Are Inmates With Military Backgrounds “Army Strong?”

Abstract

We use data from the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities 2004 to examine the relationship between prior military service and misbehavior for a nationally representative sample of incarcerated inmates. Our regression analyses, based on 18,185 respondents across 326 prisons, suggest that inmates with military backgrounds tend to fare better than others across 12 negative prison outcomes. In contrast, we do not find much support for the argument—implied by violentization and other theories—that inmates with military backgrounds fare worse than others, with the exception of high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and violent victimization. Supplementary analyses also show conditional patterns based on exposure to combat as well as honorable versus dishonorable discharge.

Keywords

prison military inmate assaults

Introduction

Many individuals with military backgrounds will experience incarceration over their life course (Freeman & Roca, 2001; Sherman, Sautter, Jackson, Lyons, & Han, 2006; White, Mulvey, Fox, & Choate, 2012), but there is very limited research on how they experience incarceration. On one hand, military service is often promoted as a difficult but ultimately positive experience by military institutions and the government—a professional and personal growth challenge that makes ordinary people “Army Strong,” based on a specific framing of this argument (U.S. Army, 2014). It is therefore plausible that military service serves as a protective factor that helps inmates adjust and adapt to incarceration, assuming that military training provided them with discipline, character, and the skills to adapt to a regimented institution like prison (Bennett, 1954; Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2011; Willbach, 1948). On the other hand, military service is seen by many scholars and commentators as both traumatizing and dehumanizing (Athens & Ulmer, 2003; Kaylor, King, & King, 1987). According to this view, the military rarely makes one “Army Strong,” and is more likely to leave ex-soldiers and veterans with physical and psychological scars. Thus, the military experience might make some people weaker, not stronger, and may be a risk factor for a variety of negative outcomes for prison inmates—as the literature on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), violentization theory (Athens & Ulmer, 2003), and social learning (Akers, 1998; Castle & Hensley, 2002; Wyatt & Gal, 1990) suggests.

The aim of the current study is to examine how inmates who come from military backgrounds experience prison life relative to inmates with no military experience, based on these two competing perspectives. Examining the prison experience of inmates with military backgrounds is important for at least two reasons with respect to prison research and policy. The first reason is that a number of veterans return from tours of duty having sustained both physical and psychological trauma—the latter of which often manifests in various forms of mental illness, such as PTSD, which has been associated with an increased risk of negative life outcomes, including incarceration (Accordino, Porter, & Morse, 2001; National Drug Court Institute, 2012). In the same way, incarcerated veterans tend to come from different social and demographic backgrounds from other inmates (Dabbs & Morris, 1990). According to Noonan and Mumola (2007), for example, inmates with military backgrounds residing in state prisons were, on average, older and better educated than nonveteran inmates (see also Armor & Sackett, 2004). Importantly, such characteristics have been linked to reduced stress and prosocial adaptation in the prison setting (Benson & Cullen, 1988; Clemmer, 1958; Irwin, 1970; Porporino & Zamble, 1984; Wooldredge, 1999). By assessing the prison experience of veterans compared with nonveteran inmates, then, correctional officials and staff members may be better able to develop actuarial assessments to identify those who are at an elevated risk of experiencing negative prison outcomes, such as victimization and institutional misconduct, and respond with appropriate intervention programs. Indeed, the classification of risk is important to the overall functioning of correctional facilities, and past research has documented a positive association between custody levels and aggregate levels of institutional misconduct among inmates (Andrews & Bonta, 2014; Camp, Gaes, Langan, & Saylor, 2003; Worrall & Morris, 2011).

The second reason has to do with the fact that prisons, in general, are closed systems, where the relationships and interactions between staff and inmates are less transparent than other areas of the criminal justice system. Although the experience of incarcerated veterans has received attention, much of it is based on either descriptive or anecdotal accounts (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004; National Drug Court Institute, 2012). Conversely, the empirical literature on the experience of incarcerated veterans is scant at best, where military service is designated as a control variable in most analyses (Goetting & Howsen, 1986; Maguire, Flanagan, & Thornberry, 1988; Saylor & Gaes, 1997). Thus, the influence that prior military experience exerts in the prison setting remains unclear. By focusing on military service as a key predictor of adjustment, methodological rigor and prediction are improved, and the prison experience for veteran inmates is elucidated beyond basic analyses.

We begin first by reviewing the relevant literature on these themes and presenting our hypotheses regarding differences between inmates with and without military experience. We then compare descriptive statistics about inmates with and without military backgrounds and provide some bivariate tests. Next, we present multivariate logistic regression models predicting 12 different prison outcomes (e.g., physical assault on staff, drug infractions, weapon possession), focusing on whether inmates with military backgrounds are different. Following this, we present supplementary analyses on four subgroups of inmates: those with military combat experience versus military training only, as well as those who have been honorably and dishonorably discharged. Finally, we discuss our findings with respect to the previous literature on prison adjustment, the military–crime nexus, and our stated hypotheses. The limitations of our study and directions for future research and policy are also addressed in this section.

Military Service and Positive Outcomes: “The Army Strong Hypothesis”

Traditionally, military service has been synonymous with notions of discipline, deference to authority, respect, leadership, and intense physical training (Westmoreland, 1971), as well as an array of skills that may be easily transferred to the prison atmosphere (Bennett, 1954; Willbach, 1948). Despite a lack of empirical research on how inmates with military backgrounds adjust to incarceration, there is reason to believe that prior military service may work to reduce the experience of institutional pains (Sykes, 1958). Research on institutional adaptation traditionally focuses on both individual and environmental characteristics related to adjustment. The former is commonly referred to as the “importation model” of prison adaptation and suggests that pre-prison variables—such as individual lifestyles and histories—influence the extent to which inmates are able to cope with their incarceration (Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996; Irwin, 1970; Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Wooldredge, 1994). The latter, referred to as “the deprivation model” of adaptation, emphasizes the importance of the prison environment, such as the type of prisons in which inmates are housed, in understanding how well they adjust to imprisonment. The following paragraphs detail each perspective, with a focus on how they apply to veteran inmates and adaptation, as well as how military service might serve as a buffer against criminality more generally.

Importation Models of Prison Adjustment

As previously mentioned, some studies have indicated that veteran inmates differ considerably from nonveteran inmates on a host of sociodemographic variables, including their age and level of education. Specifically, inmates with prior military experience tend to be older and better educated, and such characteristics might make them “Army Strong” in the prison context. Importantly, prior prison research consistently documents a potential buffering effect of these factors on antisocial behavior in the correctional setting.

Age

The majority of studies examining the relationship between age and prison adjustment suggest that, compared with older inmates, younger inmates experience greater difficulty in coping with institutional pains. For example, younger inmates tend to be involved in more rule violations (Porporino & Zamble, 1984), inmate-on-inmate assaults (Ekland-Olson, Barrick, & Cohen, 1983), and inmate-on-staff assaults (Wright, 1985). They are also more likely to report higher levels of anxiety and more frequent conflicts with others in general (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2010; Gover, Mackenzie, & Armstrong, 2000; Wright, 1985). One explanation for their greater involvement in antisocial behavior is that younger inmates face unique challenges on entering prison: They have to come to terms with homosexual advances, territorial disputes, and other threats, which may not be as problematic for older, more experienced inmates (Mackenzie, 1987). As Clemmer (1958) observed, it may be that successful adaptation to prison life requires one to embrace the inmate code, which includes “minding one’s own business” and remaining stoic in all situations. If younger inmates perceive themselves as living in a particularly hostile environment, then lashing out at others could be a deliberate or conscious adaptation.

With respect to the current study, then, it could be that veteran inmates, who tend to be older on average, are more mature and less confrontational toward other inmates, compared with other groups. This may lessen not only their chances of being victimized but also their chances of engaging in various forms of institutional misconduct. To the degree that they have more life experience—through their military training, for example—they may have also had more time to develop and hone the social, mental, and physical skills necessary to navigate the difficulties associated with incarceration.

Socioeconomic status

Not surprisingly, past research also suggests that socioeconomic status, including level of education, is inversely related to negative prison outcomes. K. N. Wright’s (1989) study on race and economic marginality in explaining prison adjustment found that inmates with higher levels of education (e.g., beyond high school) were less likely to be written up for assaultive and disruptive infractions, whereas Wooldredge (1999) reported that less-educated inmates were more likely to experience prison-related stressors, including depression and anxiety. In the same way, Sappington (1996) observed a positive relationship between education and perceived control over one’s prison environment—specifically, more education was associated with the belief that (a) one might control one’s own behavior, (b) one’s actions might affect one’s treatment, and (c) one might enjoy oneself in prison. Regarding the current study—and similar to the effects of age—veteran inmates, who tend to be more educated than other inmates, may be better at avoiding various types of conflict through (e.g., through verbal negotiation or other means) and therefore less likely to experience the pains of imprisonment.

Deprivation Models of Prison Adjustment

Deprivation models of prison adjustment stem from Gresham Sykes’s (1958) examination of the “pains of imprisonment”—a term used to encompass numerous social-psychological deprivations associated with the prison environment, which he viewed as having depersonalizing and stigmatizing effects on the lives of inmates. Drawing the previous work of Clemmer (1958), Sykes argued that prisons are custodially oriented, organizational structures that serve to alienate inmates by depriving them of life’s most basic amenities, including liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relations, security, and autonomy (see also Porporino & Zamble, 1984; Toch, 1977; Toch & Adams, 1986). Indeed, Wooldredge’s (1999) research on male inmates across three correctional facilities in Ohio found that inmates were significantly more likely to report feeling depressed, anxious, and stressed when they engaged less frequently in activities designated for self-improvement (i.e., deprivation of autonomy), experienced a recent victimization (i.e., deprivation of security); and received fewer visits each month from outsiders (i.e., deprivation of relationships).

Regarding the current study, however, it may be that veteran inmates are differentially affected by these institutional pains, as many of the routines commonly associated with life in the military are also associated with prison life. As Sun, Sung, and Chu (2007) pointed out, the total institution of the military—including constant monitoring, lack of privacy, isolation from civilians, and structured routines—hinders both victimization opportunities and predatory behaviors in general. To the extent that veteran inmates have internalized traditional or core military values, they may be less likely to come into conflict with correctional staff or other inmates out of a respect for authority and their high levels of discipline. Similarly, to the degree that they do get involved in altercations with others, having a military background may serve to mitigate negative outcomes (e.g., victimization), as many veterans know specialized combat training.

The Military–Crime Nexus

Based on the above literature, there is reason to believe that veteran inmates may fare better in prison than their nonveteran counterparts. Similarly, past research also indicates that enlisting in the armed forces may serve as a buffer against criminality more generally. For instance, Bouffard and Laub (2004) used data from three longitudinal birth cohorts and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to estimate the effects of military service on future police contact. In line with the observations of Bennett (1954), they found that delinquents who entered the military were significantly less likely to have a police record after joining the military, compared with those who did not enlist—net of race, education, socioeconomic status, age, and number of prior juvenile offenses (see also Bouffard, 2003; Culp, Youstin, Englander, & Lynch, 2013; Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2011; Sampson & Laub, 1996, 2003; van Schellen, Apel, & Nieuwbeerta, 2012).

The standards of military recruitment have also improved in recent decades, suggesting that the average soldier has higher levels of human capital than the average criminal. In 1980, standardized tests and minimum educational qualifications were adopted for new recruits (Armor & Sackett, 2004). Similar standards were adopted for soldiers involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, including academic training (Armor & Sackett, 2004; Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2011). In addition to increased qualifications, the military has become less tolerant of recruits with deviant or criminal pasts. Indeed, the proportion of new soldiers given special permission (i.e., waiver) to join the army with a criminal record was cut in half between the 1980s and the 1990s—from about 17% to 9% (General Accounting Office, 1999; Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2011). Similarly, the military actively tried to screen out drug users among recruits and generally promoted a zero-tolerance stance toward substance abuse (Bachman, Segal, Freedman-Doan, & O’Malley, 2000; Department of Defense, 1997; Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2011).

In sum, this body of research suggests that prior military service may work to reduce the pains of imprisonment as well as criminality in general—the mechanisms of which stem, in part, from differences in the social and demographic backgrounds of veterans and nonveterans, including sociodemographic differences and exposure to a highly regimented training environment. In other words, inmates with military backgrounds may be better equipped to handle imprisonment than their nonsoldier counterparts: They may be more mature, better educated, disciplined, respectful of authority, and less likely to be intimidated by other inmates. Put simply, they may be “Army Strong.”

Military Service and Negative Outcomes: PTSD, Violentization, and Social Learning

PTSD

Although there is good reason to believe that prior military service may facilitate more prosocial behavior in prison, some research also suggests that military service is related to a host of negative outcomes (e.g., psychological), including the development and onset of mental disorders, such as PTSD—the likes of which could make veteran inmates more susceptible to institutional pains (Beckham, Feldman, & Kirby, 1998; Beckham & Moore, 2000; Foy, Rueger, Sipprelle, & Carroll, 1984; Green et al., 1990; Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2009; Kaylor et al., 1987; Koenen, Stellman, Stellman, & Sommer, 2003; Lasko, Gurvits, Kuhne, Orr, & Pitman, 1994; Sigafoos, 1994; White et al., 2012). Indeed, evidence from the Iraq war suggests that one in eight soldiers displayed PTSD symptoms on returning from duty (Associated Press, 2004; White et al., 2012), as well as other related problems, such as high rates of concussions and head injuries, depression, dysfunctional sleep patterns, and irritability (Hoge et al., 2008). Moreover, past studies have documented a positive relationship between PTSD and postmilitary antisocial behavior (Collins & Bailey, 1990; Wilson & Zigelbaum, 1986).

Using data from the National Vietnam Readjustment Study (n = 1,200), for example, Fontana and Rosenheck (2005) observed that the relationship between combat exposure and subsequent antisocial behavior—including both violent (e.g., stabbing) and nonviolent (e.g., drug use) behavior—was mediated by the onset of PTSD. They also noted that whether veterans received a positive or negative homecoming reception from friends, family, and the wider community influenced the degree to which the symptoms of PTSD manifested into future antisocial behaviors. For instance, Fontana and Rosenheck posited that veterans who receive a rejecting reception may feel as though their efforts and dedication have been unrecognized or undermined, and they may make dysfunctional (i.e., violent) accommodations as a way to cope. Such adaptations may, in turn, put veterans at an increased risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system. (Bremner et al., 1997; Freeman & Roca, 2001; Sherman et al., 2006). To the extent that their behaviors do result in incarceration, veteran inmates suffering from PTSD may have greater difficulty adapting to prison life. They may behave more aggressively or violently toward other inmates and correctional staff, thus increasing their risk of victimization or further sanctioning. They may also be at greater risk of developing other disorders (i.e., comorbidity) in conjunction with PTSD during imprisonment, including substance or alcohol abuse. In addition, some research indicates the presence of a possible interaction between veteran status and incarceration regarding risk of suicide—that is, veteran inmates may face a level of suicide beyond that conferred by veteran status or incarceration alone (Wortzel, Blatchford, Conner, Adler, & Binswanger, 2009).

More generally, the relationship between mental disorder and the pains of imprisonment is well-documented, and shows that inmates suffering from mental illness are significantly more likely than other inmates to experience a host of negative prison outcomes, including violent and sexual victimization and various forms of institutional misconduct (Blitz, Wolff, & Shi, 2008; Felson, Silver, & Remster, 2012; Wolff, Blitz, & Shi, 2007). Research by Pare and Logan (2011), for example, found that inmates suffering from mental disorders were at higher risk of engaging in provocative behaviors—such as assaulting staff and other inmates—that resulted in various forms of sanctioning (e.g., misconduct tickets). Similarly, Blitz et al. (2008) found that male inmates with mental disorders were 60% more likely to be victimized over a 6-month period, compared with male inmates without these disorders. Similar patterns were observed for female inmates: Those with mental disorders were approximately 70% more likely to be victimized than those with no disorder. Inmates with mental disorders may experience negative prison outcomes for a number of reasons. They may, for example, be targeted as weak or vulnerable individuals who can be controlled or intimidated with minimum use of force by other inmates. Alternatively, as Pare and Logan (2011) noted, inmates with mental disorders might be more susceptible to the pains of imprisonment because they provoke other inmates and staff, leading to higher rates of victimization and rule infractions. Thus, if veteran inmates are at an increased risk of developing mental disorders—such as PTSD—they may also be more likely to experience a host of negative prison outcomes, including those discussed above.

Violentization Theory

The notion that military service serves to promote negative outcomes during incarceration can also be understood through the process of “violentization” (Athens & Ulmer, 2003). Violentization occurs through four stages: brutalization, defiance, violent dominance engagements, and virulency. Brutalization refers to the actual learning of violent behavior. During this stage, individuals—having been exposed to direct and indirect forms aggression—are taught that violence is both positive and instrumental to achieve desired goals. Thus, the intense physical training to which most soldiers are subjected during their enlistment may be indicative of violent coaching, as their superiors may instill in them a sense of responsibility to use violence whenever necessary. Within the prison context, it may also be that soldiers—such as those with combat experience—have either been violently victimized themselves or have witnessed the victimization of fellow soldiers during service. However, although similar to the experience of PTSD, brutalization emphasizes the role of teaching and does not infer the presence of any medical or psychological disorder.

The second stage, defiance, occurs when individuals—in an attempt to understand their brutalization—experience a violent epiphany. Paraphrasing Athens and Ulmer (2003), they realize that the only way to end or prevent future brutalization is to become violent themselves. Thus, incarcerated soldiers may dwell on negative experiences from their specialized training or tours of duty and exhibit violent behavior toward other inmates or staff if they feel as though they have been provoked or as a way to solve conflicts.

The third stage—violent dominance engagements—is where violent individuals actively practice their newly made violent resolutions on other people. During wartime, soldiers may look forward to combat as a way of showing their comrades that they are courageous and “have what it takes.” After carrying out violence against the enemy, they may experience either positive or negative reinforcements, depending on their level of success. That a soldier survives a violent conflict with his enemies may suffice as positive reinforcement for using violent behavior. Alternatively, negative experiences could promote violence, but for different reasons—such as witnessing the death of a comrade or killing a child soldier. Depending on the level of reinforcement, such behavior may continue to the point where soldiers—as well as other people—perceive them to be adept at violence.

The violent reputation or perception of self and others characterizes Athens’s final stage of violentization—virulency. On returning from duty, soldiers often gain respect, trust, and a sense of closeness to their friends and within the community. For their service, medals are often awarded, promotions are sometimes granted, and citations may be sent home to their families—all of which may further reinforce violent behavior as positive. If violence does become fully internalized within soldiers, it may be that veteran inmates bring these attitudes and behaviors with them into prison, thus heightening their risk of violent conflict and other negative outcomes. In addition, other inmates may admire or glorify the violence that incarcerated soldiers are capable of using.

Social Learning and Military Violence

Violentization can be understood as a specific reformulation of more general social learning theories (Akers, 1998), and scholars dedicated to the psychology of killing have proposed that military training provides a social context where servicemen learn aggression, violence, and murder (Castle & Hensley, 2002; Grossman, 1996). In other words, soldiers may have learned violent or dysfunctional social behaviors, whether or not the specific mechanisms of violentization theory apply, and such behaviors may lead to legal sanctioning, including incarceration. Within the prison context, these actions could contribute to an overall negative experience. For example, Grossman (1996) argued that the military uses various training methods—such as classical and operant conditioning and role modeling—to increase the killing rates of servicemen.

Classical conditioning is used by the military to the extent that violent or aggressive behavior is associated with pleasurable consequences. Indeed, Grossman (1996) noted that Japanese veterans were rewarded with nice meals and prostitutes for murdering Chinese prisoners with bayonets during the Second World War. Likewise, members of the Schutzstaffel Einsatzgruppen, who held territory in Nazi-occupied France, were well-compensated for developing and implementing vastly efficient concentration camps (Rhodes, 2002). Operant conditioning—which involves the administration of both positive and negative reinforcement—is also used by the military to condition soldiers to react to given stimulus in a certain way. For instance, using man-shaped targets to shoot at provides servicemen with a stimulus and the conditioned response is to shoot the target. New recruits are required to repeat this process to the degree that it becomes reflexive in nature. Grossman also posited that military role models—such as drill sergeants—personify violence and aggression, and often teach soldiers to dehumanize the enemy. When this happens, servicemen view their adversaries as subhuman objects, and the learned, conditioned response turns soldiers into killers (Grossman, 1996). To the extent that veteran inmates have internalized these various training methods, and similar to violentization theory, they may be more aggressive or antisocial toward prison staff and other inmates—especially in adversarial situations, where inmates and staff disagree with one another.

Some scholars have also argued that the tactics described above are a manifestation of a broader military culture that is heavily based on embracing a warrior-like mentality at the expense of other, important cultural orientations, such as the role of peacekeeper, diplomat, technician, and teacher (Hajjar, 2014). The warrior culture, which emphasizes emotional suppression, increased pain tolerance, stoicism, and self-sacrifice, among others, extols a virtue of toughness and grit, and denounces behaviors that may appear to make individuals look vulnerable or weak. In this regard, strict adherence to the military’s warrior code has been associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing negative life outcomes. Research by Lunasco, Goodwin, Ozanian, and Loflin (2010), for instance, indicates that military members’ perceptions of mental health services are largely influenced by the degree to which they identify with the warrior code. Specifically, service men and women who adopt the warrior identity appear significantly less likely to seek help for mental health problems due to the stigma and vulnerability that is associated with getting treatment.

By the same token, subcultural norms exist within the prison system, which emphasize, among other things, stoicism, solidarity, mental fortitude, strength, and hypermasculinity (Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Lutze & Murphy, 1999; Sykes & Messinger, 1960). Inmates who are perceived as weak or vulnerable by other inmates are often stigmatized, targeted, and victimized because they are seen as deviating from such norms (Bottoms, 1999; Cooley, 1992; Garabedian, 1963; Irwin & Cressey, 1962). As previously mentioned, embracing a military identity may facilitate positive prison adaptation by virtue of the overlap that exists between the two institutions, including deference to authority and following an autocratic rule system. Yet other characteristics associated with the warrior code may work to the detriment of veteran inmates. For instance, in an attempt to maintain their identity within the prison context, veteran inmates may behave aggressively toward others as a way to establish dominance or save face (Felson & Tedeschi, 1993). This, in turn, could increase not only their risk of being victimized but also the chances of being written up for rule infractions. Embracing and maintaining a soldier’s identity in prison may also deter veteran inmates from showing signs of anything that may be perceived by others as a weakness, including mental stress or disorder. By ignoring or concealing such problems, their conditions may go undiagnosed and untreated—both of which have been shown to negatively negative influence the prison experience (Pare & Logan, 2011).

In sum, some literature indicates that, by virtue of their combat experience, as well as the processes of violentization, social learning, and exposure to the warrior culture, individuals with military backgrounds may be at a greater risk of engaging in antisocial behavior. Regarding the current study, inmates with military backgrounds may have many problems that would make the experience of incarceration worse for them than other inmates: They may suffer more frequently from PTSD and other mental disorders, they may have been socialized into more violent self-identities and cultural values, and they may have learned that using violence is an effective way to solve conflicts.

The Current Study

In the current study, we examine the relationship between prior military service and 12 negative prison outcomes, including physical and verbal assaults on staff and other inmates, solitary confinement, drug and alcohol infractions, and violent victimization using a large, nationally representative data set. The relationship between prior military experience and negative prison outcomes might reflect (a) military service as a protective factor against these outcomes or (b) military service as a risk factor. Thus, we provide a test of the two competing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Military service as a protective factor—Inmates with military service should a have lower risk of experiencing the 12 negative prison outcomes than inmates with no military experience.

Hypothesis 2: Military service as a risk factor—Inmates with military service should have a higher risk of experiencing the 12 negative prison outcomes than inmates with no military experience.

Method

Analyses are based on the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities 2004 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004; U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). The data, collected in 2003-2004, were acquired from nationally representative samples of 18,185 inmates from 287 state and 39 federal facilities, and include a modified structured clinical interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The survey used a two-stage sample design: Prisons were selected in the first stage and inmates within prisons in the second stage.

During the first stage, prisons were selected using a stratified random selection process with probability proportional to size (i.e., larger prisons were more likely to be selected because they have more inmates) and adequate coverage of female prisons and prisons with medical or mental health functions. During the second stage, inmates were selected using random selection for state prisons and a stratified random selection for federal prisons (drug offenders were undersampled, and non–drug offenders were oversampled to ensure adequate sample size for non–drug offenders). Additional detail regarding the two-stage sample design can be found on pages 3 through 7 of the Codebook of the Survey Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities 2004 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). The survey used computer-assisted personal interviews with inmates to ask questions about personal characteristics, criminal history, and situation in prison. It includes questions related to prior military experience, verbal abuse and physical assault, weapon possession, solitary confinement, victimization in prison, drug and alcohol use, treatment for mental disorders, and extensive control variables (e.g., sociodemographic variables).

We used binary logistic regression to estimate the effects of our independent (prior military service) and control variables on the likelihood of experiencing a host of negative prison outcomes (our dependent variables). We also used Huber–White corrected standard errors (i.e., Stata’s Robust Cluster option) to take into account the possible dependence of observations because inmates are clustered into 326 prisons. Inmates from the same prison might be more alike than inmates across different prisons, and if left uncorrected, the standard errors could be biased.

Measurement

We examined the effects of prior military service in prison on multiple dependent variables, including verbal abuse toward staff, verbal abuse on fellow inmates, physical assault on staff, physical assault on fellow inmates, weapon possession, drug use, alcohol use, other illegal items, insubordination, other major prison infractions, solitary confinement, and violent victimization. For each variable, we created a two-category (e.g., 0 or 1) dummy variable.

The measure of our first dependent variable, verbal abuse on staff, is based on the following question: “Since your admission, have you been written up or found guilty of verbal assault on a correctional officer or other staff member?” Inmates who responded “yes” were coded 1 and 0 otherwise. Similar questions were posed to inmates regarding the 11 other infractions mentioned above. It is important to note that these measures do not fully capture inmate misconduct and instead serve as proxies of inmate behavior, because the questions on which they are based are only in relation to the infractions inmates were found guilty of by prison staff. Similar to self-report arrest data, then, it is possible that these reports are conservative and that inmates have engaged in misconduct more frequently than what officially reported on the survey. This issue is addressed later in the discussion of the current study’s limitations. It is also important to note that solitary confinement is measured specifically as a consequence of rule infractions since the inmate’s most recent admission; that is, they are not in solitary confinement as a result of gang membership or need for protection.

The measure of our independent variable, military service, is based on the following question: “Did you ever serve in the U.S. Armed Forces?” Inmates who responded “yes” were coded 1 and 0 otherwise. Thus, our measure includes military service in general, and does not differentiate between the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, and so on. In supplementary analyses, we differentiate among different types of military experiences, however—specifically, those with military combat experience versus military service with no combat, and those who have been honorably and dishonorably discharged.

Our control variables included many sociodemographic factors, federal versus state institutions, offense type (e.g., violent vs. nonviolent), arrest history, correctional history, years in prison since admission, PTSD, and other mental disorders, as well as treatment for mental disorders. Federal institution is coded 1 if inmates were serving in a federal prison and 0 if they are in a state prison. PTSD is based on the question, “Have you ever been told by a mental health professional, such as a psychiatrist or psychologist, that you had post-traumatic stress disorder?” and is coded 1 if the respondent answered positively and 0 otherwise. Although PTSD is likely underestimated, descriptive statistics (see Table 3) indicate that inmates with military backgrounds are 2 times more likely to report PTSD than other inmates, suggesting that the measure has some validity. We also included a dummy variable measuring other forms of mental disorders, including depression, psychosis, bipolar, anxiety, and personality disorders. Although these mental disorders are different from each other, we wanted a general measure that indicates the presence of mental health problems above and beyond PTSD. Similarly, we included a dummy variable indicating whether respondents received treatment or medical help for mental disorders.

Current violent offense (i.e., the one that resulted in current incarceration) is coded 1 if the respondent was incarcerated for a violent crime and 0 otherwise. Arrest history is comprised of a series of dummy variables and is based on the number of times an inmate was arrested prior to their current incarceration, including no prior arrests (the reference category), one to two arrests, three to five arrests, and six or more arrests. Correctional history is a dichotomous measure and is based on whether inmates had spent time in another correctional facility prior to their current incarceration. Those who answered “Yes” were coded 1 and 0 if they did not.

Time in prison is a continuous measure, coded in years, and serves as a measure of exposure to the prison environment. It is important to note that some respondents did not report or know how long they had been incarcerated, which resulted in missing values on this variable (4.25%; n = 773). These cases were excluded from our analyses. Gender is a dichotomous variable coded 1 for men and 0 for women. Age is a continuous variable coded in years. Race and ethnicity are measured using three dummy variables: Black (African American), Hispanic, and Other races (primarily Asian and Native American), with White (Caucasian) and non-Hispanics as the reference categories. It is important to note that Hispanic ethnicity can overlap with either Black or White categories. Education is the highest grade of school attended and ranges from 0 to 18. High alcohol use is measured from self-reports of drinking over the year prior to the offense and is coded 1 if the respondent drank alcohol daily or almost daily and 0 otherwise. High drug use is measured from self-reports of drug use during the month prior to the offense and is coded 1 if the respondent used drugs once a week or more often, based on a list of 14 drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin, chemical drugs, but excluding marijuana and hashish), and 0 otherwise. Finally, participation in prison programs is a dichotomous measure and is based on whether inmates, since their most recent incarceration, had participated in prison programs including employment counseling (i.e., how to interview and find a job) and life skills and community adjustment classes (e.g., anger management, conflict resolution, and personal finance).

Results

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Results show that 4.4% of all inmates were written up for verbal abuse toward other inmates, compared with 2.7% of inmates with military service (odds ratio [OR] = .58; p < .01). About 7% of all inmates were written up for verbal abuse toward staff, compared with 5.4% of the military subsample and 7.3% for nonmilitary (O.R = .73; p < .01). Approximately 11% of the total sample was found guilty for physical assault on another inmate, whereas 8.2% of the military subsample versus 11.5% of nonmilitary reported doing so (OR = 0.69; p < .01). Physical assault on staff was substantially lower than physical assault on other inmates for the entire sample (2.4%), but there was no difference between the military and nonmilitary samples (OR = 0.74; p = .11). Nearly 3% of all inmates—including the military subsample—were found guilty of weapon possession.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Full sample		Military sample		Nonmilitary sample
	%	n	%	n	%	n
Dependent variables
Verbal abuse–Inmates	4.4	798	2.7	45	4.6	753
Verbal abuse–Staff	7.1	1,291	5.4	90	7.3	1,201
Physical assault–Inmates	11.2	2,037	8.2	137	11.5	1,900
Physical assault–Staff	2.4	442	1.9	31	2.5	411
Weapon possession	2.9	528	2.9	48	2.9	480
Drugs	5.1	923	4.1	68	5.2	855
Alcohol	2.3	423	2.0	34	2.4	389
Other illegal items	11.6	2,104	11.4	190	11.6	1,914
Insubordination	20.6	3,744	16.4	272	21.0	3,472
Other major infractions	2.8	514	2.0	34	2.9	480
Solitary confinement	14.2	2,578	11.2	186	14.5	2,392
Violent victimization	13.2	2,392	13.9	231	13.1	2,161
Independent variable
Military service	9.14	1,662	100%	1,662	0%	0
Control variables
PTSD	6.34	1,153	10.5	174	5.9	979
Other Mental Disorders	24.7	4,495	27.1	450	24.5	4,045
Treatment for Mental Disorders	20.3	3,683	23.9	298	19.9	3,285
Current violent offense	39.20	7,129	47.3	786	38.4	6,342
Federal institution	20.27	3,686	20.7	344	20.2	3,342
Men	78.62	14,297	96.1	1,598	76.9	12,699
Women	21.38	3,888	3.9	64	23.1	3,824
White	49.11	8,931	60.2	1,000	48.0	7,931
Black	42.45	7,720	35.1	583	43.2	7,137
Other race	9.10	1,662	5.1	85	9.5	1,570
Hispanic	18.85	3,428	5.8	96	20.2	3,331
Education (M years)	10.94	—	12.41	—	10.80	—
Age (M years)	35.83	—	45.46	—	34.87	—
Time in prison (M years)	7.91	—	8.75	—	7.83	—
High drug use	32.8	5,961	26.2	436	33.4	5,525
High alcohol use	23.4	4,262	25.5	423	23.3	3,839
Criminal history
First arrest	18.6	3,382	16.8	279	18.8	3,103
Arrested 1-2 times	29.3	5,302	28.9	480	29.2	4,825
Arrested 3-5 times	24.9	4,519	25.2	419	24.8	4,100
Arrested 6+ times	27.1	4,928	29.1	484	27.2	3,760
Correctional history	16.7	3,036	18.7	310	16.5	2,726
Prison programs	34.5	6,276	35.0	582	34.5	5,694

Note. PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder.

Drug and alcohol infractions were relatively rare for the entire inmate population (5.1% and 2.3%, respectively), as well as those with military service (4.1% and 2%, respectively). However, inmates with military backgrounds were less likely to be charged with drug infractions (OR = 0.78; p < .05), but not alcohol infractions (OR = 0.86; p = .41), than other inmates. For the possession of other illegal items, the entire inmate population and the military subsample were almost identical (11.6% vs. 11.4%). Inmates with military service reported being found guilty of insubordination less often (16.4%) than the rest of the inmate population (20.6%; OR = 0.73; p < .01). Roughly 3% of all inmates were found guilty for other major infractions, compared with 2% of inmates with a military background (OR = 0.69; p < .05). Approximately 14% of the total inmate sample experienced solitary confinement, compared with roughly 11% of the military subsample and 14.5% for nonmilitary (OR = 0.74; p < .01). Finally, there was little difference between the total inmate sample and those with military service in relation to the experience of violent victimization (13.2% vs. 13.9%).

Regarding the descriptive statistics for the selected control variables, some interesting differences are apparent. Specifically, the prevalence of PTSD within the military sample (10.5%) was greater than the rest of the inmate population (6.34%; OR = 1.86; p < .01). Large differences between male and female inmate populations were also apparent: Men comprised approximately 78% of the total inmate population (compared with 22% of women), and this difference was even more pronounced when comparing men and women within the military sample (96% vs. 4%; OR = 0.13; p < .01). In addition, inmates with military experience were generally older (r = .29; p < .01) and more educated (r = .19; p < .01) than the rest of the inmate population.

In addition to the descriptive statistics, results from our multivariate analyses yield similar patterns. Using binary logistic regression, we estimated the effect of prior military service on a host of dependent variables related to negative outcomes while in prison. Regression coefficients are reported as ORs for each variable. The results from our model show moderate support for the “Army Strong” hypothesis. Of the 12 negative prison outcomes examined, veteran inmates fared better than nonveteran inmates on seven of them. Relative to other groups, veteran inmates were less likely to be written up for verbal abuse toward other inmates (OR = 0.648; p < .01) and staff (OR = 0.695; p < .01), as well as physical assault toward other inmates (OR = 0.711; p < .01). Veteran inmates were also approximately 30% less likely than their nonveteran counterparts to be written up for drug infractions (OR = 0.720; p < .01), insubordination (OR = 0.713; p < .01), and other major rule infractions (OR = 0.710; p < .05). Finally, veteran inmates were 30% less likely to be disciplined for rule violations with solitary confinement, relative to other inmates (OR = 0.702; p < .01). It is important to note that the significant findings for drug misconduct and solitary confinement could be related, because inmates who sell drugs are often placed in solitary confinement to slow down trafficking. Contrary to our expectations, however, was the fact that inmates with military backgrounds were no more or less likely than other inmates to experience or engage in the other negative outcomes or behaviors, although the ORs were in the expected directions.

Our analyses also reveal the significant influence of mental disorders for a host of negative prison outcomes. With the exception of PTSD, inmates diagnosed with mental disorders were significantly more likely to verbally and physically abusive toward staff, physically abusive toward fellow inmates, found guilty of insubordination, and experience violent victimization. Similar patterns held for inmates who were receiving treatment for mental disorders. Such findings are congruent with past research on the effects of mental disorders in prison (Pare & Logan, 2011). In the same way, results indicate that inmates currently serving time for a violent offense increased the risk of negative prison outcomes across all of the dependent variables in the model.

Having served time in a federal—as opposed to state—institution also appeared to significantly affect the prison experience. Specifically, inmates serving time in federal institutions were more likely to verbally abuse staff and other inmates; physically abuse staff; carry weapons, drugs, and other illegal items; be found guilty of insubordination; and be placed in solitary confinement.

The results also reveal significant patterns regarding female inmates. With the exception of two outcomes—verbal abuse toward staff and physical assault against other inmates, which were nonsignificant but in the expected direction—females were significantly less likely than males to experience any of the negative prison outcomes examined. In the same way, our findings suggest that race is a significant predictor for a number of negative prison outcomes. Compared with White inmates, Black inmates were significantly more likely to physically and verbally assault prison staff and other inmates. They were also more likely to be found guilty of carrying weapons, drugs, insubordination, and other major infractions, and to be placed in solitary confinement. Interestingly, however, Black inmates were less likely to be written up for possessing other illegal contraband.

Supplementary Analyses

Not all inmates with military backgrounds are the same: Some have experienced combat; others have received military training, but did not fight or serve on a tour of duty. Some received an honorable discharge, whereas others were given a dishonorable one. Hence, it is important to examine whether the variation in military experience influences the risk of negative prison outcomes, as prior research suggests (Bouffard, 2014; Bouffard & Laub, 2004). In Table 2, we re-estimated our models by differentiating between two subgroups: (a) combat versus noncombat military experience, and (b) honorable versus dishonorable discharge. Overall, the results are still mostly supportive of the “Army Strong” hypothesis, and are congruent with the analyses presented in Table 3 (our main analysis). For example, inmates with combat experience were less likely to be verbally abusive toward staff (OR = 0.446; p < .01), physically assaultive toward inmates (OR = 0.691; p < .10), and to be written up for insubordination (OR = 0.646; p < .01). Similarly, inmates without combat military experience were less likely to be verbally abusive toward staff (OR = 0.644; p < .05) and other inmates (OR = 0.777; p < .05), physically abusive toward other inmates (OR = 0.731; p < .05), charged with a drug infraction (OR = 0.686; p < .05), found guilty of insubordination (OR = 0.784; p < .01) and other major infractions (OR = 0.659; p < .01), or to be disciplined with solitary confinement (OR = 0.690; p < .01). Furthermore, all coefficients are in the expected direction. Thus, we found no evidence that combat exposure significantly contributed to negative prison experiences or difficulty in adjusting to prison life.

Table 2

Main Analysis.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Military service	0.648**	0.695**	0.711**	0.796	0.906	0.720**	0.772	0.871	0.713**	0.710*	0.702**	1.20
PTSD	1.09	1.00	0.884	0.998	1.01	1.12	0.773	1.13	1.04	1.22	0.936	1.31*
Other Mental Disorders	1.53**	1.16^†	1.30**	0.872	0.794^†	0.807*	0.784^†	0.959	1.16**	0.833	1.08	1.33*
Treatment for Mental Disorders	1.79**	1.57**	1.49**	1.70**	1.49**	1.04	0.979	1.34**	1.55**	1.41**	1.52**	1.90**
Current violent offense	1.88**	1.78**	2.46**	1.53**	1.88**	1.88**	1.69**	1.79**	1.89**	1.61**	1.67**	2.07**
Federal institution	1.38**	1.39**	1.12	1.50**	1.48**	1.38**	1.05	1.24**	1.23**	1.17	1.32**	1.11
Women	0.970	0.636**	0.660**	0.863	0.528**	0.581**	0.683*	0.808*	0.850*	0.729*	0.616**	0.217**
Black	1.72**	1.57**	1.61**	1.62**	1.27**	1.14^†	1.07	0.853**	1.55**	1.19*	1.39**	0.940
Other race	1.33^†	1.22*	1.22*	1.33*	1.13	1.14	1.24^†	1.04	1.20*	1.27*	1.05	0.981
Hispanic	0.919	0.828*	1.17*	0.993	1.13	0.692**	0.838	0.785**	0.772**	1.10	0.862^†	0.958
Education (M)	0.905**	0.936**	0.927**	0.907**	0.903**	0.931**	0.926**	0.951**	0.937**	0.930**	0.939**	0.943**
Age (M)	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.996	0.992*	0.997	0.991**	0.999	0.996^†	0.990**	0.997	0.998
Time in prison	1.00**	1.00**	1.00**	1.01**	1.01**	1.01**	1.00**	1.00**	1.00*	1.01**	1.01**	1.01**
High drug use	1.20**	1.03	1.27**	0.719**	0.899	1.38**	0.750**	1.08^†	1.04	0.910	1.06	1.10
High alcohol use	1.17*	1.09	1.14*	0.792*	1.01	1.07	1.32**	1.00	1.10*	0.807*	1.03	0.969
Arrest 1-2	0.746**	1.07	0.937	1.17	1.04	1.00	0.938	0.981	1.04	1.02	1.07	0.795*
Arrest 3-5	0.897	1.10	0.997	1.08	1.06	1.05	0.981	1.00	1.04	0.928	1.02	0.871
Arrest 6^†	0.988	1.10	0.980	1.16	1.00	1.10	0.999	1.10	1.11^†	1.03	1.11^†	0.925
Correctional history	0.999	0.981	1.03	0.866	0.910	0.951	0.878	0.898	1.07	0.969	0.948	0.991
Prison programs	1.11	1.00	1.04	1.00	0.955	0.994	0.953	1.01	1.05	1.06	1.07	1.03
Pseudo-R²	.056	.042	.058	.039	.047	.042	.033	.025	.044	.025	.038	.067

Note. Reference groups: White, Men, Non-Hispanics. Logistic regressions predicting (1) Verbal abuse–Inmates, (2) Verbal abuse–Staff, (3) Physical assault–Inmates, (4) Physical assault–Staff, (5) Weapon possession, (6) Drugs, (7) Alcohol, (8) Other illegal items, (9) Insubordination, (10) Other major infractions, (11) Solitary confinement, (12) Violent victimization. N = 17,823-18,185. Coefficients are odds ratios; standard errors are Huber–White corrected for clustering in 326 prisons. PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3.

Supplementary Analyses by Types of Military Experience (N = 17,823-18,185).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Military–Combat experience	0.728	0.446**	0.691^†	0.601	0.936	0.926	0.733	0.814	0.646**	0.969	0.819	1.17
Military–No combat	0.644*	0.777*	0.731**	0.858	0.904	0.686**	0.794	0.896	0.748**	0.659**	0.690**	1.19
Honorable discharge	0.666*	0.668**	0.734**	0.735^†	0.920	0.755*	0.806	0.882	0.738**	0.723*	0.717**	1.25^†
Dishonorable discharge	0.454	1.13	0.473^†	1.66	0.758	0.353^†	0.406	0.767	0.468**	0.593	0.571^†	0.564

Note. Effects for combat experience and type of discharge estimated in different models to reduce multicollinearity. Regression models control for all the same covariates as those presented in Table 3. Logistic regressions predicting (1) Verbal abuse–Inmates, (2) Verbal abuse–Staff, (3) Physical assault–Inmates, (4) Physical assault–Staff, (5) Weapon possession, (6) Drugs, (7) Alcohol, (8) Other illegal items, (9) Insubordination, (10) Other major infractions, (11) Solitary confinement, (12) Violent victimization. Coefficients are odds ratios; standard errors are Huber–White corrected for clustering in 326 prisons.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Evidence for the “Army Strong” hypothesis is also apparent when examining the difference between honorable and dishonorable discharge: Inmates who received an honorable discharge were significantly less likely to be written up verbal abuse toward staff (OR = 0.666; p < .05) and other inmates (OR = 0.668; p < .01) as well as physical assault against staff (OR = 0.734; p < .01) and other inmates (OR = 0.735; p < .10). They were also less likely to be written up for drug infractions (OR = 0.755; p < .05), insubordination (OR = 0.738; p < .01) and other major infractions (OR = 0.723; p < .05), and to have been disciplined with solitary confinement (OR = 0.717; p < .05). Similar to inmates who experienced combat, most all coefficients were in the expected direction. However, inmates who were honorably discharged were at a slightly greater risk of experiencing violent victimization (OR = 1.25; p < .10). Even inmates who were dishonorably discharged appeared to fare better across a number of outcomes: They were less likely to physically assault other inmates (OR = 0.473; p < .10), possess drugs (OR = 0.353; p < .10), be found guilty of insubordination (OR = 0.468; p < .01), and to be placed in solitary confinement (OR = 0.571; p < .10). Again, most all of the coefficients were in the expected direction, with the exception of physical assault against staff, although the effect was nonsignificant. Given these results, we now turn to the theoretical implications and interpretations of the current study.

Discussion

The goal of the current study was to test two competing perspectives regarding prison adjustment for inmates with military backgrounds. We found moderate support for the “Army strong” hypothesis, or the idea that having a military background serves as an asset in adapting to life in prison. Veteran inmates, on average, were less likely than other inmates to engage in seven of the possible 12 prison outcomes analyzed. Similar to prior research, we also found that veteran inmates were, on average, older and more educated than nonveteran inmates, which might help to explain why they fared better. Conversely, we found no support for violentization theory, or the idea that the military, by virtue of its structure and socialization processes, has a brutalizing effect on its subjects and thus contributes to difficulty in adjusting to prison life. It is important to note, however, that PTSD was significantly associated with a higher risk of one negative prison outcome: the experience of violent victimization. Moreover, our descriptive statistics indicate that the prevalence of PTSD was higher in our military subsample than the rest of the prison population. However, for the rest of our dependent variables, PTSD was not a significant predictor.

With respect to the “Army Strong” hypothesis, we found that veteran inmates were significantly less likely than other inmates to be written up for verbal and physical abuse toward inmates, physical abuse toward staff, drug and other major infractions, and insubordination. Relative to other inmates, veteran inmates were also less likely to be placed in solitary confinement as a result of institutional misconduct. Such results are congruent with past research that suggests having a military background may reduce the likelihood of coming into conflict with authority figures (Sun et al., 2007), and it could be that inmates who have served in the military have been exposed to highly regimented environments, where deference to authority and respect for others is commonplace. Thus, whether or not inmates engage in—and are subsequently punished for—various forms of institutional misconduct might be a reflection of their degree of cooperation with members of the prison community.

Similarly, past research suggests that the average soldier has higher levels of human capital than the average criminal (Armor & Sackett, 2004), which is also supported by our analyses. We found that inmates with military backgrounds were, on average, older and more educated than the average inmate—an observation that could be the result of increased educational qualifications for military recruits in recent decades (Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2011). As previously stated, there are many reasons why older and better educated inmates might fare better in prison. First, it could be that older inmates are more mature than their younger counterparts when it comes to how they behave in prison. To the degree that they have more life experience, they may have had more time to develop and hone their social and mental skills to navigate the difficulties associated with incarceration, compared with younger inmates. Similarly, in general, “crime is a young man’s game” (Witte & Tauchen, 1994; see also Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). That is, the older one gets, the less appealing it may be to engage in criminal activities, including various prison infractions.

Higher levels of education have also been traditionally associated with lower levels of criminal behavior (Lochner, 2004; Lochner & Moretti, 2001). For example, educated individuals may have more to lose from criminal activity and, in the same way, more to win from legitimate employment (e.g., higher earnings). In the prison context, more educated inmates may have a higher stake in conformity because they feel as though they have more to lose by breaking the rules: The more often inmates engage in rule violations, the less likely it is that they will be paroled or released from prison. For instance, our results show that inmates with higher levels of education were significantly less likely to be placed in solitary confinement for breaking the rules. In addition, the more educated inmates are, the more likely it is that they possess social skills that may serve as an asset in prison. They may, for example, have better negotiation skills, they may be less impulsive, and they may be more prosocial in general, compared with other inmates—all of which may reduce the pains of imprisonment (Porporino & Zamble, 1984; Sappington, 1996; Sykes, 1958; Wooldredge, 1999; Wright, 1985).

These findings are consistent with the previous literature regarding the social and economic opportunities afforded to those who enlist in the armed forces (Berryman, 1988). It is important to qualify our results, however, by noting that the individuals in our study did engage in some form of behavior which resulted in their subsequent incarceration. Thus, the extent to which we are able to discuss the potential benefits that prior military service has on antisocial behavior is limited by the fact that we are studying people who, by definition, are antisocial in one way or another.

Limitations and Implications for Prison Research and Policy

Although our inquiry into the relationship between prior military service and misbehavior in prison yielded several important findings, this study is not without limitations. First, and perhaps most important, we acknowledge that our measure of military service does not account for the historical period during which inmates served their country. Thus, it is possible that inmates, who enlisted during the Vietnam War and during the early years of the All Volunteer Force when screening was not as rigorous, are different from those who enlisted in more recent decades, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Bouffard, 2014). And although the limited research on cohort differences for individuals who served in multiple wars indicates that differences may not be significant (Bouffard & Laub, 2004), future research in this area should explicitly account for this problem. Another limitation of our research concerns the type of data used to examine the military–misconduct relationship. Specifically, our data are cross-sectional and, as such, do not allow us to study the trajectories of inmates over an extended period of time. We are therefore left with an incomplete picture of the prison experience for inmates with military backgrounds. Thus, future prison surveys should incorporate longitudinal designs, based on multiple waves, to study inmates throughout the duration of their incarceration.

The potential drawbacks of using self-report data should also be noted. As previously discussed in our description of how the variables in the current study are operationalized, the survey is based on inmates’ accounts of their prison experience (such as their levels of misconduct), and we have no way of comparing those accounts with those officially documented by prison staff. Thus, this data set does not actually address the decision-making processes that correctional officials use when deciding whether to write up an inmate for violating the rules, which could be affected by not only the military status of the inmates but also the social history of correctional officers. Information on the social demographics and individual perspectives of prison officials would be particularly useful, as it would further elucidate the relationship between staff and inmates and how they affect a host of prison outcomes. There may also be recall issues with inmates reporting on their own behavior that may have occurred sometime before data collection. For instance, an inmate could have been placed in solitary confinement several years before the survey was administered, potentially distorting the validity or accuracy of what actually happened. Accordingly, future research on prior military service and prison misconduct should be based on multiple sources of information, including accounts from inmates and prison staff, as well as institutional administrative data.

Finally, although we did not find support for violentization theory, our test was indirect and did not incorporate specific indicators the perspective, with the exception of defiance. The other three processes—brutalization, violent dominance engagement, and virulency—were not measurable using our data. Thus, future research on violentization in both the military and prison contexts should include direct measures of each stage of the process.

Our study provided moderate support for the idea that military service does make individuals “Army Strong,” at least in terms of their ability to cope with incarceration. It does not provide much support for the idea that inmates with military backgrounds are weaker or more vulnerable, with the exception of higher levels of PTSD, which was associated with an increased risk of violent victimization. Regarding future prison research and policy implementation, these findings are important to consider. To begin, prison administrators—perhaps now more than ever—are concerned with identifying at-risk groups with the goal of making the prison environment safer for both staff and inmates while reducing overall levels of recidivism. In essence, officials want to know “what works” with respect to prison programs to better address the needs of the inmate population (Andrews & Bonta, 2014; Latessa, 2010, 2011; Latessa & Lovins, 2010; Makarios & Latessa, 2013; Martinson, 1978).

For some agencies in the United States, this notion has translated into developing specific initiatives and programs for incarcerated veterans. For example, the Haynesville Correctional Center, located in Haynesville, Virginia, and the Indian Creek Correctional Center, located in Chesapeake, Virginia, recently launched pilot programs that involved creating a separate wing for veteran inmates who are within 24 to 36 months of their release date. The main goal of these programs is to help veteran inmates successfully reintegrate into society, and they are characterized by a focus on job training and securing employment on release, as well as coping with substance abuse and mental illness (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections, 2012). In addition, prison officials have reasoned that, by recreating a prison atmosphere similar to the trappings of military life, veteran inmates may have an easier time coping with the pains of imprisonment (Peligri, 2014; Wolfe, 2013). However, our results suggest that veteran inmates already tend to fare better than other inmates on a number of negative outcomes, in the absence of any specific programming. Furthermore, veteran inmates did not fare worse on any prison outcome. This could be due to the fact that—as Sun et al. (2007) previously alluded—prison life already bears close resemblance to life in the military, which is based on a highly routinized, regimented schedule where deference to authority and autocratic rules are the norm. Future initiatives might therefore be better served by saving money for—and addressing the needs of—other at-risk inmate groups, including those with mental illness. As described earlier, inmates with mental illness have a more difficult time coping with institutional pains (Pare & Logan, 2011; Wolff et al., 2007), and the results from our analyses document a similar pattern: Inmates who had been previously diagnosed with—or were receiving treatment for—a mental disorder were significantly more likely to experience a host of negative prison outcomes, including altercations with staff and other inmates as well as violent victimization. Similarly, we found evidence that PTSD was associated with an increased risk of violent victimization and that the prevalence of this disorder was higher in our military subsample. Thus, a more rigorous focus on screening for mental illness on entering the prison system, while specifically accounting for the fact that veteran inmates may be at particular risk of certain disorders, may be more beneficial than programs that target all inmates with military backgrounds.

Within academia, we also believe that the experience of incarcerated veterans (and other criminological variables) is an understudied area. Indeed, most research to date is either based on qualitative or anecdotal accounts that are bolstered by descriptive statistics. Our study represents an attempt at increasing the methodological rigor used to examine the degree to which veteran inmates adapt to prison by using multivariate analyses using a nationally representative prison sample. More research is needed, however, and other outcomes need to be examined. For example, our study examined the likelihood of veteran inmates experiencing a host of negative outcomes, which primarily represented different forms of institutional misconduct—measures that have traditionally been included in studies of prison adjustment (Stadler, Benson, & Cullen, 2013; Trulson, 2007; Wooldredge, 1991; Wooldredge, Griffin, & Pratt, 2001; Worrall & Morris, 2011). Given the number of inmates returning from tours of duty who have experienced emotional distress, future studies should also focus on differences in psychological affect between veteran and nonveteran inmates, including sleep patterns, irritability, nervousness, anger, and paranoia—all of which have been associated with the onset of PTSD and which, as our analyses indicate, is more prevalent among incarcerated veterans.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biographies

Matthew William Logan is an assistant professor at California State University, San Bernardino. He received his PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati and his BA in criminology and MA in sociology from the University of Western Ontario. His research interests include institutional corrections, the prison experience, white-collar crime, racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and violence and victimization.

Paul-Philippe Pare is an associate professor at the University of Western Ontario. He received his MA in criminology from the University of Montreal and his PhD in crime, law, and justice from Penn State University. His research interests include violence and victimization, the relationship between mental health disorders and crime, prison research, and cross-national criminology.

References

Accordino

M. P.

Porter

D. F.

Morse

(2001). Deinstitutionalization of persons with severe mental illness: Context and consequences. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(2), 16-21.

Akers

R. L.

(1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2014). The psychology of criminal conduct. New Providence, NJ: Routledge.

Armor

D. J.

Sackett

P. R.

(2004). Manpower quality in the All-Volunteer Force. In Bicksler

B. A.

Gilroy

C. L.

Warner

J. T.

(Eds.), The All-Volunteer Force: Thirty years of service (pp. 90-107). Washington, DC: Brassey’s.

Associated Press. (2004, June 30). 1 in 8 returning soldiers suffers from PTSD. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5334479/

Athens

L. H.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2003). Violent acts and violentization: Assessing, applying, and developing Lonnie Athens’ theories. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Bachman

J. G.

Segal

D. R.

Freedman-Doan

O’Malley

P. M.

(2000). Who chooses military service? Correlates of propensity and enlistment in the US Armed Forces. Military Psychology, 12, 1-30.

Beckham

J. C.

Feldman

M. E.

Kirby

A. C.

(1998). Veterans with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder: Relationship to combat exposure, symptom severity, guilt, and interpersonal violence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 777-785.

10.

Beckham

J. C.

Moore

S. D.

(2000). Interpersonal hostility and violence in Vietnam combat veterans with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder: A review of theoretical models and empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 451-466.

11.

Bennett

J. V

. (1954). The criminality of veterans. Federal Probation, 18, 40-42.

12.

Benson

M. L.

Cullen

F. T.

(1988). The special sensitivity of white-collar offenders to prison: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 207-215.

13.

Berryman

S. E.

(1988). Who serves? The persistent myth of the underclass army. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

14.

Blitz

C. L.

Wolff

Shi

(2008). Physical victimization in prison: The role of mental illness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 385-393.

15.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime and Justice, 26, 205-281.

16.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2003). Examining the relationship between military service and criminal behavior during the Vietnam era: A research note. Criminology, 41, 491-510.

17.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2014). Period effects in the impact of Vietnam-era military service on crime over the life course. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 859-883.

18.

Bouffard

L. A.

Laub

J. H

. (2004). Jail or the army: Does military service facilitate desistance from crime. In Maruna

Immarigeon

(Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 129-151). New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Bremner

J. D.

Randall

Vermetten

Staib

Bronen

R. A.

Mazure

. . . Charney

D. S.

(1997). Magnetic resonance imaging-based measurement of hippocampal volume in posttraumatic stress disorder related to childhood physical and sexual abuse—A preliminary report. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 23-32.

20.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Survey of inmates in state and federal correctional facilities 2004: Codebook. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu

21.

Camp

S. D.

Gaes

G. G.

Langan

N. P.

Saylor

W. G.

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

22.

Castle

Hensley

(2002). Serial killers with military experience: Applying learning theory to serial murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 453-465.

23.

Cesaroni

Peterson-Badali

(2010). Understanding the adjustment of incarcerated young offenders: A Canadian example. Youth Justice, 10, 107-125.

24.

Clemmer

. (1958). Observations on imprisonment as a source of criminality. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 41, 311-319.

25.

Collins

J. J.

Bailey

S. L.

(1990). Traumatic stress disorder and violent behavior. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3, 203-220.

26.

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections. (2012). Officials to join incarcerated veterans to showcase new vets’ dorm at Haynesville Correctional Center. Virginia Department of Corrections, Richmond, VA.

27.

Cooley

(1992). Prison victimization and the informal rules of social control. Forum on Corrections Research, 4(3), 31-36. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/index-eng.shtml

28.

Culp

Youstin

T. J.

Englander

Lynch

(2013). From war to prison: Examining the relationship between military service and criminal activity. Justice Quarterly, 30, 651-680.

29.

Dabbs

J. M.

Morris

(1990). Testosterone, social class, and antisocial behavior in a sample of 4,462 men. Psychological Science, 1, 209-211.

30.

Department of Defense. (1997). Drug and alcohol abuse by DoD personnel (Directive no 1010.4). Washington, DC: Author.

31.

Ekland-Olson

Barrick

D. M.

Cohen

L. E.

(1983). Prison overcrowding and disciplinary problems: An analysis of the Texas prison system. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, 163-176.

32.

Felson

R. B.

Silver

Remster

(2012). Mental disorder and offending in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 125-143.

33.

Felson

R. B.

Tedeschi

J. T.

(1993). Aggression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

34.

Fontana

Rosenheck

R. A.

(2005). The role of war-zone trauma and PTSD in the etiology of antisocial behavior. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 193, 203-209.

35.

Foy

D. W.

Rueger

D. B.

Sipprelle

R. C.

Carroll

E. M.

(1984). Etiology posttraumatic stress disorder in Vietnam veterans: Analysis of premilitary, military, and combat exposure influences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 79-87.

36.

Freeman

T. W.

Roca

(2001). Gun use, attitudes toward violence, and aggression among combat veterans with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189, 317-320.

37.

Garabedian

P. G.

(1963). Social roles and processes of socialization in the prison community. Social Problems, 11, 139-152.

38.

General Accounting Office. (1999). Military recruiting: New initiatives could improve criminal history screening (GAO/NSIAD-99–53). Washington, DC: Author.

39.

Goetting

Howsen

R. M.

(1986). Correlates of prisoner misconduct. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 49-67.

40.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

41.

Gover

A. R.

Mackenzie

D. L.

Armstrong

G. S.

(2000). Importation and deprivation explanations of juveniles’ adjustment to correctional facilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 450-467.

42.

Green

B. L.

Grace

M. C.

Lindy

J. D.

Gleser

G. C.

Leonard

(1990). Risk factors for PTSD and other diagnoses in a general sample of Vietnam veterans. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 729-733.

43.

Greenberg

G. A.

Rosenheck

R. A.

(2009). Mental health and other risk factors for jail incarceration among male veterans. Psychiatry Quarterly, 80, 41-53.

44.

Greenberg

G. A.

Rosenheck

R. A.

(2011). Incarceration among male veterans: Relative risk of imprisonment and differences between veteran and nonveteran inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1-22.

45.

Grossman

. (1996). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York, NY: Little, Brown, & Company.

46.

Hajjar

R. M.

(2014). Emergent postmodern US military culture. Armed Forces & Society, 40, 118-145.

47.

Harer

M. D.

Steffensmeier

D. J.

(1996). Race and prison violence. Criminology, 34, 323-355.

48.

Hoge

C. W.

McGurk

Thomas

J. L.

Cox

A. L.

Engel

C. C.

Castro

C. A.

(2008). Mild traumatic brain injury in US soldiers returning from Iraq. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 453-463.

49.

Irwin

(1970). The felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

50.

Irwin

Cressey

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

51.

Kaylor

J. A.

King

D. W.

King

L. A.

(1987). Psychological effects of military service in Vietnam: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 257-271.

52.

Koenen

K. C.

Stellman

J. M.

Stellman

S. D.

Sommer

J. F.

Jr. (2003). Risk factors for course of posttraumatic stress disorder among Vietnam veterans: A 14-year follow-up of American legionnaires. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 980-986.

53.

Lasko

N. B.

Gurvits

T. V.

Kuhne

A. A.

Orr

S. P.

Pitman

R. K.

(1994). Aggression and its correlates in Vietnam veterans with and without chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 35, 373-381.

54.

Latessa

E. J.

(2010). Cutting recidivism: What works, what doesn’t. The Slammer. Retrieved from http://www.the-slammer.org/category/guestcommentaries

55.

Latessa

E. J.

(2011). Why the risk and needs principles are relevant to correctional programs (even to employment programs). Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 973-977.

56.

Latessa

E. J.

Lovins

(2010). The role of offender risk assessment: A policy maker guide. Victims & Offenders, 5, 203-219.

57.

Lochner

(2004). Education, work, and crime: A human capital approach. International Economic Review, 45, 811-843.

58.

Lochner

Moretti

(2001). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

59.

Lunasco

T. K.

Goodwin

E. A.

Ozanian

A. J.

Loflin

E. M

. (2010). One shot-one kill: A culturally sensitive program for the warrior culture. Military Medicine, 175(7), 509-513.

60.

Lutze

F. E.

Murphy

D. W.

(1999). Ultramasculine prison environments and inmates’ adjustment: It’s time to move beyond the “boys will be boys” paradigm. Justice Quarterly, 16, 709-733.

61.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(1987). Age and adjustment to prison interactions with attitudes and anxiety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 427-447.

62.

Maguire

K. E.

Flanagan

T. J.

Thornberry

T. P.

(1988). Prison labor and recidivism. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4, 3-18.

63.

Makarios

Latessa

E. J.

(2013). Developing a risk and needs assessment instrument for prison inmates: The issue of outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 1449-1471.

64.

Martinson

(1978). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7, 243-270.

65.

National Drug Court Institute. (2012). Justice for vets. Alexandria, VA: Author.

66.

Noonan

M. E.

Mumola

C. J.

(2007). Veterans in state and federal prison, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

67.

Pare

P. P.

Logan

M. W.

(2011). Risks of minor and serious violent victimization in prison: The impact of inmates’ mental disorders, physical disabilities, and physical size. Society and Mental Health, 1, 106-123.

68.

Peligri

(2014, November 13). Special prison program focuses on veterans. CNN Politics. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/veterans-correctional-facility/

69.

Porporino

F. J.

Zamble

(1984). Coping with imprisonment. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 26, 403-421.

70.

Rhodes

(2002). Masters of death: The SS and the invention of the Holocaust. New York, NY: Random House.

71.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1996). Socioeconomic achievement in the life course of disadvantaged men: Military service as a turning point, circa 1940-1965. American Sociological Review, 61, 347-367.

72.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 555-592.

73.

Sappington

A. A.

(1996). Relationships among prison adjustment, beliefs, and cognitive coping style. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40, 54-62.

74.

Saylor

W. G.

Gaes

G. G.

(1997). Training inmates through industrial work participation and vocational and apprenticeship instruction. Corrections Management Quarterly, 1(2), 32-43.

75.

Sherman

M. D.

Sautter

Jackson

M. H.

Lyons

J. A.

Han

(2006). Domestic violence in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder who seek couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 479-490.

76.

Sigafoos

C. E.

(1994). A PTSD program for combat (Vietnam) veterans in prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, 117-130.

77.

Stadler

W. A.

Benson

M. L.

Cullen

F. T.

(2013). Revisiting the special sensitivity hypothesis: The prison experience of white-collar inmates. Justice Quarterly, 30, 1090-1114.

78.

Sun

I. Y.

Sung

H. E.

Chu

D. C.

(2007). Collateral gains from the military? A cross-national analysis of the armed forces–crime relationship. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 599-614.

79.

Sykes

G. M

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

80.

Sykes

G. M.

Messinger

S. L

. (1960). The inmate social system. In Cloward

R. A.

Cressey

D. R.

Glosser

G. H.

McCleery

Ohlin

L. E.

Sykes

G. M.

Messinger

(Eds.), Theoretical studies in social organization of the prison (pp. 5-19). New York, NY: Social Science Research Council.

81.

Toch

(1977). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. New York, NY: Free Press.

82.

Toch

Adams

(1986). Pathology and disruptiveness among prison inmates. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 23, 7-21.

83.

Trulson

C. R.

(2007). Determinants of disruption: Institutional misconduct among state-committed delinquents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 7-34.

84.

U.S. Army. (2014). Army careers: Ways to serve in the army. Available from www.goarmy.com

85.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, DC: Author.

86.

van Schellen

Apel

Nieuwbeerta

. (2012). The impact of military service on criminal offending over the life course: Evidence from a Dutch conviction cohort. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 135-164.

87.

Westmoreland

W. C.

(1971). Military justice: A commander’s viewpoint. American Criminal Law Review, 10, 5.

88.

White

M. D.

Mulvey

Fox

A. M.

Choate

(2012). A hero’s welcome? Exploring the prevalence and problems of military veterans in the arrestee population. Justice Quarterly, 29, 258-286.

89.

Willbach

(1948). Recent crimes and the veterans. Journal of Law and Criminology, 38, 501-508.

90.

Wilson

J. P.

Zigelbaum

S. D

. (1986). Post-traumatic stress disorder and the disposition to criminal behavior. In Figley

C. R.

(Ed.), Trauma and its wake (Vol. 2, pp. 305-321). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

91.

Witte

A. D.

Tauchen

(1994). Work and crime: An exploration using panel data. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

92.

Wolfe

(2013, July 28). From PTSD to prison: Why some veterans become criminal. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/28/from-ptsd-to-prison-why-veterans-become-criminals.html

93.

Wolff

Blitz

C. L.

Shi

(2007). Rates of sexual victimization in prison for inmates with and without mental disorders. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1087-1094.

94.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1991). Correlates of deviant behavior among inmates of US correctional facilities. Journal of Crime & Justice, 14(1), 1-25.

95.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1994). Inmate crime and victimization in a southwestern correctional facility. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 367-381.

96.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1999). Inmate experiences and psychological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 235-250.

97.

Wooldredge

J. D.

Griffin

Pratt

(2001). Considering hierarchical models for research on inmate behavior: Predicting misconduct with multilevel data. Justice Quarterly, 18, 203-231.

98.

Worrall

J. L.

Morris

R. G.

(2011). Inmate custody levels and prison rule violations. The Prison Journal, 91, 131-157.

99.

Wortzel

H. S.

Blatchford

Conner

Adler

L. E.

Binswanger

I. A

. (2009). Risk of death for veterans on release from prison. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(1), 82-91.

100.

Wright

K. N.

(1985). The violent and victimized in the male prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16(4), 1-26.

101.

Wright

K. N.

(1989). Race and economic marginality in explaining prison adjustment. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 26, 67-89.

102.

Wyatt

T. C.

Gal

(Eds.). (1990). Legitimacy and commitment in the military. Westport, CT: Greenwood.