price, and Mueller (1986), Slate and Vogel (1997), and Wright, Saylor, Gilman, and Camp (1997) and included statements like “I can determine the order in which I do things.” Correctional officers’ perceptions of the quality of supervision (α = .829) was measured by an 8-item scale similar to one created by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986) and used by Armstrong and Griffin (2004) and Griffin (2001, 2006). This scale includes items like “On my job, I know what my supervisor expects of me” and “I often receive feedback on my performance from supervisor” and measures several aspects associated with CO’s perceptions of the quality of their supervisors. This study relies on a 4-item scale used by Eisenberger et al. (1986) and Griffin (2001, 2006) to measure organizational support (α = .835), which refers to the extent to which an employee perceives they are supported by the organization (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004). This scale measured the perceived support from the organization rather than a specific prison complex or unit due to the frequency of officers being transferred between prison complexes and units with statements like “the department takes pride in my accomplishments at work.”

Various demographics were also included as control variables. Age of correctional officer was measured as a continuous variable. The mean age was 40.361. Gender was measured as a dummy variable with 0 representing female and 1 representing male (80.0% male and 20.0% female). Non-White was measured as a categorical variable and accounted for race and ethnicity, where 0 represented Whites and 1 represented non-Whites (i.e., Native American, African American, Asian, Hispanic, and other). Overall, the sample was predominately White (64.1%) with non-Whites making up 35.9% of the sample. An officer’s level of education was measured using a dichotomous variable for college degree (0 = no, 1 = yes). Approximately 29.9% of correctional officers had a college degree, with the remainder having a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED). Correctional officer characteristics were also used as controls, including job tenure and supervisory status. Tenure was measured as the number of years an individual was employed with the correctional institution. The average correctional officer was employed with the two Southwestern prisons for approximately 9.816 years. Finally, a measure was included in the analysis for the correctional supervisory status (0 = nonsupervisory, 1 = supervisory). Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for all dependent, independent, and control variables, whereas Table 2 provides the bivariate correlations between these variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Median	Mean	Standard Deviation	Cronbach’s α	Min	Max
Job stress	3.250	3.197	0.836	.725	1	5
Job satisfaction	3.800	3.611	0.785	.858	1	5
Organizational commitment	3.600	3.415	0.859	.848	1	5
WFC time	2.667	2.805	0.891	.632	1	5
WFC strain	2.667	2.708	0.932	.671	1	5
Quality of supervision	3.625	3.521	0.788	.829	1	5
Role strain	3.200	3.111	0.824	.778	1	5
Job autonomy	3.500	3.348	0.736	.600	1	5
Organizational support	2.500	2.401	0.933	.835	1	5
Perceived danger	3.600	3.515	0.681	.666	1	5
Prison 1	1.000	0.713	0.453		0	1
Prison 2	0.000	0.287	0.453		0	1
Supervisory status	0.000	0.157	0.364		0	1
Tenure	7.000	9.816	7.170		0	39
Non-White	0.000	0.359	0.480		0	1
Age	41.000	40.491	11.697		21	69
Gender (male = 1)	1.000	0.800	0.400		0	1
College degree	0.000	0.299	0.458		0	1

Note. WFC = work–family conflict.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
(1) Job stress	1.000
(2) Job satisfaction	−.459	1.000
(3) Organizational commitment	−.249	.629	1.000
(4) WFC time	.407	−.370	−.313	1.000
(5) WFC strain	.566	−.431	−.386	.467	1.000
(6) Quality of supervision	−.375	.504	.527	−.196	−.338	1.000
(7) Role strain	.525	−.436	−.510	.317	.420	−.516	1.000
(8) Job autonomy	−.483	.440	.431	−.241	−.379	.496	−.392	1.000
(9) Organizational support	−.460	.533	.596	−.298	−.370	.526	−.568	.401	1.000
(10) Perceived danger	.544	−.348	−.355	.411	.337	−.276	.493	−.303	−.478	1.000
(11) Prison complex	.039	.008	−.002	.034	.044	−.123	.129	−.034	−.040	.001	1.000
(12) Supervisory status	.076	.092	.143	−.024	.148	−.069	−.074	−.044	.027	.042	.064	1.000
(13) Tenure	−.044	.101	.131	−.232	.007	−.062	−.089	.004	.063	−.150	−.016	.252	1.000
(14) Non-White	−.060	.074	.030	.100	−.062	.042	−.037	.132	.067	.039	.029	−.143	−.125	1.000
(15) Gender	.023	−.091	−.080	.076	−.012	.031	.011	−.076	−.046	.025	.071	.104	−.063	−.048	1.000
(16) Age	−.101	.149	.153	−.290	−.079	−.038	−.157	.003	.149	−.233	.052	.151	.618	−.131	−.039	1.000
(17) College degree	−.038	−.040	−.081	−.031	−.074	−.024	−.057	.019	.015	−.065	−.019	−.072	−.086	.033	.009	.089	1.000

Note. WFC = work–family conflict.

Results

Prior to the multivariate analysis, the bivariate associations between the variables were examined for unusual linearity, strength, and direction. According to the Table 2, the correlation matrix does not identify any relationships that may be theoretically or analytically concerning. For instance, both forms of WFC and role strain were positively related to job stress, whereas job autonomy is negatively associated with job stress. These bivariate results are consistent with the multivariate analysis.

The primary analysis for this study relied on ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. To ensure that the models complied with the assumptions of OLS regression, numerous tests were conducted to ensure the residuals were normally distributed and the models did not suffer from interdependence, multicollinearity (Variance Inflation Factor < 2.16), outliers, or heteroskedasticity. Additionally, all models were ran with robust standard errors to provide more conservative estimates of the coefficients. Finally, all models included unstandardized and standardized β coefficients for interpretation of variable strength.

The results from the OLS regression analysis are reported in Table 3. According to the model examining job stress, strain-based conflict had a significant positive relationship with job stress, meaning that as a correctional officer’s level of strain-based conflict increased so did their level of job-related stress. This result is consistent with previous research examining the WFC–job stress nexus whereby strain-based conflict is the only significant dimension of WFC (Armstrong et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2017). Other variables that had a significant positive effect on job stress included role strain and perceived danger. Given the hostile environment of prisons and role clarity correctional officers need to effectively perform their job, neither of these findings are surprising, especially in light of the corroborating evidence (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Griffin, 2006; Lambert & Hogan, 2010b; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Finally, job autonomy was significantly related to job stress but the association was negative. Essentially, correctional officers who felt they had greater control over their job experienced lower levels of job stress, which is consistent with previous research (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Wright, Saylor, Gilman, & Camp, 1997). It is important to highlight that strain-based conflict was the most robust predictor of job stress according to the standardized β coefficient.

Table 3.

OLS Regression Results.

	Job Stress (N = 515)			Job Satisfaction (N = 506)			Organizational Commitment (n = 497)
Variable	Coefficient	Robust Standard Error	β	Coefficient	Robust Standard Error	β	Coefficient	Robust Standard Error	β
WFC time	0.051	.039	.055	−0.095	.038	−.107*	.023	.035	.024
WFC strain	0.260	.039	.291***	−0.126	.040	−.149**	−.046	.035	−.050
Job stress	—	—	—	−0.097	.047	−.103*	.070	.043	.069
Job satisfaction	—	—	—	—	—	—	.583	.053	.542***
Quality of supervision	0.037	.049	.035	0.263	.053	.263***	.102	.053	.094
Role strain	0.180	.052	.178**	0.021	.049	.022	−.122	.045	−.118**
Job autonomy	−0.218	.047	−.193***	0.104	.046	.097*	.055	.041	.048
Organizational support	−0.039	.037	−.044	0.185	.039	.219***	.168	.037	.185***
Perceived danger	0.332	.056	.271***	0.005	.058	.004	−.012	.053	−.009
Prison 2	−0.010	.059	−.005	0.091	.056	.052	.055	.052	.029
Supervisory status	0.024	.092	.010	0.298	.067	.138***	.182	.075	.077*
Tenure	0.002	.005	.019	0.001	.005	.007	.005	.004	.042
Non-White	−0.047	.058	−.027	0.089	.054	.054	−.072	.048	−.019
Gender	−0.013	.061	−.006	−0.167	.069	−.085*	−.081	.060	−.034
Age	0.002	.003	.028	0.004	.003	.059	−.000	.002	−.003
College degree	0.017	.056	.010	−0.085	.055	−.049	−.112	.053	−.060*
Constant	1.236	.360		2.617	.426		.674	.397
df	14			15			16
F	39.24***			33.36***			59.05***
R²	0.524			0.469			0.670

Note. WFC = work–family conflict.

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

When examining the results for job satisfaction (Table 3), several significant findings emerged. First, both time-based and strain-based conflict were significantly and negatively related to job satisfaction. In other words, correctional officers who reported higher levels of time-based or strain-based conflict had lower levels of job satisfaction. Akin to the WFC variables, job stress was also inversely related to job satisfaction. The findings for strain-based conflict, time-based conflict, and stress are all consistent with previous research (Armstrong et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2002b, 2006; Lambert, Altheimer et al., 2010). Second, quality of supervision, job autonomy, and organizational support all significantly predicted job satisfaction. In other words, correctional officers who reported they had quality supervision were more satisfied with their job as opposed to those with difficult supervisors; correctional officers who reported greater levels of autonomy in the workplace were more satisfied with their job; and correctional officers who felt supported by their organization were also more satisfied with their job. All of these findings are congruent with previous research (Griffin, 2001; Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002a; Wright et al., 1997).

Third, in comparison to correctional officers, supervisors typically reported greater levels of satisfaction with their job. Supervisors occupy a different role within the prison, which may lead to increased job satisfaction compared to line officers (Cullen, Latessa, Kopache, Lombardo, & Burton, 1993; Robinson & Porporino, 1996). Being satisfied with one’s job is integral to becoming a supervisor because this usually requires longer tenure and satisfactory work output. Finally, males reported lower levels of job satisfaction in comparison to females. Although speculative, women may be able to find more satisfaction with different aspects of the job compared to men due to the different views and motivations associated with the job (Jurik & Halemba, 1984). Based on the findings from the job satisfaction model, the most robust variables were quality of supervision, organizational support, and strain-based conflict.

The final model in Table 3 examined organizational commitment. Interestingly, this was the only model in which the WFC variables were not significant. Given the broader literature which tends to produce mixed findings between WFC and organizational commitment (Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2006, 2007, 2008; Lambert, Altheimer et al., 2010), the lack of significance was not surprising, especially since key antecedents of organizational commitment were included in the model. The variables that were positively related to organizational commitment included job satisfaction, organizational support, and supervisory status. On the contrary, correctional officers with a college degree reported lower levels of organizational commitment in comparison to those who graduated from high school or received their GED. This may be due to the fact that correctional officers who have higher educational attainment may have increased expectations for extrinsic and intrinsic rewards that may not be realized causing a lack of organizational commitment (Hepburn, 1989). In addition, role strain reduced levels of organizational commitment. Overall, the strongest predictor of organizational commitment was job satisfaction, with its standardized β coefficient being 3 to 5 times larger than any of the other significant predictors.

Discussion

Within any profession, it is difficult to separate work from homelife, but among correctional work, the issue is exacerbated by the unique nature of the job. Correctional officers function in a work environment characterized by around-the-clock supervision, volatility, and danger. As a result, these working conditions may lead to time-based and strain-based conflict, which can result in various negative outcomes. In an effort to explore WFC, especially in the context of previous research (Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2002, 2006, 2008; Lambert, Altheimer et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2017), the current study examined the impact of time-based and strain-based conflict on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Based on the analysis, there are several findings that need explanation and contextualization as there are similarities and differences between this study and previous research concerning WFC.

The relationship between job stress and WFC has received significant attention within the correctional officer literature. Research typically finds that WFC increases job stress among correctional officers; however, this relationship is contingent upon the way in which WFC is measured (Armstrong et al., 2015, Griffin, 2006; Triplett et al., 1999; Lambert et al., 2006, 2007; Lambert, Altheimer et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2017). This is the case in point for the relationship between job stress and WFC in the current study. Strain-based conflict is the most robust predictor of job stress; as strain-based conflict increases, job stress increases as well. To the extent that such stress adversely impacts the employee and the correctional institution, administrators may want to consider strategies to reduce strain-based WFC.

In contrast to strain-based conflict, time-based WFC is not significantly related to job stress. This finding is consistent with previous research. Lambert et al. (2006) found that among the three types of WFC, strain-based WFC was the only significant predictor of job stress. Similarly, Armstrong et al. (2015) reported that strain-based WFC, but not time-based WFC, had a significant positive relationship with job stress (see also Liu et al., 2017). It is possible that correctional officers in the current study do not consider their shiftwork and possible forced overtime a significant stressor because they expect their job to be time-consuming. Alternatively, these specific correctional institutions may do a sufficient job at accommodating their officers’ schedules.

Ensuring staff are satisfied with their job is crucial for any organization because it promotes greater human service orientation, increases compliance with organizational rules and goals, and reduces negative organizational outcomes such as turnover, turnover intent, absenteeism, and burnout. Among the current sample, both time-based and strain-based conflict decreased levels of job satisfaction even when controlling for other key variables. It appears that the schedule requirements of the job interfere with homelife, which results in decreased job satisfaction. In addition, when the stress of the job permeates family life, this leads to dissatisfied employees. These findings are consistent with past research that suggests that time-based and strain-based conflict decreases job satisfaction among correctional officers (Armstrong et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2002, 2006; Lambert, Altheimer et al., 2010).

Research exploring the relationship between organizational commitment and WFC is mixed. Some studies report a significant inverse relationship between different dimensions of WFC and organizational commitment (Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2006, 2008), while other research has found no significant relationship (Lambert et al., 2007; Lambert, Altheimer et al., 2010). This study confirms the latter finding that there is not a significant relationship between time-based and strain-based WFC and organizational commitment, which warrants further elaboration.

In comparison to previous research that reveals significant WFC findings (Lambert et al., 2006, 2008), the current study provides a comprehensive set of controls known to be antecedents of organizational commitment, including quality of supervision, perceived dangerousness, role strain, job autonomy, organizational support, job stress, and job satisfaction (Griffin, Armstrong, & Hepburn, 2005; Griffin & Hepburn, 2005; Lambert, Hogan, & Cheesman Dial, 2011; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014; Wright et al., 1997). Placed in the context of these controls, WFC may either not matter or be rendered as a latent construct. It may be that WFC does not influence organizational commitment directly; rather, it may influence organizational commitment indirectly through variables like job satisfaction. For instance, job satisfaction is not only significantly related to both WFC variables but it is also the most robust predictor of organizational commitment within the current study. To the extent that WFC indirectly influences job satisfaction, it is imperative to control for both variables when examining organizational commitment; otherwise, the model may risk being misspecified. Future research should continue to not only examine the relationship between WFC and organizational commitment in the context of job satisfaction but also employ structural equation modeling to explore direct and indirect relationships between the aforementioned variables.

Policy Implications

The findings from this research have several policy implications that correctional institutions and administrators should recognize when formulating strategies to reduce WFC. First, considering the shrinking budgets experienced by many correctional institutions, these findings can assist correctional institutions on focusing their limited funds on specific problematic aspects of the job. For instance, the current findings indicate that strain-based WFC is a more robust antecedent of job stress and satisfaction in comparison to time-based WFC. If correctional institutions are looking to get the biggest “bang for their buck,” they may want to focus their limited funding on strategies aimed at reducing strain-based WFC.

Second, administrators and supervisors must be a support system for line officers to reduce the negative impact of WFC. It is unfortunate, but often among the correctional culture, officers are expected to simply leave their problems at work and not discuss them with family, friends, and even coworkers (Lambert, 2001; Lambert et al., 2004). It is imperative that correctional administrators and supervisors foster an environment that is supportive and open to communication regarding any problems experienced at both work and home. Research consistently shows that when correctional officers feel their supervisors and the organization are effective and supportive, this reduces factors like job stress and WFC as well as increases job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Griffin, 2001; Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002b; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). Furthermore, environments that are supportive and open to communication may act as an early intervention system. Open communication may prevent nominal problems from escalating into a costly issue because administrators and supervisors are already aware of such issues and have taken the steps necessary to mitigate the problem, such as providing officers with the proper resources inside and outside of the correctional institution (Hogan et al., 2006).

Third, officers must be provided with appropriate training so that they are knowledgeable about WFC and understand how to assuage its effects on homelife (Lambert et al., 2013). When officers receive adequate and appropriate training, this results in decreased job stress and increased job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Griffin, 2001; Lambert & Paoline, 2005; Lambert et al., 2009). Proper training allows correctional officers to be confident at work and effectively perform their job, which can decrease issues at work and ultimately at home. Orientation and training can also decrease the shock many officers experience when they start the job. In addition, training needs to be ongoing and employees should be able to provide input in order to ensure that it addresses the actual needs of the officers (Lambert et al., 2009).

Fourth, providing access to interventions and coping mechanisms may alleviate the negative outcomes of strain-based WFC (Lambert et al., 2006). Although research examining strategies to reduce WFC is practically nonexistent, research from other areas of the correctional literature may offer some guidance for effective interventions. Research has found, for example, that emotion-focused programs (e.g., Power to Change), peer support programs, prosocial activities, and counseling are all evidence-based strategies that decrease stress, improve health, and increase prosocial attitudes among correctional officers (Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lambert et al., 2006; McCraty, Atkinson, Lipsenthal, & Arquelles, 2009; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Correctional institutions and administrators should consider implementing similar programs that provide correctional officers with coping mechanisms to reduce WFC, especially strain-based conflict. In addition, since strain-based conflict influences employees’ families, such programs and coping strategies should be made available to family members affected by the negative effects of work on homelife.

Finally, although time-based WFC only had a weak relationship with job satisfaction, it is still necessary to provide mechanisms for officers to offset the negative consequences of time-based WFC. Correctional officers and their families should be made aware of the unique scheduling and time demands of the job before they begin employment. In addition, providing time management training for officers can assist them in managing the various requirements of the job and homelife (Lambert et al., 2002a). Correctional institutions should also attempt to provide more flexible schedules to accommodate officer needs.

Even though the findings of this study offer important insight into the relationship between WFC and job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, the results must be cautiously interpreted and understood against a number of limitations. First, the study is cross-sectional and cannot show how WFC may change over time and influence these outcomes. Second, time-based and strain-based conflict were the only forms of WFC measured. Including behavior-based WFC and FWC would offer a more complete examination of WFC. Third, the α levels for strain-based and time-based WFC were low and were measured using only 3-item scales. Future research should work toward developing better measurements of WFC that improve the α levels. The limited measurement of the WFC variables, coupled with the low α levels, could have led to an inaccurate understanding of how these constructs are related to the variables included in the study. Fourth, this study did not examine the relationship between WFC, job burnout, and turnover. Future research should continue to examine the influence of WFC on factors like job burnout and turnover while taking into consideration factors like gender and other key control variables. Fifth, the sample included correctional officers from two state-run prisons in the Southwest, which limits the generalizability. Future research should include detention officers, private prison staff, and international samples in order to provide comparison among these unique samples. Finally, the response rate was only 53.8%. Although this response rate is similar to other studies assessing correctional officers, future studies regarding correctional officers should attempt to achieve better response rates (Hartley et al., 2013; Taxman & Gordon, 2009; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). Considering the growing body of literature that suggests that WFC influences several key workplace variables, research should continue to assess the antecedents of WFC (see Lambert et al., 2014, 2017).

Although there are some limitations of the current study, the findings offer valuable insight into the relationship between WFC and job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment that inform policy implications. Balancing work and personal domains is a difficult task within any profession. In the correctional profession, however, this balancing act may be even more pronounced as the work environment at times may be volatile, dangerous, and stressful. Staff realize that inmates “are breathing down our neck, and they know we are outnumbered. There could be a hostage situation any time” (Martin, Lichtenstein, Jenkot, & Forde, 2012, p. 99). Recognizing the difficult nature of correctional work and how this may negatively influence officers and their families is crucial for correctional institutions to function effectively. By continuing the research on WFC and implementing the policy implications guided by these findings, we can build upon our understanding of these issues and increase the efficiency of correctional officers, while also promoting a quality work and homelife.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Samuel G. Vickovic

Notes

References

Archambeault

W. G.

Archambeault

B. J

. (1982). Correctional supervisory management: Principles of organization, policy, and law. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Armstrong

G. S.

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

Wells

(2015). The relationship between work–family conflict, correctional officer job stress, and job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 1066–1082.

Armstrong

G. S.

Griffin

M. L.

(2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577–592.

Bacharach

S. B.

Bamberger

Conley

(1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction as work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39–53.

Bierie

D. M.

(2012). The impact of prison conditions on staff well-being. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 81–95.

Bohen

H. H.

Viveros-Long

(1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible work schedules help? Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Brayfield

A. H.

Rothe

H. F.

(1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.

Camp

S. D.

Gaes

G. G.

(2002). Growth and quality of U.S. private prisons: Evidence from a national survey. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 427–450.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

Williams

L. J.

(2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.

10.

Carmines

E. G.

Zeller

R. A.

(1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

11.

Crank

J. P.

Regoli

Hewitt

J. D.

Culbertson

R. G.

(1995). Institutional and organizational antecedents of role stress, work alienation, and anomie among police executives. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 152–171.

12.

Cullen

F. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Kopache

Lombardo

L. X.

Burton

V. S.

Jr. (1993). Prison wardens’ job satisfaction. The Prison Journal, 73, 141–161.

13.

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Cullen

J. B.

Wolfe

N. T.

(1989). How satisfying is prison work? A comparative occupational approach. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 14, 89–108.

14.

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

Frank

(1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 505–533.

15.

Curry

J. P.

Wakefield

D. S.

Price

J. L.

Mueller

C. W.

(1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847–858.

16.

Denhof

M. D.

Spinaris

C. G.

(2013). Depression, PTSD, and comoribidity in United States corrections professionals: Prevalence and impact on health and functioning. Desert Waters Correctional Outreach. Retrieved from http://desertwaters.com/?page_id=746

17.

Dowden

Tellier

(2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31–47.

18.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchinson

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

19.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

Cooper

M. L.

(1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–75.

20.

Garner

B. R.

Knight

Simpson

D. D.

(2007). Burnout among corrections-based drug treatment staff impact of individual and organizational factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 510–522.

21.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

22.

Griffin

M. L.

(2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing the relative contribution of organizational climate variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 219–232.

23.

Griffin

M. L.

(2006). Gender and stress: A comparative assessment of sources of stress among correctional officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 5–25.

24.

Griffin

M. L.

Armstrong

Hepburn

J. R.

(2005). Correctional officers’ perceptions of equitable treatment in the “masculinized” prison environment. Criminal Justice Review, 30, 189–206.

25.

Griffin

M. L.

Hepburn

J. R.

(2005). Side-bets and reciprocity as determinants of organizational commitment among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 611–625.

26.

Griffin

M. L.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Tucker-Gail

K. A.

Baker

D. N.

(2010). Job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 239–255.

27.

Gronlund

N. E.

(1981). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York, NY: Macmillian.

28.

Hartley

D. J.

Davila

M. A.

Marquart

J. W.

Mullings

J. L.

(2013). Fear is a disease: The impact of fear and exposure to infectious disease on correctional officer job stress and satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 323–340.

29.

Hepburn

J. R.

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

30.

Hepburn

J. R.

(1989). Prison guards as agents of social control. In Goodstein

MacKenzie

(Eds.), The American prison: Issues in research and policy (pp. 191–206). New York, NY: Plenum.

31.

Hepburn

J. R.

Knepper

P. E.

(1993). Correctional officers as human service workers: The effect of job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315–335.

32.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Griffin

M. L.

(2013). Loyalty, love, and investments: The impact of job outcomes on the organizational commitment of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 355–375.

33.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Jenkins

Wambold

(2006). The impact of occupational stressors on correctional staff organizational commitment: A preliminary study. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 44–62.

34.

Hopkins

A. H.

(1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sector. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

35.

Jurik

N. C.

Halemba

G. J.

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

36.

Kahn

R. L.

Wolfe

D. M.

Quinn

R. P.

Snoek

J. D.

Rosenthal

R. A.

(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley.

37.

Keinan

Malach-Pines

(2007). Stress and burnout among prison personnel sources, outcomes, and intervention strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 380–398.

38.

Kinman

Clements

A. J.

Hart

(2017). Working conditions, work–life conflict, and well-being in UK prison officers: The role of affective rumination and detachment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 226–239.

39.

Lambert

E. G.

(2001). An unexplored stressor for correctional staff: The issue and impact of work–family conflict. Corrections Compendium, 26, 1–3. 22–23.

40.

Lambert

E. G.

(2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff members. The Prison Journal, 84, 208–227.

41.

Lambert

E. G.

Altheimer

Hogan

N. L.

(2010). An exploratory examination of a gendered model of the effects of role stressors. Women & Criminal Justice, 20, 193–217.

42.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

(2009). The importance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 96–118.

43.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Altheimer

(2010a). The association between work-family conflict and job burnout among correctional staff: A preliminary study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 37–55.

44.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

(2010b). Work–family conflict and job burnout among correctional staff. Psychological Reports, 106, 19–26.

45.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

(2002a). The impact of work-family conflict on correctional staff job satisfaction: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 35–52.

46.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

(2002b). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the literature on the correlates of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 115–143.

47.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

(2004). The nature of work-family conflict among correctional staff: An exploratory examination. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 145–172.

48.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

Barton

S. M.

Jiang

Baker

D. N.

(2008). The impact of punishment and rehabilitation views on organizational commitment among correctional staff: A preliminary study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 85–98.

49.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Camp

S. D.

Ventura

L. A.

(2006). The impact of work–family conflict on correctional staff: A preliminary study. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6, 371–387.

50.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Cheesman Dial

(2011). The effects of job involvement on private correctional staff: A preliminary study. Journal of Applied Security Research, 6, 158–183.

51.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Griffin

M. L.

(2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 644–656.

52.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Kelley

T. M.

Kim

Garland

(2014). When domains spill over: The relationships of affective and continuance commitment with work–family conflict among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 476–502.

53.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Moore

Tucker

Jenkins

Stevenson

Jiang

(2009). The impact of the work environment on prison staff: The issue of consideration, structure, job variety, and training. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 166–180.

54.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Paoline

E. A.

Baker

(2005). The good life: The impact of job satisfaction and occupational stressors on correctional staff life satisfaction: An exploratory study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 1–26.

55.

Lambert

E. G.

Kelley

Hogan

N. L.

(2013). Work-family conflict and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36, 398–417.

56.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A

(2005). The impact of medical issues on the job stress and job satisfaction of jail staff. Punishment and Society: The International Journal of Penology, 7, 259–275.

57.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

(2008). The influence of individual, job, and organizational characteristics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 541–564.

58.

Liu

Lambert

E. G.

Jiang

Zhang

(2017). A research note on the association between work–family conflict and job stress among Chinese prison staff. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23, 633–646.

59.

Logan

C. H.

(1990). Private prisons: Cons and pros. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

60.

Logan

C. H.

(1996). Public vs. private prison management: A case comparison. Criminal Justice Review, 21, 62–85.

61.

Martin

J. L.

Lichtenstein

Jenkot

R. B.

Forde

D. R.

(2012). “They can take us over any time they want” Correctional officers’ responses to prison crowding. The Prison Journal, 92, 88–105.

62.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113.

63.

McCraty

Atkinson

Lipsenthal

Arquelles

(2009). New hope for correctional officers: An innovative program for reducing stress and health risks. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34, 251–272.

64.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

65.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

66.

Mowday

R. T.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

67.

Mowday

R. T.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

(1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

68.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

69.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Boles

J. S.

McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.

70.

Perrone

Pratt

T. C.

(2003). Comparing the quality of confinement and cost-effectiveness of public versus private prisons: What we know, why we do not know more, and where to go from here. The Prison Journal, 83, 301–322.

71.

Poole

E. D

Regoli

R. M.

(1980). Examining the impact of professionalism on cynicism, role conflict, and work alienation among prison guards. Criminal Justice Review, 5, 57–64.

72.

Rizzo

J. R

House

R. J.

Lirtzman

S. I.

(1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.

73.

Robinson

Porporino

F. J.

(1996). Do different occupational groups vary on attitudes and work adjustment in corrections? Federal Probation, 60, 45–59.

74.

Schaufeli

W. B

Peeters

M. C.

(2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 19–48.

75.

Schmidt

(2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 90–100.

76.

Slate

R. N.

Vogel

R. E.

(1997). Participative management and correctional personnel: A study of the perceived atmosphere for participation in correctional decision making and its impact on employee stress and thoughts about quitting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 397–408.

77.

Sulsky

Smith

C. S.

(2005). Work stress. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

78.

Taber

K. S.

(2017). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296.

79.

Taxman

F. S.

Gordon

J. A.

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

80.

Tracy

S. J.

Scott

C. W.

(2006). Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with “America’s heroes” and the “scum of law enouncement”. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 6–38.

81.

Triplett

Mullings

J. L.

Scarborough

K. E.

(1999). Examining the effect of work-home conflict on work-related stress among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 371–385.

82.

Vickovic

S. G.

Griffin

M. L.

(2014). A comparison of line and supervisory officers and the impact of support on commitment to the prison organization. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 719–742.

83.

Wiener

(1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. The Academy of Management Review, 7, 418–428.

84.

Wright

K. N.

Saylor

W. G.

Gilman

Camp

(1997). Job control and occupational outcomes among prison workers. Justice Quarterly, 14, 525–546.