The Examination of Correctional Officers’ Organizational

Commitment

Michael S. Gordon

The present study assessed the organizational commitment of 189 correctional officers at four
Maryland State prisons representing multiple security levels (pre-release, minimum, medium, and
maximum) using the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) (Mowday, Steers, & Porter,
1979). Results indicated that officers with greater years of military service and those that chose
corrections as a career reported higher OCQ scores while those with a college degree or graduate
school education reported lower OCQ scores. However, in the multivariate analysis, having more
years of military service was the only predictor of OCQ. These findings indicate that a more
thorough and comprehensive understanding of correctional officers may contribute to greater
knowledge of the systemic dynamics of inmate confining organizations.

Introduction
Research on correctional officers has included several inquiries that investigate attitudes and
beliefs of officers toward their work environment and inmates (Gordon, 2006; Heckert, Jengeleski, &
Gordon, 1998; Hepburn, 1985, 1987; Kifer, Hemmens & Stohr, 2003; Toch & Klofas, 1982; Maahs & Pratt,
2001). As the role of the correctional officer becomes more professionalized, it is of value to identify
officers’ beliefs regarding fundamental work-related issues such as how to control inmates, facility
organization, the custody-treatment dilemma, and organizational commitment (Gordon, 2006; Heckert,
Jengeleski, & Gordon, 1998). By gaining a more comprehensive understanding of those individuals
responsible for the day-to-day relationships with the very people society wishes to punish or rehabilitate, this
research can clarify and add to the literature on correctional officers, thereby aiding administrators in
understanding what drives their workforce.
Organizational Commitment in the General Public
There is a plethora of research on organizational commitment with regard to the general public
(Bozeman & Perrewe, 2001; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Wright &
Bonett, 2002; Wahn, 1998). Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) state, “Organizational commitment is
generally defined as loyalty to an organization, identification with an organization (i.e., pride in an
organization and internalization of the goals of an organization), and a desire for involvement in an
organization [i.e., the willingness to make a personal effort for the sake of an organization]” (Lambert, 2004),
p. 211). Much of the research has indicated a strong relationship between organizational commitment and
organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction and job turnover (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Some of the most
widely cited authors examining organizational commitment, Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979), created a
15-item Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) that has been used widely in a number of studies
(Bozeman & Perrew, 2001; Hockwarter, Perrew, Ferris, & Gercio, 1999; Kacmar, Carlson, & Brymer, 1999;
Millward & Hopkins, 1998). In addition, Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1982) created the nine-item version of
the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), which positively correlates with the 15-item version.
Like the 15-item version, the nine-item version has consistently shown high reliability and validity (Aryee,
Luk, & Stone, 1998; Jones, Scarpello, & Bergmann, 1999; Wahn, 1998).

Organizational Commitment in Correctional Institutions

While several observers (Lambert, 2004; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, &
Steers, 1982; Robinson, Simourd, & Porporino, 1993) have emphasized that research examining the goals,
missions, and overall success of organizations is important, few studies have explored the organizational
commitment of correctional officers in prisons. When correctional officer research has been conducted, it
has focused exclusively examining job satisfaction, stress, and burnout. In one of the few studies of
organizational commitment among correctional officers, Lambert (2004) surveyed 272 officers at a
Midwestern state prison housing medium to maximum level inmates. One of the author’s main research
questions was the relationship between job characteristics and the impact on organizational commitment.
Lambert administered the modified 9-item organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) (Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1979). The author found that all of the job characteristic variables (work position, tenure,
supervisory status, job variety, job autonomy, job satisfaction) were correlated with organizational
commitment in a bivariate relationship whereas demographic characteristics of officers (age, gender, race)
were not.
Robinson, Porporino, and Simourd (1992) examined staff commitment using the OCQ scale in the
Canadian prison system. The authors hypothesized that highly organizationally committed officers would
be: (1) more involved in their jobs, (2) less likely to leave their jobs (i.e., turnover), (3) less likely to call out
sick less, (4) more motivated to perform their job related activities; and (5) more likely to report higher levels
of job satisfaction. The authors examined a number of personal (age, gender, race, education, orientation)
and work related characteristics (region, work site, type of job). Age and education were not related to
commitment.

Camp (1993) examined organizational commitment of 3,608 federal correctional officers on two
levels: (1) abstract level of commitment; and (2) concrete level of commitment. He created two new scales-
Commitment to the Bureau (α=.88) and Institutional Commitment Scale (α=.80), finding an inverse
relationship between commitment, officer turnover, and job satisfaction. Camp concludes, “Institutions,
including correctional institutions, may get the most bang for their buck by strengthening organizational
strategies that promote commitment” (1993, p.26).

Camp, Saylor, and Wright (2001) examined federal prisons similar to Camp’s (1993) study
sampling 719 white officers and 296 minority officers with a focus on racial diversity and organizational
commitment. Correctional officers who were white and racially more distant from their fellow co-workers
reported lower levels of commitment to the organization. Savicki and Cooley (2003) also examined
demographic statistics in terms of harassment and organizational commitment sampling 144 officers and 45
administrators in four facilities. The authors administered the OCQ (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) and
found no difference between men and women on their commitment to organization scores.
 Furthermore, an underlying theory appears to resonate as correctional officers can be categorized
into the patterns of accommodation specified in Presthus’s (1978) theory. According to this theory, which is
conjured from the bureaucratic structure there are three types of employees in an organization: upward-
mobiles, indifferents, and ambivalent. Presthus (1978) identifies the ambivalent as the “marginal person
with limited career chances” (p. 228). The upward mobiles usually report high morale and job satisfaction
and strongly identify with the goals and mission of the organization. However, it is important to reiterate that
individual levels of accommodation may vary over a life course of employment as there may be variation in
terms of commitment level and motivation. Levels of accommodation can vary with tenure, age, and other
life altering situations and events.
In addition, a review of the literature from the 1970s until present day reveals confusion between
administrators and officers with regard to the philosophies of controlling prisoners who are incarcerated
(Arthur, 1994; Carroll, 1974; Hemmens & Stohr, 2000; Maahs & Pratt, 2001; Philliber, 1987). There is role
conflict in prison that that is an inherent contradiction between custodial and treatment goals (Josi &
Sechrest, 1998; Kifer, Hemmens, & Stohr, 2003). This inherent contradiction leads to a polarization between
custodial and treatment goals and may impact the officer’s organizational commitment because of a lack of
clarity of specified roles and could hypothetically result in an indifferent or ambivlelant employee as specified
by Presthus’s theory.
Furthermore, organizational commitment is an important mediating variable that shapes
employees’ attitudes, intentions, behaviors, and ideologies in controlling inmates in the correctional setting
has produced very little research (Lambert, 2004). However, only a handful of studies (see Literature
Review above) have examined organizational commitment of correctional officers and have found
inconsistencies with regards to organizational commitment. In summation, correctional officers’ personal
characteristics have shown very mixed, varied, and inconsistently investigated results.

Methods
Sample Population
The sampling procedure consisted of a non-probability, convenience strategy that resulted in a
response rate of 189 out of 966 (19.6%). The Commissioner’s Office of the Maryland Division of Correction
asked for volunteers at their monthly warden’s meeting, in which four facilities volunteered to participate in
this research study comprising 14.8% of all the facilities in Maryland. It so happened that these four facilities
represented the spectrum of security levels (maximum, medium, minimum, and pre-release). The four
facilities were geographically located in an urban (one facility), suburban (two facilities), and rural (one
facility), area of Maryland, thereby representing different areas of the state. A memorandum of
understanding was forwarded to each Warden and Security Chief at each facility by the Administrative
Assistant of the Commissioner of the DOC. This memo was subsequently forwarded to each major and shift
commander at the morning, afternoon, and evening roll call in order to orient and prepare the administrators
for the research so that the research could be conducted with minimum disruption to ongoing routines at the
four facilities. Questionnaires were administered at each roll call with self-addressed stamped envelopes.
Because of the difficulty in gaining access to officers in the prisons, the lack of multiple stages of
data collection, and the sensitive nature of the scales, the following rates for the current study appear to be
appropriate for the current research. According to Champion (1993), the average response rate for mail
surveys in the social sciences is approximately 30%. In addition, although second and third follow-up
mailings or administration typically increase response rates (Miller & Whitehead, 1996), they were not
possible in this current study.

Variables
Dependent Variable. Organizational Commitment (OC), was operationalized using a 9-item
summated scale resulting in one score per respondent. The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(OCQ;Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1982) is designed to identify respondents’ organizational commitment. The
form was scored as follows: strongly agree=7, agree=6, slightly agree=5, neutral=4, slightly disagree=3,
disagree=2, and strongly disagree=1. The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire has been
implemented and validated in numerous studies in the general public and has consistently produced internal
consistency in reliability tests ranging from .74 to .92 (Aryee, Luk, & Stone, 1998; Cohen, 1995). The OCQ
was originally designed in 1979 as a 15-item questionnaire and is a widely used questionnaire that has been
consistently tested and shown to have high reliability and validity scores with coefficient alphas ranging from
.81 to .93 (Hochwarter, Perrew, Ferris, & Gercio, 1999; Kacmar, Carlson, & Brymer, 1999; Millward &
Hopkins, 1998). The nine-item questionnaire was chosen over the 15-item questionnaire because it had
fewer questions and would therefore have the potential to increase participation.

Independent Variables.
Organizational commitment was examined in relation to a number of demographic and
occupational variables: age, race, gender, marital status, military experience, education, shift, position,
years of service, contact with inmates, income outside of corrections, and career choice. These
independent variables, used as predictors/factors, were consistently used in prior research with correctional
officers (Blevins, 2004; Crouch & Alpert, 1982; Jurik, 1985; Kifer, Hemmens, & Stohr, 2003; Toch & Klofas,
1982). Many research studies have attempted to examine the relationship of specific variables related to
correctional officer attitudes and beliefs (Larieviere & Robinson, 1996). Research has examined variables
over the years, which are organized by specific domains: gender, age, race, length of service, military
service, facility type, and shift. The results have been mixed, varied, and studied inconsistently (Sund &
Cullen, 2002).

Statistical Analyses
First, descriptive statistics (i.e., means, medians, standard deviations, percentages) were analyzed
for purposes of describing the population. Second, bivariate analyses were calculated with correlations for
continuous variables. Chi-square, T-tests and Analysis of Variance were used for categorical variables (only
significant variables shown in tables). Third, ordinary least squares regression was used whereby a
correctional officer’s score on the OCQ (scored 7-63) was the criterion variable and was examined by
analyzing the relationship between a multitude of independent variables (see Independent Variables above)
and the effect each and every independent variable has on the single dependent variable.
 Results
Sample Characteristics

Study participants are described in Table 1. Participating officers were 40 years old on average,
mostly male (59%), and largely married (58%). With regard to ethnicity, 49% were African American and
43% were Caucasian. It is noteworthy that female officers comprised a larger percentage (39%) of the
sample than anticipated. In terms of education, 17.2% reported a minimum of associates’ degree or higher.
Approximately 35% of the respondents reported they served in the military either prior to being a
correctional officer or were actively in the military with a mean of eight years of service (SD=6.1). Eighty-four
percent of the respondents were line officers and the overall officer mean years of service was 11 years
(SD=7.2). In terms of shift times, 51% reported working the morning to afternoon shift. Officers working all
three shifts (i.e., morning, afternoon, and evening) reported having 10 or more contacts (89% per shift) with
inmates. Two additional questions were asked: first, regarding a second source of income, with 32%
responding receiving other income (source unknown); and second, whether corrections was the participant’s
chosen career with 58% of the respondents indicating an affirmation.

OCQ Characteristics.
The overall OCQ scores ranged from 9 (low commitment) to 63 (high commitment) (M=33.1,
SD=12.8). Since this scale has been utilized in corrections in the Canadian prison system, it is important to
classify according to Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd’s (1992) study in which they rounded up or down
categorizing into one of the seven response categories. The groups are classified as follows: one=8.6%,
two=13.9%, three=17.6%, four=33.2%, five=17.1%, six=7.5%, and seven=1.6% (data not shown in table).
Consistent with the above grouping, 68.5% fall within the middle range, 16.5% report low commitment, and
15.0% report high commitment (see Table 2).

Furthermore, it is of interest to note that, 64% of the respondents reported they are willing to put in
a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected in order for the organization to be successful.
Surprisingly, 56% care about the fate of the organization. However, only 20% feel this is the best of all
possible organizations for which to work, with approximately 37% reported they felt proud to tell other
people they are part of this organization.
Table 1: Sample Characteristics of Correctional Officers

Variable N % M SD

Gender 182
Male 110 58.8
Female 72 38.5
Age 168 39.9 8.7
20-29 18 10.7
30-39 58 34.5
40-49 66 39.3
50 and over 26 15.5
Race 181
African American 92 49.2
Caucasian 81 43.3
Other 8 4.3
Marital Status 181
Single 45 24.1
Married/Partner 109 58.3
Separated 7 3.7
Divorced 20 10.7
Education 181
High School 57 30.5
GED 2 1.1
Some College 90 48.1
Associates’ degree 11 7.0
Four year degree 13 5.9
Graduate School 8 4.3
Military Experience 66 35.3 7.9 6.1
Position Rank DOCa 182
Correctional Officer 153 84.1
Supervisor 29 15.9
Years Employed Corrections
1-5 169 40.7 10.9 7.2
6-10 51 27.3
11-15 38 20.3
16-20 36 19.3
20 and over 30 16.0
14 7.5
Table 1 cont.

Variable N % M SD

175
Shiftb 96 51.3
Morning 45 24.1
Afternoon 31 16.6
Evening 3 1.7
Multiple

Inmate Contacts 180

None 3 1.6
1-3 3 1.6
4-6 3 1.6
7-9 4 2.1
10 and over 167 89.3

60 32.1
Report Other Income
(% saying yes)
109 58.3
Chose Corrections as a Career (%
saying yes)

aSupervisors consisted of the following: Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, and Major.

bMorning shift works until the afternoon, afternoon shift works until the evening, and evening shift works until
the early morning.
Note: Due to missing or incomplete data all variables will not total 189 responses.
Table 2: Organizational Commitment Scores

N
Commitment Level % Mean SD

16.5
Low 31 13.2 3.1

128 68.5
Middle 33.7 7.3

15.0
High 28 52.4 5.4

Total* 187 100.0 33.1 19.7

*The total did not equal 189 as two respondents had too many missing questions to calculate an OCQ
score.

Bivariate Analysis

Gender, race, marital status, military experience, position, and years of service were not
statistically significant when compared with OCQ. There was no correlation between age of the respondent
and their score on the OCQ. The presence or absence of military service did not have an effect on the OCQ
score. However, years of military service had a positive correlation (r=.329, p=.009) with OCQ, indicating
that as military service years increase, OCQ scores also increase, meaning a greater score of commitment
to the organization (data not shown in table). Whether or not an officer chose corrections as a career was
statistically significant (F (176) =1.754, p=.005). Those that chose corrections as a career had higher OCQ
scores (M=35.42, SD=12.27) than those who did not choose corrections as a career (M=29.84, SD=13.30)
[see Table 3]. There was an overall mean difference of 5.58 points; however, both still fell in the middle
range of commitment to the organization. The education variable was also statistically significant (F (2/178)
=3.229, p=.042). However, the relationship was too weak to indicate any Post Hoc group differences
between three respondent groups defined by education: high school (M=31.42, SD=12.63), some college
(M=35.32, SD=12.75), and college degree (M=28.85, SD=12.41) (Table 3).
Table 3: Relationship Between OCQ, Education, and Chose Corrections as a Career

N M SD df F p
Education 178 3.229 .042*
High School/GED 59 31.42 12.63
Some College/Associate 101 35.32 12.75
College/Graduate School 21 28.85 12.41
Chose Corrections as a Career 176 1.754 .005
Yes 109 35.42 12.27
No 69 29.84 13.30
* The post hoc analysis did not reveal any group differences.

Table 4: Predictor Variables Associated With OCQ Using OLS

Variable B SE (b) Beta t p

Age .168 .272 .111 .618 .540

Race -7.012 4.266 -.279 -1.644 .108

Education 1.898 3.016 .089 .629 .533

Military Experience 2.200 12.900 .023 .171 .865

Years of Military Experience .795 .291 .372 2.732 .009*

Position/Rank 8.230 4.458 .298 1.846 .072

Number Years Employed in DOC .090 .354 .048 .254 .800

Shift -.423 2.378 -.026 -.178 .860

Corrections as Career 7.206 4.009 .256 1.798 .079

Other Income -4.737 3.721 -.189 -1.273 .210

*p<.05
Multivariate Analysis
Ordinary Least Squares regression was conducted using the same independent variables, with the
overall model being significant (F (11/97) =2.016, p=.050), R=.340, and adjusted R2=.172 [see Table 4]. The
R2 indicates that 34% of the variance in OCQ is accounted for by all the independent variables. Years of
military service was the only significant variable in the model (p=.009) indicating the longer years of service
is a predictor of higher OCQ scores (i.e., higher commitment to the organization score) [see Table 4]. When
examining the undstandardized regression coefficient (b=.795), a positive relationship exists. Furthermore,
by examining the t-value (2.732), one can see the strength of the predictor years of military service.
Therefore, years of military service is a predictor of OCQ while none of the other variables are predictors of
OCQ.

Discussion
Gender, race, marital status, military experience, position, and years of service were not
statistically significant predictors of OCQ. Years of military service, education, and career choice were
related to organizational commitment. As years of military service increased OCQ scores (i.e., higher
commitment) increased. This is no surprise since corrections has a paramilitary structure which is rigid,
bureaucratic, custodial, and adheres to a systematic chain of command. Therefore, one could assume that
it would be easier for an individual with military experience to make a transition to a career in corrections.
However, there was an inability to determine a time sequence of which career came first, corrections or
military. Finally, those who chose corrections as a career scored higher on organizational commitment. This
is not surprising since they probably most likely “buy” into the custodial mission of corrections and did not
see human service as an aspect of their employment but rather as a way to manage inmates. The overall
organizational commitment model was a predictor of OCQ indicating those with longer years of military
service were most likely to report higher commitment to the organization. As indicated in the bivariate
analysis, this is not surprising since the structure and organizations are similar in terms of hierarchical and
overall mission. Age, gender, and race were not predictors indicating all of the independent variables only
accounted for 17.2% (OLS) of the variance in the model.
Overall, correctional officers fell within the middle range of organizational commitment. Similar to
their scores on CCIS, overall, this group of officers neither endorsed low or high commitment to the
organization. The OCQ distribution and findings appear to correspond with Presthus’s (1978) theory about
patterns of accommodation, which is conjured from the bureaucratic structure, in which three types of
employees in an organization are identified: upward-mobiles, indifferents, and ambivalent. The 17% of the
low OCQ personnel are similar to the indifferents that are typically at work just to earn a paycheck, are
disenchanted, and not very motivated. The largest group, in the middle of the distribution, representing 69%,
is similar to the ambivalents. Presthus (1978) identifies the ambivalent as the “marginal person with limited
career chances” (p. 228). Finally, the high OCQ group, which represents 15% of the distribution, appears to
correspond with the upward mobiles, which usually report high morale, job satisfaction, and strongly identify
with the goals and mission of the organization. However, it is important to reiterate that individual levels of
accommodation may vary over a life course of employment as there may be variation in terms of
commitment level and motivation. Levels of accommodation can vary with tenure, age, and other life altering
situation and events. Therefore, it may prove useful to investigate commitment of an employee not only at
the beginning of employment but throughout an employee’s tenure as an employees’ pattern of
accommodation most likely would not be stable.
One of the major limitations of this study is that there was an impression on the part of some
correctional officers that the research was being conducted by the commissioner’s office which may have
caused officers to be reluctant to answer honestly. In addition, the OCQ may just not be the most
appropriate measure for this population as it has only been used in very few studies in prison. No previous
studies examined gender, race, age, and other variables using regression analysis with correctional officers.
Furthermore, Lariviere and Robinson (1996) found that officers did not report high commitment levels, and
were actually more negative compared to individuals in other occupations. Even though they were in the
Canadian system, which is generally more treatment oriented, officers still showed lower levels of
commitment compared to other groups. Overall, individuals choose corrections for many different reasons,
but one individual’s response to the question, “Did they choose corrections as a career?, (“yes, because
everyone needs to work”) may be indicative of the commitment of correctional officers in general. There may
be a lack of commitment on this specific scale with this population because of the lack of investment in the
organization. However, it should be noted that this response may be no different from that of the general
public. A future study is needed to further explore this possibility.

Policy Implications
Organizational commitment has an important implication for correctional management and
organization. Although military service was the only significant predictor variable in the multivariate model,
organizational commitment should not be ignored in future research. Furthermore, education and chose
corrections as a career were statistically significant in the bivariate analysis indicating further analyses
should be examined with these variables.

According to Robinson, Porporino, and Simourd (1993), strategies can focus on two areas: first,
management can enhance commitment to the organization by focusing on approaches that target less
committed staff, and second, attitudinal and situational predictor variables could be examined on an ongoing
basis throughout employees’ careers. The assessment of individual commitment could be used to develop
further training and education. In addition, the authors discuss research that addresses two main avenues of
influence on organizational commitment, personal characteristics (beliefs, personality attributes, career
ambitions, attitudes towards work, demographics), and work situation (organizational climate, perception
about work roles, and processes used for decision making). Because few studies have examined
organizational commitment in corrections, further research is warranted using the widely published OCQ
scale.
Limitations
Since data are cross-sectional (i.e., correctional officers were only surveyed at one point in time), a
change in OCQ over time or span of their career was not assessed (i.e., longitudinal study). Therefore,
causality as it relates to the dependent variable (OCQ) cannot be definitively established by the significant
predictor variables in the regression model. The sampling procedure consisted of a convenience sample,
meaning that data are not representative of all officers employed (i.e., officers were not present at shift for
the following reasons: vacation, illness, days off, court appearances) and therefore are unknown. In
addition, second and third follow-up survey administrations, which would have increased sample size,
increased statistical power, and decreased the margin of error, were not permitted by the DPSCS. With a
larger sample size, there may have been a greater chance for statistical significance among the
independent variables. Fourth, the DPSCS chose to make participation on a voluntary basis, which further
raises the question of generalizability and poses additional threats to both internal and external validity. The
four facilities that volunteered to participate may differ in unknown ways from facilities that did not choose to
participate. Finally, correctional officers choosing not to participate in the study may have been officers who
were more cynical, burned out, and not committed to the organization which could have resulted in different
responses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research would not have been possible without the support and approval of Ms. Tiffany
Austin, of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Furthermore, this research
would not have been possible without the willingness of the prison staff and correctional officers that
participated by completing the voluntary questionnaires. I would also like to send a special thanks to Dr.
Timothy Kinlock and Ms. Kathryn Couvillion for editorial comments.

References

Arthur, J.A. (1994). Correctional ideology of black correctional officers. Federal Probation, 58 (1), 57-66.

Aryee, S., Luk, V., & Stone, R. (1998). Family responsive variables and retention relevant outcomes among
employed parents. Human Relations, 5(1) 73-89.

Blevins, K.R. (2004). The correctional orientation of “child savers”: The level, source, and impact of support
for rehabilitation among juvenile correctional officers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Cincinnati, Department of Criminal Justice.

Bozeman, D.P., & Perrewe, P.L. (2001). The effect of item content overlap on organizational commitment
questionnaire-turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 161-173.

Camp, S.D. (1993). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on turnover: An
event history approach. Paper present at the American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, Arizona.

Camp, S.D., Saylor, W.G., & Wright, K.N. (2001). Racial diversity of correctional workers and inmates:
Organizational commitment, teamwork, and workers’ efficacy in prisons. Justice Quarterly, 18(2),
411-427.

Carroll, L. (1974). Hacks, Blacks, & cons. Prospect Heights, Il: Waveland Press.

Crouch, B., & Alpert, P. (1982). Sex and occupational socialization among prison guards: A longitudinal
study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, 159-176.

Gordon, M.S. (2006). Correctional officer control ideology: Implications for understanding a system.Criminal
Justice Studies, 19(3) 225-239.

Heckert, J.W., Jengeleski, J.L., & Gordon, M.S. (1998). Measuring correctional employees’ ideology. The
Pennsylvania Association on Probation, Parole and Correction Journal, 58(2), 21-25.

Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M.K. (2000). The two faces of the correctional role: An exploration of the value of
the correctional role instrument. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 44 (3) 326-349.

Hepburn, J.R. (1985). The exercise of power in a coercive organization: A study of prison guards.
Criminology, 23(1), 145-163.

Hepburn, J.R. (1987). The prison control structure and its effects on work attitudes: The perceptions and
attitudes of prison guards. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 49-64.
Hochwarter, W.A., Perrewe, P.L., Ferris, G.R., & Gercio, R. (1999). Commitment as an antidote to the
tension and turnover consequences of organizational politics. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
55(3), 277-297.

Jones, F.F., Scarpello, V., & Bergmann, T. (1999). Pay procedures-What makes them fair? Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 129-145.

Josi, D.A., & Sechrest, D.K. (1998). The changing career of the correctional officer: Policy implications for
the 21st centrury. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jurik, N. (1985). Individual and organizational determinants of correctional officer attitudes towards inmates.
Criminology, 23, 523-539.

Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., & Brymer, R.A. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of organizational
commitment: A comparison of two scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(6),
976-994.

Kifer, M., Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. (2003). The goal of corrections: Perspectives from the line. Criminal
Justice Review, 28(1) Spring, 47-69.

Lambert, E.G. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff members. The Prison Journal,
84(2), 208-227.

Maahs, J., & Pratt, T. (2001). Uncovering the predictors of correctional officers’ attitudes and behaviors: A
meta-analysis. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2), 13-19.

Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

Miller, L.S. & Whitehead, J.T. (1996). Introduction to criminal justice research and statistics. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing Co.

Millward, L.J., & Hopkins, L.J. (1998). Psychological contracts and job commitment. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 28(16), 1530-1556.

Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of
commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Philliber, S. (1987). Thy brother’s keeper: A review of the literature on correctional officers. Justice
Quarterly, 4, 9-33.

Presthus, R. (1978). The organizational society. New York, NY: St.Martin’s Press.

Robinson, D., Porporino, F.J., Simourd, L. (1993). The influence of career orientation on support for
rehabilitation among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 73(2), 162-177

Savicki, V., & Cooley, E. (2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in correctional officers. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 30(5), 602-619.
Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and
turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personal Psychology, 46, 259-293.

Toch, H., & Klofas, J. (1982). Alienation and desire for job enrichment among correctional officers. Federal
Probation, 46(March), 35-44.

Wahn, J.C. (1998) Sex differences in the continuance component of organizational commitment. Group and
Organizational Management, 23(3), 256-267.

Wright, T.A., & Bonnett, D.G. (2002). The moderating effects of employee tenure on the relation between
organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(6), 1183-1190.