Examining Correctional Officers’ Fear of Victimization by Inmates: The Influence of Fear Facilitators and Fear Inhibitors

Abstract

Perceptions of fear in the correctional literature typically seek to predict factors such as procedural justice, turnover, and satisfaction rather than identify the antecedents to fear. In addition, studies on perceptions of safety consistently uncover female officers reporting higher levels of fear. The current study applies the concepts of fear facilitators and inhibitors, found in the general fear of crime literature, as a mechanism to explain perceptions of emotional and cognitive fear among correctional officers with a focus on differences between males and females. The study examines 40 institutions and 901 correctional officers to investigate theoretical, institutional, and individual predictors of correctional officer perceptions of inmate fear. Results show the predictors of fear differ between males and females and also demonstrate the importance of fear facilitators, individual characteristics, and institutional factors for determining emotional and cognitive fear.

Keywords

correctional officer victimization fear

Researchers have long acknowledged the precarious nature of the correctional workplace (Sykes, 1958). Correctional officers are tasked with maintaining order when they are vastly outnumbered, surrounded by men and women convicted of crimes, and constantly facing the possibility of violent victimization by one or more of these inmates (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). To work in such an environment, correctional officers use a variety of precautions in an attempt to ensure a safe, secure facility.

However, more than a half century ago, Sykes (1958), in his seminal work The Society of Captives, was able to observe that though correctional officers main goal is order maintenance, many of the regulations and precautions they take are a result of fear as opposed to rationality. Sykes’s astute observation of correctional officers’ work environment still holds true today. That is, correctional officers’ jobs are marked by both an emotional—unreasoning—fear of inmates (perhaps due to the stigma attached to convicted criminals in the United States) in conjunction with a real risk of violent victimization by inmates (a reasoning cognitive fear).

These emotional and cognitive fears faced by officers during their time spent on the job—within this sub-society of captives—are much like the fears of violent victimization faced by citizens in society at large. Thus, much in the way fear of violent victimization affects the behavior and perceptions of the members of the general public, so too can fear of violent inmate victimization affect the behavior of correctional officers. Understanding general perceptions of safety within the prison setting is important to creating a resilient prison environment. For example, prior research has linked correctional officer fear to increased stress, negative job satisfaction, reduced perceptions of procedural justice, compliance, and job turnover (Stichman & Gordon, 2014; Taxman & Gordon, 2009). In addition, feeling insecure while on the job may cause inappropriate behavioral interactions with inmates, staff, or to situations affecting the overall mission of a safe and secure environment.

At the same time, research shows that the field of corrections is changing dramatically. Specifically, there has been a substantial increase over the past several decades in the number of females working in the role of correctional officer. While these changes did not come without debate or legal action (Jurik, 1985, 1988; Zimmer, 1986), they seem to have significantly changed the prison environment, introducing a calming effect. Despite some of the positive benefits the presence of females seems to have on the correctional environment, female correctional personnel still report greater perceived fear of victimization, overall feeling less safe, within correctional institutions (Garcia, 2008; Gordon & Moriarty, 2007; Gordon, Moriarty, & Grant, 2003; Gordon, Proulx, & Grant, 2013; Wright & Saylor, 1991). However, it is unclear what the antecedents of correctional officers’ fear are in general let alone what factors account for the differences in male and female officers’ perceptions of fear.

This study seeks to expand the current knowledge regarding correctional officers’ perceptions of both emotional and cognitive fear of inmate victimization within the prison setting. The current study will add to this very limited literature in several important ways. First, this study integrates the concepts of fear facilitators (especially sex) and fear inhibitors found in the general fear of crime literature into the correctional environment. Second, it considers institutional and individual antecedents of correctional officers’ emotional and cognitive fear of inmate victimization. Prior to discussing the methods and results of our analyses, we provide a brief review of both the prior research on fear in the correctional environment and the existing general fear of crime literature which explicates the fear facilitators and fear inhibitors that inform our variable construction and model specification.

Literature Review

There is now a growing body of literature on the work climate of correctional officers (Baker, Gordon, & Taxman, 2014; Lambert, 2003; Lambert, Hogan, & Allen, 2006; Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Taxman & Gordon, 2009; Worley & Worley, 2013). However, despite the growing body of knowledge about correctional officers’ work environment, we know very little, comparatively, about what predicts officers’ perceptions of danger or fear of victimization. In most studies that have examined correctional officer fear, it is typically considered as a predictor of various factors as opposed to an outcome (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002; Stichman & Gordon, 2014; Taxman & Gordon, 2009). For example, prior research has linked correctional officer fear and perceived dangerousness to increased stress and negative job satisfaction (Cullen et al., 1985; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Griffin, 2001; Lambert, Cluse-Tolar, & Hogan, 2007). To illustrate, research examining work related stress among correctional personnel reveal the importance of environmental factors such as satisfaction, organizational commitment, role conflict, and safety, but the insignificance of demographic characteristics like age and sex on predicting stress levels (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Dowden & Tellier, 2004). Among the factors that have been strongly linked to correctional officer stress, fear of violent victimization has been identified as one of the strongest (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Furthermore, stress among correctional officers has been subsequently linked to withdrawal behaviors, mental disorders, negative attitudes, and job burnout (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). As such, fear is an important link in the causal chain leading to a variety of negative outcomes for correctional officers.

Clearly, feelings of safety and vulnerability, that is, fear and risk, among correctional personnel are of great importance given the effect such feeling have on a variety of factors. Despite the importance of perceptions of fear and risk, only recently has research focused on evaluating the antecedent of officers’ perceptions of these factors (Garcia, 2008; Gordon et al., 2003; Gordon et al., 2013). Unfortunately, the majority of work in this area has concentrated on the impact of either institutional variables (institutional security level, the sex of incarcerated individuals at the institution, that is, male or female) or they focus on officer demographics (sex, age, race, education level) to predict perceptions of fear and risk. What is most consistently uncovered is that female officers report higher perceptions of fear of victimization and vulnerability, overall feeling less safe (Garcia, 2008; Gordon & Moriarty, 2007; Gordon et al., 2003; Gordon et al., 2013; Wright & Saylor, 1991). To illustrate, Gordon et al. (2013) demonstrated that female officers had higher levels of fear of inmate victimization rather than staff victimization and also that race and security level were important predictors of victimization fears. Garcia (2008) similarly uncovered the importance of officer sex on perceptions of safety when controlling for individual and institutional factors.

Thus, prior studies predicting correctional officers’ fear have uncovered an important individual predictor, officer sex. Beyond this key demographic factor, the extant research has been devoid of research findings that reveal any other substantive antecedents of fear of victimization. While research on correctional officers’ fear of victimization is somewhat limited, the general fear of crime literature is more developed and has identified two broad theoretical antecedents of perceptions of fear: fear inhibitors and fear facilitators. As such, research findings from the general fear of crime literature may provide fruitful insight into factors that may affect correctional officers’ perceptions of fear especially as they relate to the key individual factor of sex. We proceed by briefly reviewing the general fear of crime literature, and then we discuss how it may parallel with some prior findings from research focusing on corrections and how it may be useful to adapt the fear facilitators and fear inhibitors from the general fear of crime literature for understanding correctional officers’ fear of victimization.

General Fear of Criminal Victimization

A comprehensive review of the fear of victimization literature and indicators that seek to explain individual variations in fear is beyond the scope of this study. This review instead focuses broadly on what Franklin and Franklin (2009) posit are the two general categories of fear antecedents: fear facilitators and fear inhibitors. These factors take into account both individual level factors and social/neighborhood related factors. Generally speaking, fear facilitators include the concepts of vulnerability and social disorganization where fear inhibitors tend to focus on aspects of social cohesion.

Fear Facilitators

Understanding differences in the level of fear through the lens of vulnerability, a fear facilitator, centers on the socialization process. In general, women are depicted and taught to behave in a dainty, passive manner (see Johnson, 1997; Kilmartin, 2000) where they can be “taken care of” and protected by a man. Men are taught to be masculine and strong to fulfill the role of protector. In essence, the socialization process produces roles of fearlessness in males and fearfulness in females (Alvi, Schwartz, DeKeseredy, & Mauwe, 2001; Day, 2001). Research also argues that past victimization impacts individuals’ level of confidence in situational control thereby increasing their fear of victimization (Shippee, 2012). The vulnerability people feel has been linked to their physical and social position (Ferarro, 1995; Rader, Cossman, & Porter, 2012; Schafer, Huebner, & Bynum, 2006) both of which are associated with differing individual characteristics and environmental cues.

The most common characteristics believed to be associated with physical vulnerabilities are age and sex—both characteristics are believed to place individuals at a physical and social disadvantage. Overall, research shows sex is one of the most reliable indicators of fear of crime (Cops & Pleysier, 2010; Hale, 1996; Sutton & Farrall, 2005), showing that females report higher levels of fear than males. Such a finding is contrary to the general risk of victimization reported or experienced by women. In other words, females indicate high levels of fear of crime even though their actual or perceived risk of victimization is low. The inconsistency between female fear and risk of victimization has been referred to as the fear of crime paradox (Ferraro, 1996; Maxfield, 1984). As Ferraro (1996) discusses, fear is an emotional reaction and risk a cognitive judgment. In addition, research suggests that women and the elderly lack the physical aptitude to stop a crime so they are unable to protect themselves (Killias & Clerici, 2000; Rader et al., 2012; Smith & Torstensson, 1997). Social vulnerability considers additional factors beyond age and sex which also elevate direct or indirect exposure to victimization. Research identifies a number of items which may contribute to social vulnerability such as socioeconomic status, high crime areas, education and race, and, contextually, the level of neighborhood disorder (Austin, Furr, & Spine, 2002; Melde, 2009; Pantazis, 2000; Taylor & Hale, 1986).

In general, the concept of disorder as a fear facilitator suggests that neighborhood decay promotes a loss of social control (Kelling & Coles, 1996; Wilson, 1975) which negatively influences a sense of community cohesion (Conklin, 1975; Lewis & Salem, 1986; Wilson, 1975). From a theoretical viewpoint, as the neighborhood disorder or deterioration increases the level of individual concern and watchful behaviors increase, ultimately impacting fear of crime either directly or indirectly (Garafalo & Laub, 1978; LaGrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992; Lewis & Salem, 1986; Skogan, 1990; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Taylor, 2001).

Fear Inhibitors

In contrast to fear facilitators, research on fear inhibitors examines variations in fear of victimization by focusing on shielding and constraining behaviors. Fear inhibitors provide a sense of security for individuals due to the connection they feel with their surroundings or community. For example, the concept of social integration, in contrast to social disorder, suggests that the stronger people feel a “belonging to” or identification with their immediate community the lower their fear of crime. Schafer and colleagues (2006) posit this is due in part to the fact that “inhibitors allow people to feel safe as if they are not alone in wanting to make their community a safe and stable place to live” (p. 288).

Social integration has been conceptualized in a variety of ways. To illustrate, research has defined the concept through the extent of social ties to the community (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Kanan & Pruitt, 2002), engagement in neighborhood activities or participation in formal neighborhood organizations (Austin, Woolever, & Baba, 1994), and actual investment through homeownership (McGarrell, Giacomazzi, & Thurman, 1997). The findings in this area are mixed with some showing that individuals with a high sentiment of community attachment experience lower levels of fear of crime within the neighborhood context (Lewis & Salem, 1986; Riger, Gordon, & LeBailly, 1981; Rountree & Land, 1996) while others find the opposite (Covington & Taylor, 1991; Zhao, Gibson, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2002).

Application of Fear Facilitators and Inhibitors to Correctional Personnel

As prison environments contain much of the social characteristics of general society and indeed exist as a society in of themselves, that is, Sykes’s (1958) “society of captives,” it seems that the examination of fear facilitators and fear inhibitors in the correctional environment would parallel that of general society. To begin with, the fear facilitator of sex and associated theoretical milieu serve as an appropriate connection to the correctional literature. As Kinsell and Shelden (1981) discuss, female correctional officers are not naïve to their physical, psychological, and work differences from male colleagues. Even with changes in the correctional environment over the past several decades, research indicates the current institutional environment is severely masculinized in policies and training (Britton, 1997, 2003) which influences female officers’ acceptance (Griffin, 2013). Suggesting the integration of new officers promotes male ideals and serves as a plausible explanation for the isolation of female officers which may differentially influence perceptions of safety or vulnerability among officers. Therefore, just as sex is examined as a fear facilitator in the general fear of crime literature, so too may it be a relevant predictor of fear of victimization in a correctional setting.

Next, the general fear of crime variable related to neighborhood context closely parallels organizational climate factors in correctional facilities. As Duffee (1980) discusses, correctional officers’ perceptions of organizational climate are linked to the structure of the environment which suggests that variations may exist in climate between prisons depending on inmate composition, officer routines, and interactions even within the same overall prison system. It is important to investigate organizational climate as a potential antecedent of fear as research among both police and correctional officers finds this variable as a more consistent predictor of officer perceptions than demographic characteristics (Baker, Gordon, et al., 2014; Britton, 1997; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Griffin, 2001; Hepburn, 1987; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Lambert, 2004; Patterson, Payne, & West, 1996; Stohr, Mays, Lovrich, & Gallegos, 1996; Zhao, Thurman, & He, 1999). Garcia (2008), for example, discusses that within the federal prison system, there was a theoretical expectation of similarities in climate across facilities due to consistency in policy and procedures. However, her findings uncovered fluctuations which she attributed to differences in the level and type of officer to inmate interaction, inmate composition, and officer routines. Such findings are not surprising when considering Bowker’s (1980) early work theorizing that variations in perceptions of safety among correctional officers will fluctuate based on situational differences. In addition, the volatility of daily interactions and routines are influenced by the healthiness of the climate (Bowker, 1980). In other words, a negative organizational climate may serve as an indicator of disorganization within the facility, therefore a fear facilitator.

Social support within the institution closely parallels the fear inhibitor of social integration evaluated in the general fear of crime literature. For example, prior research shows that an environment that fosters nurturing relationships between leadership and direct staff increases and shapes the perceptions of commitment and belonging to the organization (Gonzalez-Roma, Peiro, & Tordera, 2002; Naumann & Bennett, 2000). This sense of support and loyalty also extends between correctional officers (Crawley, 2004); the common and unique experiences elicit a sense of belonging or attachment to each other. The literature indicates the importance of belongingness and social connectedness between officers, as well as supervisory staff, in improving job-related stress, satisfaction, burnout, and overall commitment to the organization (Cullen et al., 1985; Garland, 2004; Griffin, 2001; Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002). In addition, research reveals organizations with supportive environments and behaviors show higher job satisfaction (Griffin, 2001; Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002; Triplett, Mullings, & Scarborough, 1996) and lower job stress (Lambert et al., 2007; Taxman & Gordon, 2009; Triplett et al., 1996). More recent investigations of social support also reveal its importance with perceptions of fear and dangerousness. Particularly, Garcia (2008) found individual officers’ perceptions of danger were lower when supervisory support and coworker support were high. Thus, social support and a sense of belonging to the institution may serve as fear inhibitors.

Another important factor which is related to organizational climate and social support is leadership. For example, research indicates that the style of leadership, transformational in particular, is positively associated with organizational commitment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Bono & Judge, 2003; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). In addition, transformational leaders assist in developing the group identity of subordinates through personal connections with individual staff and social associations with workgroups (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). Likewise, the broader organizational literature links the type and effectiveness of leadership to workplace safety (Clarke & Ward, 2006; Hofmann, Morgenson, & Gerras, 2003; LeRoy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012). Taken together, leadership style and effectiveness can be considered additional fear inhibitors.

The Current Study

The current study seeks to understand the antecedents of correctional officers’ emotional and cognitive fears of inmate victimization. To do so, we apply the concepts of the general fear of crime literature to the correctional environment. Specifically, we examine the effect of several fear facilitators and fear inhibitors among the general correctional officer population and then disaggregate the sample in an attempt to examine the differences between male and female correctional officers’ perceptions of fear found within the extant literature. In addition, given the importance of sex found in prior studies, we also examine any differences between male and female correctional officers’ fear among only those officers working in male facilities.

Method

The data are based on survey research of state correctional officers in one mid-Atlantic state. All correctional personnel at the adult state prisons were asked to participate in the project. The procedures included sending the surveys to the institutions for distribution to the correctional officers (N = 6,606) and direct mailing of completed surveys back to the research team. A second mailing was conducted for institutions with less than a 30% response rate.

The final sample consisted of responses from 46 facilities (97.87%) and 1,231 (18.6%) completed surveys. While we received responses from all but one institution the response rate of the correctional personnel may be viewed as problematic. Although given the scope of investigating a new framework, recent research regarding nonresponse within organizational research suggests that the current response rate may not be an issue (see Rogelberg et al., 2003; Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007). Perhaps most importantly, work by Rogelberg and colleagues (2003) suggests that in organizational surveys such as the one conducted for this project, more than 80% of nonrespondents are passive nonrespondents and found that this type of nonresponse can be treated essentially as Missing Completely at Random (MCAR). However, we recognize this as a potential limitation and discuss it further in the concluding sections.

Still, some of our concerns about the low response rate are assuaged by the demographic representativeness of our sample when compared with the total population of state correctional officers. To illustrate, 49% of the respondents in the sample were White, 67% males, with a mean age of 43.44 and have worked with the prison approximately 7 years. Whereas, during the time of the survey administration, the state agency provided overall demographic characteristics showing 49% of correctional officers were White, 68% males, approximately 40 years of age, with a tenure of a little more than 5 years. Our final sample contained 901 officers (288 female, 613 males) working in 40 different institutions. Officers were dropped from the sample due to listwise deletion, an option we opted for over multiple imputation given the size of the remaining of sample. In addition, six institutions were dropped because too few officers responded from those institutions to consider them for multilevel analysis. In supplemental analyses examining only officers working at facilities that house male inmates, the sample size is 797 officers (218 females, 579 males) in 35 institutions.

Measures

This section discusses the operationalization of each variable.¹ It is important to indicate that the analysis will be conducted so that officer sex, a fear facilitator, is first investigated as a direct indicator in the aggregate model and then we examine models disaggregated by sex.

Dependent variables

The dependent variables are correctional officers’ self-reported emotional fear and cognitive fear of inmate victimization. Each concept contains five items assessing circumstances the officers’ face as part of their job role. Overall, the measures encompass situational threats or attacks from inmates. The theoretical inspiration for each measure is from Bowker’s (1980) work discussing situational events that officers face, which may provoke variations in perceptions of safety. For the emotional fear items, the officers were asked “how afraid are you of” followed by the statement and a four category response set ranging from “very afraid” to “not afraid at all.” And the cognitive measures asked “how likely do you think each will occur” with a four category response set ranging from “not at all likely” to “very likely.” The two concepts seem highly related at face value and could be considered by some a single overall item. To demonstrate the discriminant and construct validity of our dependent variables, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and find the two items are separate and distinct and all five items in each concept load as expected (see Table 1). The five items of each concept combined well into the respective standardized indices (emotional fear α = .88; cognitive fear α = .88).

Table 1.

Promax Rotated Factor Analysis of Correctional Officers’ Emotional and Cognitive Fear of Inmate Victimization.

	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
Emotional Fear Item 1	.77
Emotional Fear Item 2	.84
Emotional Fear Item 3	.52			.40
Emotional Fear Item 4	.53		.33
Emotional Fear Item 5	.59
Cognitive Fear Item 1		.81
Cognitive Fear Item 2		.83
Cognitive Fear Item 3		.54		.41
Cognitive Fear Item 4		.39	.36
Cognitive Fear Item 5		.60

Note. Only factor loading > .32 shown.

Fear facilitators

Negative organizational climate

This research considers four dimension of organizational climate: Cynicism, Inadequate Staffing, Frustration, and Facility Disorganization. Cynicism is measured using five items combined into a standardized index (α = .92) adapted from Tesluk, Farr, Mathieu, and Vance (1995). It sets out to measure whether or not the officer believes the organization can change. Inadequate staffing is a four-item measure combined into a single standardized index which seeks to examine perceptions of the adequacy of the level of staff to meet the needs of the organization and is adopted from Lehman, Greener, and Simpson (2002). The items combined into a single item with an alpha = .62. The variable of frustration on the job consists of three items based on Peters, O’Connor, and Rudolf (1980) with a corresponding 5-point Likert-type scale. The statements examined the level of job frustration. Higher scores indicate higher levels of frustration. The alpha coefficient for frustration is .71. Finally, facility disorganization is an eight-item measure of coordination that occurs within the facility reverse coded into a single standardized index with an alpha coefficient of .91. The goal of this measure is to determine the extent on coordination and cooperation within and between various groups within the environment. Research indicates that productivity, cohesion, and effectiveness of achieving goals are likely to occur in environments with high coordination, meaning a reduction in conflict or lower levels of disorganization (Anderson & Brown, 2010; West, Patera, & Carsten, 2009).

Sex

Given the differences between male and female officers perceptions of fear identified in prior literature, we examine sex as a key fear facilitator. Sex was measured using a single-item indicator, self-identified by the respondent and coded male = 1, female = 0.

Fear inhibitors

Social support

Two measures of social support are considered: Institutional Belongingness and Transformational Leadership. Institutional belongingness consists of a nine-item index examining the perception of attachment to the organization and coworkers. The measures are based on Balfour and Wechsler (1996) organizational commitment scale investigating the areas of identification, affiliation, and exchange commitment and combine well with an alpha of .90. Higher scores indicate a stronger sense of belonging to or cohesion with the institution and coworkers. Transformational leadership is measured with six items with attitudinal statements regarding a leader’s vision, motivation, listening, encouragement, and direction (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Moorman, 1990). The items combined well with an alpha of .91. Higher scores indicate a perception of a strong, interactive, and supportive leader.

Control variables

The following demographic, work history, and institutional variables are included in multivariate analysis: age of the officer (in years), security level of the prison (Level 1 low = 1; Level 1 high = 2; Level 2 = 3; Level 3 = 4; Level 4, 5, 6 = 5), education (high school graduate = 1, associate degree = 2, bachelor’s degree = 3, some graduate studies = 4, MBA/master’s = 5), race (White = 0, non-White = 1) and inmate composition was examined by inmate population size and the sex of the inmates housed at each facility. Specifically, a dummy variable was created to capture the sex of the inmates the institution housed, female = 1 and male = 0. Descriptive statistics of each variable are presented in Table 2.²

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

Dependent variables	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Emotional fear^a	0.00	0.82	−1.00	2.31
Cognitive fear^a	0.00	0.82	−1.27	2.15
Fear facilitators
Organizational cynicism^a	0.00	0.87	−1.76	1.75
Inadequate staffing^a	0.00	0.69	−2.12	1.25
Frustration^a	0.00	0.80	−1.91	1.79
Facility disorganization^a	0.00	0.78	−1.95	2.81
Sex (male = 1)	0.67	0.47	.00	1.00
Fear inhibitors
Institutional belongingness^a	0.00	0.74	−2.27	1.51
Transformational leadership^a	0.00	0.83	−2.11	1.57
Controls
Race (non-White = 1)	0.51	0.50	0	1
Age	43.44	9.82	20	74
Education	1.53	0.92	1	5
Tenure	6.96	6.19	0	45
Security level	2.38	0.97	1	4
Inmate population size	710.41	582.61	84	3,078
Institution type (1 = Female facility)	0.12	0.32	0	1

Measure is a mean standardized index.

Analytic Strategy

Correctional officers’ in our study share work environments, so we must account for the nested nature of officers working within the same facilities. To do so, we begin our analyses by examining hierarchical linear models (HLM) accounting for the shared variation of correctional officers’ nested within the same facilities. In the first set of models, we predict emotional and cognitive fear of inmate victimization using the above described fear facilitators including sex of the officer, fear inhibitors, and controls including sex of the inmates housed in the institution. Next, we examine models predicting officer fear disaggregated by officer sex. However, the disaggregated models do not contain enough variation within each institution to conduct HLM, so we opt for ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with a cluster option. The cluster option provides adjusted standard errors that account for the shared variation of officers working in the same correctional institutions. We conclude by replicating the disaggregated OLS analyses among officers only working in male correctional facilities.

Results

It is important to begin by noting that the unconditional models (not shown) indicate significant variation between institutions for officers’ perceptions of emotional fear (intraclass correlation = .034) and cognitive fear (intraclass correlation = .084) of victimization by inmates. The results for the Random Intercept HLM predicting emotional and cognitive fear are presented in Table 3. Findings indicate that greater frustration acts as a significant fear facilitator for both emotional and cognitive fear. Similarly, officers who are less educated and those who work in female facilities report significantly lower emotional and cognitive fear while non-Whites and individuals working in higher security level institutions are significantly more emotionally and cognitively fearful of being victimized by inmates. However, female officers report significantly higher emotional fear but no significant difference in cognitive fear. In addition, facility disorganization is a significant cognitive fear facilitator but does not significantly impact emotional fear.

Table 3.

Random Intercept Models Predicting Correctional Officers’ Emotional and Cognitive Fear of Inmate Victimization.

	Emotional fear		Cognitive fear
	b	SE	b	SE
Fear facilitators
Organizational cynicism	.042	.045	−.040	.046
Inadequate staffing	−.031	.047	−.007	.049
Frustration	.123**	.042	.153***	.042
Facility disorganization	.053	.043	.097*	.043
Sex (male = 1)	−.254***	.061	−.044	.062
Fear inhibitors
Institutional belongingness	.015	.057	−.005	.057
Transformational leadership	.022	.048	−.017	.048
Controls
Race (non-White = 1)	.264***	.057	.294***	.059
Age	.002	.003	−.004	.003
Education	−.068*	.028	−.086**	.029
Tenure	−.000	.004	.002	.005
Security level	.093**	.029	.131***	.036
Inmate population size	.000	.000	.000	.000
Institution type (1 = female facility)	−.207*	.090	−.301**	.110
Within R²	.07		.07
Between R²	.43		.48
Total R²	.10		.11

Note. 901 officers, 40 institutions.

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

We proceed by examining models disaggregated by officer sex. The results in Table 4 indicate that outside of officer race, different factors seem to be driving fear in male and female officers. Male emotional fear is driven by frustration with the organization, lower education, and institutional security level. Alternatively, beyond race, female emotional fear is driven by working in a male institution. The antecedents of cognitive fear among male officers are identical to those of emotional fear. Similarly, female cognitive fear is driven by race and working in a male facility just as was female emotional fear.

Table 4.

Clustered OLS Models Predicting Correctional Officers’ Emotional and Cognitive Fear of Inmate Victimization Disaggregated by Officer Sex.

	Emotional fear				Cognitive fear
	Male		Female		Male		Female
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Fear facilitators
Organizational cynicism	.098	.061	−.050	.089	−.011	.067	−.095	.078
Inadequate staffing	−.076	.048	.063	.103	−.050	.055	.071	.139
Frustration	.163**	.045	.047	.076	.160**	.054	.156	.092
Facility disorganization	.075	.061	.006	.098	.068	.057	.137	.087
Fear inhibitors
Institutional belongingness	.053	.080	−.016	.134	.008	.082	−.022	.109
Transformational leadership	.053	.059	−.048	.063	−.034	.072	−.004	.093
Controls
Race (non-White = 1)	.209**	.069	.350**	.109	.267***	.065	.296**	.102
Age	.001	.003	.003	.007	−.005	.004	−.001	.007
Education	−.079**	.027	−.077	.052	−.075**	.027	−.104	.059
Tenure	.001	.005	−.003	.009	.000	.005	.003	.010
Security level	.125***	.030	.003	.072	.146***	.034	.022	.045
Inmate population size	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
Institution type (1 = female facility)	−.176	.106	−.286*	.106	−.225	.187	−.418***	.095
	R² = .10		R² = .07		R² = .12		R² = .13

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

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

Given the significant impact that working in a male facility has on female emotional and cognitive fear, we conclude our analyses by examining only officers working in male correctional institutions. The disaggregated male facility only OLS models are presented in Table 5. The results indicate that emotional and cognitive fear among male officers working in male facilities is the same as those working in all facilities: Race, frustration with the organization, lower education, and institutional security level are significantly related to emotional and cognitive fear. Among female officers working in male facilities, only race is significantly related to emotional fear. Female officer cognitive fear, however, is significantly associated to facility frustration and facility disorganization.

Table 5.

Clustered OLS Models Predicting Correctional Officers’ Emotional and Cognitive Fear of Inmate Victimization Disaggregated by Officer Sex: Male Facilities Only.

	Emotional fear				Cognitive fear
	Male		Female		Male		Female
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Fear facilitators
Organizational cynicism	.101	.064	−.113	.108	−.011	.070	−.111	.102
Inadequate staffing	−.081	.050	−.021	.125	−.049	.056	−.092	.157
Frustration	.156**	.047	.076	.084	.152*	.056	.214*	.099
Facility disorganization	.069	.065	.121	.087	.088	.060	.212*	.094
Fear inhibitors
Institutional belongingness	.048	.082	.068	.142	.016	.084	−.115	.119
Transformational leadership	.056	.058	−.068	.058	−.014	.071	.028	.114
Controls
Race (non-White = 1)	.227**	.072	.349*	.129	.280**	.069	.306**	.110
Age	.000	.003	−.005	.008	−.006	.004	−.001	.008
Education	−.079**	.028	−.072	.049	−.076**	.027	−.071	.063
Tenure	.002	.005	.003	.013	.002	.005	.002	.010
Security level	.121***	.030	.013	.079	.138***	.035	.024	.050
Inmate population size	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
	R² = .10		R² = .07		R² = .12		R² = .11

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

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

Discussion

The current body of research on correctional officer fear in the institutional environment is limited but consistently uncovers differences by officer sex. As such, the current study utilized the theoretical foundation of fear facilitators and fear inhibitors found in the general fear of crime literature to examine differences in officers’ perceptions of inmate fear by sex. The current study added to the literature in four important ways. First, the results revealed the fear facilitator as consistent predictors in understanding differences in emotional and cognitive fear. That is, the variables of sex and two measures of a negative organizational climate (job frustration and level of disorganization) serve as consistent predictors. Second, measures of fear inhibitors were insignificant predictors of emotional or cognitive fear. Third, the antecedent predictors of emotional and cognitive fear of inmates vary by sex. Fourth, and finally, a number of individual and institutional factors are related to emotional and cognitive fear with officers’ race being noteworthy.

The current research uncovers varying predictors of male and female emotional and cognitive fear. To begin, officer sex was predictive of emotional fear but not cognitive fear. This is an interesting finding and suggests the nature of the situation may influence fear. That is, emotional fear is a psychological response in a reactive situation, but cognitive fear is based on rational judgment. Perhaps, it is the qualities of the variable measures at work here. In situations of immediate or unexpected threats (emotional fear), female officers may question the level of support or confidence in the outcome. However, when officers consider the likelihood and are able to conduct a rational self-assessment of a situation (cognitive fear), sex differences are not apparent.

Variations in the antecedent predictors for men and women regarding emotional and cognitive fear were also found in the current study. For men, the picture is clear, officers with higher frustration with the organization, who were non-White, achieved a lower education level, worked in a higher security facility, and with more inmates were more likely to report increased levels of emotional and cognitive fear. For female officers, the antecedent predictors are not as clear. Specifically, among female officers, it is evident that race (non-White) and working within male facilities are predictive of higher levels of emotional and cognitive fear. And the fear facilitators of frustration and disorganization (examining male institutions only) are related to an increase in cognitive fear only. Understanding the associations and variations in antecedent factors can be examined through multiple perspectives.

As the level and patterns of predictors of emotional and cognitive fear are different for men and women, a gendered perspective is supported. Likewise, due to the differing antecedent predictors by sex, the concept of gendered organizational logic is also reinforced (Acker, 1992). That is, the current organizational culture may make it difficult for women to assimilate in the broader prison culture. The prison environment is a para-militaristic structure that is masculinized and even though women have been present within the correctional environment for several decades, the early barriers related to female officers’ ability and job role within the prison environment are still applicable today. In other words, this position suggests that the historical sentiment regarding the (in)ability of women to work in direct supervision roles still exists today (Britton, 1997). Our findings reinforce those demonstrated through Britton’s (2003) work which identified the prison environment as instilling a gendered perspective due to the continued definition of success among officers, that is, the ability to maintain control in violent situations and the organizational emphasis regarding training and purpose centering on male inmates. Given this, it is plausible that the prison environment acceptance of female officers is higher when it involves female inmates but not male inmates. The current findings support such an ideal given the driving force in antecedent predictors of fear among female officers include the inmate composition and fear facilitators of frustration and organizational climate.

The current findings also have parallels to the general fear of crime literature examining sex dissimilarities. The concept of the victimization-fear paradox is applicable (Sacco, 1990). This concepts suggests female roles of passivity and social or physical vulnerability seek to explain variations in emotional and cognitive fear (Jackson, 2009; Reid & Konrad, 2004; Riger, Gordon, & LeBailly, 1978; Sutton & Farrall, 2005; Sutton, Robinson, & Farrall, 2011). While we cannot be sure that women officers hold a sense of meekness or feel physically inferior to males, research does indicate that male officers believe females should have no or limited direct inmate contact (Britton, 2003), are inferior supervisors (Farkas, 2000), tokens in the system (Britton, 2003), and not as competent on the job (Matthews, Monk-Turner, & Sunter, 2010). Such beliefs can shape the culture, climate, and assimilation of officers and potentially contribute to the lack of integration of women into the officer subculture perhaps impacting their emotional and cognitive fear.

The discussion of organizational context must be considered along with the findings which show race as a consistent predictor of emotional and cognitive perceptions of fear, among both males and females. The direction indicates that non-White officers are more fearful of inmate victimization. Research indicates the current prison environment and organizational climate, despite discrimination policies, contains racial dynamics influencing perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors among officers (Britton, 2003; Griffin, Armstrong, & Hepburn, 2005). Furthermore, the double minority status of non-White female officer may heighten such conclusions (Belknap, 2007). This, in context with the varying antecedents by sex, is suggestive that a more robust understanding of the officer subculture is necessary.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

While the current research advances the knowledge on variations in perceptions among correctional officers, it is not without limitations. This is the first study which integrates the concepts of fear facilitators and fear inhibitors to the institutional setting. While the primary fear facilitator and inhibitor concepts were examined, we were not able to exhaust all of the theoretical propositions posited in the fear literature. Relatedly, the self-report data collected at one point in time restricts the understanding of the temporal order for the relationships examined. In addition, the ability to control for a number of institutional factors was limited due to the availability of the data. It is possible that factors such as the percentage of minority staff, percentage of female staff, total number of prisons employed, and annual number of reported incidents (none of which were made available to the researchers by state Departement Of Corrections (DOC)) influence individuals’ perceptions of fear. Future studies should consider these factors.

Finally, the respondents are from a wide range of institutions; however, a considerable amount of correctional officers did not respond. While the characteristics of the respondents are similar to the officers and institutions, it may be that the respondents are more reflective of those viewing the environment different from nonrespondents. For example, it is possible that only individuals who interpret their facilities at the extreme responded, that is, those that find their facilities the most safe or the least safe, thus excluding most middling respondents. However, it is also possible that the most cautious and potentially fearful officers were equally fearful of responding to a survey questionnaire about their workplace. While the approximate representation of the sample is encouraging, because we are unable to truly evaluate who the nonrespondents were and why they declined to respond, our results should be evaluated with due caution.

By extension, due to these data limitations, we were unable to conduct HLM for the analyses disaggregated by sex. OLS regression with cluster corrected standard errors helped to ameliorate some of these issues, but cluster models do not allow us to estimate institutional level variation. Future studies of correctional officers nested within institutions should seek a greater number of respondents per institution to allow for estimation of institutional variation.

In sum, the current study is suggestive of varying predictors of emotional and cognitive fear of inmate victimization. Such findings are a beginning point and additional work needs to be done to further understand these perceptions. To illustrate, the knowledge surrounding the presence, depth, and complexity of a correctional officer’s subculture should be explored. Such concepts must be examined in relation to contextual factors such as the percentage of female officer or minority officers employed within the institution. A stronger understanding regarding the officer subculture may improve the current organizational climate and impact the daily functioning and retention of correctional staff.

From a policy perspective, it is clear that variations in emotional and cognitive fear fluctuate among correctional officers. A great deal of concern extends from the fact that female officers express greater fear while working in male facilities and significantly more fearful when working in male facilities they perceive as lacking quality organizational structure. A potential explanation for such differences lies within the socialization process (e.g., Alvi et al., 2001; Day, 2001) and climate or culture of correctional facilities. In general, it is imperative for administrators to consider ways to increase the overall confidence among staff that their work environment is safe and secure especially when considering the current economic climate and frequent staff turnovers within prisons. One aspect that administrators may be able to focus on to counterbalance or ameliorate fear is the concept of trust. Research indicates that trust is essential to creating a positive work environment and an important factor when working in teams such as occurs within prisons (De Jong & Elfring, 2010; Lee et al., 2010; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). More importantly, for the current study, the level of trust in teams is critical toward both the cognitive and emotional perceptions of employees (Williams, 2001) and is impacted by a sense of formal and informal social group interactions (Wildman et al., 2012). Enhancing the level of trust among officers could create a resilient and supportive prison environment thus influencing perceptions of fear.

Administrators should develop means to promote and enhance relationships among officers and staff to develop a stronger culture of community and a sense of organizational commitment. This is not only important for creating stronger perceptions of safety and security but also because perceptions of officer safety influence aspects of culture and climate including perceptions of fairness, compliance, job stress, job satisfaction, and correctional philosophy (Baker et al., 2014; Camp, 1994; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002; Stichman & Gordon, 2014; Taxman & Gordon, 2009; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). The development of direct and indirect approaches to increase relationships between various correctional personnel is critical to maintaining a committed workforce and meeting organizational goals.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Acknowledgements

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Jill A. Gordon is an associate professor in Criminal Justice at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research interests center on correctional employees’ attitudes toward work, clients and the organization and assessment of correctional policy and programs. She is currently working on a multi-site project examining perceptions of culture and climate among correctional officers and inmates. Her work has appeared in numerous outlets including Justice Quarterly, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and Journal of Crime and Justice.

Thomas Baker is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida. His research interests include perceptions of correctional populations, criminal justice policy with an emphasis on correctional policy, and criminal careers. He is currently working on a multi-site project examining the perceptions of both correctional officers and inmates. His work has appeared in various outlets including Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Law & Society Review, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Criminal Justice and Behavior.

References

Acker

(1992). Gendering organizational theory. In Mills

A. J.

Tancred

(Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 248-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alvi

Schwartz

DeKeseredy

Mauwe

(2001). Women’s fear of crime in Canadian public housing. Violence Against Women, 7, 638-661.

Anderson

Brown

(2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 55-89.

Armstrong

Griffin

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

Arnold

J. A.

Arad

Rhoades

J. A.

Drasgow

(2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249-269.

Austin

Furr

Spine

(2002). The effects of neighborhood conditions on perceptions of safety. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 417-427.

Austin

Woolever

Baba

(1994). Crime and safety-related concerns in a small community. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 79-97.

Avolio

Zhu

Koh

Bhatia

(2004). Transformational leadership an organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-968.

Baker

Gordon

Taxman

(2014). A hierarchical analysis of correction officers’ procedural justice judgments of correctional institutions: Examining the influence of transformational leadership. Justice Quarterly, 32(6): 1037–1063.

10.

Balfour

D. L.

Wechsler

(1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in public organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 29, 256-277.

11.

Belknap

(2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

12.

Bono

Judge

(2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554-571.

13.

Bowker

(1980). Prison victimization. New York, NY: Elsevier.

14.

Britton

(1997). Gendered organizational logic: Policy and practice in men’s and women’s prisons. Gender & Society, 11, 796-818.

15.

Britton

(2003). At work in the iron cage: The prison as gendered organization. New York: New York University Press.

16.

Bursik

Grasmick

(1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York, NY: Lexington.

17.

Camp

(1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on turnover: An event history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279-305.

18.

Clarke

Ward

(2006). The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in engaging safety participation. Risk Analysis, 26, 1175-1186.

19.

Conklin

(1975). The impact of crime. New York, NY: Macmillan.

20.

Cops

Pleysier

(2010). “Doing gender” in fear of crime: The impact of gender identity on reported levels of fear of crime in adolescents and young adults. British Journal of Criminology, 51, 58-74.

21.

Covington

Taylor

(1991). Fear of crime in urban residential neighborhoods. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 231-249.

22.

Crawley

(2004). Doing prison work: The public and private lives of prison officers. Portland, OR: William Publishing.

23.

Cullen

Link

Wolfe

Frank

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

24.

Day

(2001). Constructing masculinity and women’s fear in public space in Irvine, California. Gender, Place and Culture, 8, 109-127.

25.

De Jong

B. A.

Elfring

(2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 535-549.

26.

Dowden

Tellier

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

27.

Duffee

(1980). Correctional management: Change and control in correctional organizations. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

28.

Dumdum

Lowe

Avolio

(2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In Avolio

Yammarino

(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 35-66). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

29.

Farkas

(2000). Inmate supervisory style: Does gender make a difference? Women and Criminal Justice, 10, 425-445.

30.

Ferraro

(1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

31.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces, 75, 667-690.

32.

Franklin

(2009). Predicting fear of crime: Considering differences across gender. Feminist Criminology, 4, 83-106.

33.

Garafalo

Laub

(1978). The fear of crime: Broadening our perspective. Victimology, 3, 242-253.

34.

Garcia

R. M.

(2008). Individual and institutional demographic and organizational climate correlates of perceived danger among federal correctional officers (National Institute of Justice Document No. 222678). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222678.pdf

35.

Garland

(2004). The impact of administrative support on prison treatment staff burnout: An exploratory study. The Prison Journal, 84, 452-471.

36.

Gonzalez-Roma

Peiro

Tordera

(2002). An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 465-473.

37.

Gordon

J. A.

Moriarty

L. J.

(2007). Who’s afraid of Johnny Rotten? Assessing female correctional staff’s perceived fear and risk of victimization in a juvenile male institution. In Muraskin

(Ed.), It’s a crime: Women and justice (4th ed., pp. 661-678). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

38.

Gordon

J. A.

Moriarty

L. J.

Grant

P. H.

(2003). Juvenile correctional officers’ perceived fear and risk of victimization: Examining individual and collective levels of victimization in two juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 62-84.

39.

Gordon

J. A.

Proulx

Grant

(2013). Trepidation among the “keepers”: Gendered perceptions of fear and risk of victimization among correctional officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 245-265.

40.

Griffin

M. L.

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

41.

Griffin

M. L.

(2013). From resistance to integration: The influences of gender in the correctional work environment. In Renzetti

C. M.

Miller

S. L.

Gover

(Eds.), Routledge international handbook of crime and gender studies (pp. 279-294). New York, NY: Routledge.

42.

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.

43.

Hale

(1996). Fear of crime: A literature review. International Review of Victimology, 4, 79-150.

44.

Hepburn

(1987). The prison control structure and its effect on work attitudes: The perceptions and attitudes of prison guards. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 47-53.

45.

Hofmann

Morgenson

Gerras

(2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170-178.

46.

Jackson

(2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 365-390.

47.

Johnson

(1997). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

48.

Jurik

(1985). An officer and a lady: Organizational barriers to women working as correctional officers in men’s prisons. Social Problems, 32, 375-388.

49.

Jurik

(1988). Striking a balance: Female correctional officers, gender role stereotypes, and male prisons. Sociological Inquiry, 58, 291-305.

50.

Jurik

Halemba

(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.

51.

Kanan

Pruitt

(2002). Modeling fear of crime and perceived victimization of risk: (In)significance of neighborhood integration. Sociological Inquiry, 72, 527-548.

52.

Kark

Shamir

Chen

(2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 246-255.

53.

Kelling

Coles

(1996). Fixing our broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York, NY: Touchstone.

54.

Killias

Clerici

(2000). Different measures of vulnerability and their relation to different dimensions of fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 437-450.

55.

Kilmartin

(2000). The masculine self (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

56.

Kinsell

Shelden

(1981). A survey of correctional officers at a medium security prison. Corrections Today, 43, 40-51.

57.

LaGrange

Ferraro

Supancic

(1992). Perceived risk and fear of crime: The role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 29, 311-334.

58.

Lambert

(2003). The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 155-168.

59.

Lambert

E. G.

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

60.

Lambert

Cluse-Tolar

Hogan

(2007). This job is killing me: The impact of characteristics on correctional staff job stress. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3, 117-142.

61.

Lambert

Hogan

Allen

(2006). Correlates of correctional officer job stress: The impact of organizational structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 227-246.

62.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

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

63.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Griffin

(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.

64.

Lee

A. Y.

Bond

G. D.

Russell

D. C.

Tost

González

Scarbrough

P. S.

(2010). Team perceived trustworthiness in a complex military peacekeeping simulation. Military Psychology, 2, 237-261.

65.

Lehman

Greener

Simpson

(2002). Assessing organizational readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 197-209.

66.

Leroy

Palanski

Simons

(2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 255-264.

67.

Lewis

Salem

(1986). Fear of crime: Incivility and the production of a social problem. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

68.

Matthews

Monk-Turner

Sunter

(2010). Promotional opportunities: How women in corrections perceive their chances for advancement at work. Gender Issues, 27, 53-66.

69.

Maxfield

(1984). The limits of vulnerability in explaining fear of crime: A comparative neighborhood analysis. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 21, 233-250.

70.

McGarrell

Giacomazzi

Thurman

(1997). Neighborhood disorder, integration, and the fear of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 479-497.

71.

Melde

(2009). Lifestyle, rational choice, and adolescent fear: A test of a risk-assessment framework. Criminology, 47, 781-812.

72.

Naumann

Bennett

(2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881-889.

73.

Pantazis

(2000). Fear of crime, vulnerability and poverty. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 414-436.

74.

Patterson

Payne

West

(1996). Collective climates: A test of their sociopsychological significance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1675-1691.

75.

Peters

O’Connor

Rudolf

(1980). The behavioral and affective consequences of performance-relevant situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 79-96.

76.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

77.

Rader

Cossman

Porter

(2012). Fear of crime and vulnerability: Using a national sample of Americans to examine two competing paradigms. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 134-141.

78.

Reid

Konrad

(2004). The gender gap in fear: Assessing the interactive effects of gender and perceived risk on fear of crime. Sociological Spectrum, 24, 399-425.

79.

Riger

LeBailly

Gordon

(1981). Community ties and urbanites’ fear of crime: An ecological investigation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 653-665.

80.

Riger

Gordon

LeBailly

(1978). Women’s fear of crime: From blaming to restricting the victim. Victimology, 3, 274-284.

81.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Conway

J. M.

Sederburg

M. E.

Spitzmuller

Aziz

Knight

W. E.

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

82.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Stanton

J. M.

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

83.

Rountree

Land

(1996). Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces, 74, 1353-1376.

84.

Sacco

(1990). Gender, fear and victimization: A preliminary application of power-control theory. Sociological Spectrum, 10, 485-506.

85.

Salas

Sims

D. E.

Burke

C. S.

(2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555-599.

86.

Schafer

Huebner

Bynum

(2006). Fear of crime and criminal victimization: Gender- based contrasts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 285-301.

87.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. K.

Peng

(2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863-871.

88.

Schaufeli

Peeters

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

89.

Shippee

(2012). Victimization, fear of crime, and perceived risk: Testing a vulnerability model of personal control. Sociological Perspectives, 55, 117-140.

90.

Skogan

(1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.

91.

Skogan

Maxfield

(1981). Coping with crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

92.

Smith

Torstensson

(1997). Gender differences in risk perception and neutralizing fear of crime: Toward resolving the paradoxes. British Journal of Criminology, 37, 608-634.

93.

Stichman

Gordon

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

94.

Stohr

Mays

Lovrich

Gallegos

(1996, March). Parallel perceptions: Gender, job enrichment and job satisfaction among correctional officers in women’s jails. Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas, NV.

95.

Sutton

Farrall

(2005). Gender, socially desirable responding and the fear of crime: Are women really more anxious about crime? British Journal of Criminology, 44, 1-13.

96.

Sutton

Robinson

Farrall

(2011). Gender, fear of crime and self-presentation: An experimental investigation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 421-433.

97.

Sykes

(1958). Society of captives: A study of maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

98.

Taxman

Gordon

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

99.

Taylor

(2001). Breaking away from broken windows. Boulder, CO: Westview.

100.

Taylor

Hale

(1986). Testing alternative models of fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 151-189.

101.

Tesluk

P. E.

Farr

J. L.

Mathieu

J. E.

Vance

R. J.

(1995). Generalization of employee involvement training to the job setting: Individual and situational effects. Personnel Psychology, 48, 607-632.

102.

Triplett

Mullings

Scarborough

(1996). Work-related stress and coping among correctional officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 291-308.

103.

Vickovic

Griffin

(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.

104.

Walumbwa

Lawler

(2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1083-1101.

105.

West

Patera

Carsten

(2009). Team level positivity: Investigating positive psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 249-267.

106.

Wildman

Shuffler

Lazzara

Fiore

Burke

Salas

Garven

(2012). Trust development in swift starting action teams: A multilevel framework. Group and Organization Management, 37, 137-170.

107.

Williams

(2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377-396.

108.

Wilson

J. Q.

(1975). Thinking about crime. New York, NY: Basic Books.

109.

Worley

(2013). Games guards play: A self-report study of institutional deviance within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Criminal Justice Studies, 26, 115-132.

110.

Wright

Saylor

(1991). Male and female employees’ perceptions of prison work: Is there a difference? Justice Quarterly, 8, 505-524.

111.

Zhao

Gibson

Lovrich

Gaffney

(2002). Participation in community crime prevention: Are volunteers more or less fearful of crime than other residents? Journal of Crime and Justice, 25, 41-59.

112.

Zhao

Thurman

(1999). Sources of job satisfaction among police officers: A test of demographic and work environment models. Justice Quarterly, 16, 153-174.

113.

Zimmer

(1986). Women guarding men. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.