Research methods - validity of a particular measure APA Format

http://cjr.sagepub.com/

Criminal Justice Review

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/33/4/541

The online version of this article can be found at:  

DOI: 10.1177/0734016808320694

2008 33: 541 originally published online 3 September 2008

Criminal Justice Review Eric G. Lambert and Eugene A. Paoline

Staff Job Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment

The Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on \

Correctional

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:  

Published in Association with Georgia State University, Department of Cr\

iminal Justice & Criminology

can be found at:

Criminal Justice Review

Additional services and information for      

http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Email Alerts:

http://cjr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Subscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Permissions:

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/33/4/541.refs.html

Citations:

What is This?   - Sep 3, 2008

OnlineFirst Version of Record  - Nov 7, 2008

Version of Record

>>

by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from by Kimberly Godwin on October 2, 2013

cjr.sagepub.com

Downloaded from The Influence of Individual, Job,

and Organizational Characteristics

on Correctional Staff Job Stress,

Job Satisfaction, and

Organizational Commitment

Eric G. Lambert

University of Toledo, Ohio

Eugene A. Paoline III

University of Central Florida

As staff performance is vital to the survival of correctional institutions, much empirical atten-

tion has been paid to studying the causes and consequences of their atti\

tudes and behaviors.

The current study adds to this body of knowledge by examining the factors that explain three

central occupational attitudes—job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

More specifically, using survey data collected from a large county correctional system in

Orlando, Florida, this research assesses the impact of key demographic, job, and organiza-

tional characteristics within and across jail staff attitudes toward job stress, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment. This article finds that the more powerful predictors of each

of these attitudes are job and organizational characteristics. Among the dependent variables,

job stress has an inverse relationship with job satisfaction, and job satisfaction had a powerful

positive association with organizational commitment.

Keywords:corrections; jail staff; job stress; job satisfaction; organizational commitment

C

orrections is big business in any sense of the word, as over US$35 billion are spent

each year for correctional systems in the United States. Moreover, there are approxi-

mately 1.5 million adults housed in American correctional facilities, employing over

400,000 people (Pastore & Maguire, 2006). Although corrections is big business, it is

unlike most other organizations found in society, as approximately 70% of the costs of

operating prisons is for direct payments of wages and fringe benefits (Camp & Lambert,

2005). Armstrong and Griffin (2004) were correct when they argued “correctional institu-

tions are unique work environments in both context and purpose” (p. 577). Correctional

work is often regarded as a daunting occupation that holds little prestige in our societ\

y

(Griffin, 1999). Unlike many other organizations, corrections is not involved in the processing

541

Criminal Justice Review

Volume 33 Number 4

December 2008 541-564

© 2008 Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc.

10.1177/0734016808320694 http://cjr.sagepub.com hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: Eric G. Lambert and Eugene A. Paoline equally contributed to the article. The authors thank

Janet Lambert for proofreading and editing the paper. In addition, the authors thank the editor and the anony-

mous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. These comments and suggestions improved the article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eugene A. Paoline, University of Central Florida,

Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, Orlando, FL 32816-1600; e-mail: [email protected]. or production of inanimate objects, or providing services to willing clients or customers.

Correctional organizations deal with inmates, many of whom are violent and being held

against their will (Jayewardene & Jayasuriya, 1981). Because of the complexities of deal-

ing with the unique correctional environment, staff are critical. In fact, correctional organi-

zations usually succeed or fail because of their employees’ performance. Satisfied,

committed staff, who do not suffer from undue job stress, can help a facility become a

model correctional organization. Conversely, overly stressed, unhappy, and uncommitted

staff can lead to failure and disaster for a correctional organization.As staff are an integral component of the success of correctional organizations, there has

been a demand for more research on how working in corrections affects employees. Part of

this literature has examined the impact of the work environment on correctional workers,

and how it relates to their occupational attitudes. Three prominent occupational attitudes

identified are job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Byrd, Cochran,

Silverman, & Blount, 2000; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Griffin, 2001; Hepburn & Knepper,

1993; Lambert, 2004; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 1999; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton,

2002b; Slate & Vogel, 1997; Stohr, Lovrich, Monke, & Zupan, 1994; Triplett, Mullings, &

Scarborough, 1996, 1999). These attitudes have significant effects on the intentions and

behaviors of correctional staff. Most of the research on corrections has focused primarily

on job satisfaction and job stress. Only in the past 10 years has there been an incre\

ased

focus on the antecedents of correctional staff organizational commitment. Overall, empiri-

cal research has uncovered many salient causes of job stress, job satisfaction, and organi-

zational commitment. Unfortunately, there have not been systematic studies examining how different areas of

the work environment impact the attitudes of correctional employees. The current study

examined the impact of demographic (i.e., race, education, age, gender, rank, position, and

tenure), job (i.e., dangerousness of the job, job variety, and role strain), and organizational

characteristics (i.e., instrumental communication, formalization, input into decision mak-

ing, and promotional opportunity) on the job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment of correctional workers. It is necessary to examine the work environment in a

structured manner to determine whether the major dimensions are equally \

important in

helping shape correctional staff attitudes or whether one or more dimensions are more

important to one type of occupational attitude but not another. This information is neces-

sary so that scholars and correctional administrators can better underst\

and the work envi-

ronment and how it impacts correctional employees. Finally, we explore potential

relationships between job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Literature Review

Three salient occupational attitudes are job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment. Job stress is generally defined in the correctional literature as feelings of

work-related hardness, tension, anxiety, frustration, worry, emotional exhaustion, and/or

distress (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985; Grossi, Keil, & Vito, 1996; Van Voorhis,

Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). Job stress occurs as a result of stressors in the work envi-

ronment and has been found to have numerous negative effects on correctional staff. For

542 Criminal Justice Review example, high levels of stress in correctional staff often result in higher than expected like-

lihoods of hypertension, heart attacks, and other stress-related illnesses, which can ulti-

mately affect the life expectancy of the employee (Cheek & Miller, 1983). It has been

reported that correctional workers die sooner than expected when compared to the national

life expectancy, and stress was the leading reason for the shortened life expectancy (Cheek,

1984; Woodruff, 1993). Moreover, job stress has been linked to divorce, substance abuse,

and suicide among correctional staff (Cheek, 1984). Finally, correctional job stress has neg-

ative effects on the employing organization, having been found to be positively related to

turnover intent (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Slate & Vogel, 1997).Job satisfaction is “the fulfillment or gratification of certain needs that are associated

with one’s work” (Hopkins, 1983, p. 7). It is basically the degree that a person likes his/her

job (Spector, 1996). Like job stress, job satisfaction has significant consequences. Higher

levels of job satisfaction have been found to be associated with greater support for rehabil-

itation and compliance with organizational rules (Fox, 1982). Conversely, low levels of job

satisfaction have been found to be related to burnout, absenteeism, turnover intent, and

turnover (Byrd et al., 2000; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Lambert, Edwards, Camp, & Saylor, 2005;

Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986; Wright, 1993). Organizational commitment is a bond that the employee has with his/her organization.

Although there are many different views of how a person can bond to an organization, there

are two major views of organizational commitment. The first is that a person is bonded to

the organization because of sunken costs (e.g., pension with the organization; Becker,

1960). This form of organizational commitment is labeled calculative commitment. “With

calculative commitment, an employee ‘calculates’ in some manner the costs and benefits

(e.g., monetary, social, physical, lost opportunities, etc.) of working for a given organiza-

tion. These calculations determine the level of commitment to the organization” (Lambert

et al., 1999, p. 100). This form of commitment is “a structural phenomenon which occurs

as a result of individual—organizational transactions and alterations in side-bets or invest-

ments over time” (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972, p. 557). The second major view of organizational commitment is attitudinal. Attitudinal com-

mitment is primarily concerned with emotional, mental, and/or cognitive bonds to an orga-

nization, such as loyalty, wanting to belong, attachment, and belief in the value system and

goals of the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Under

this approach, it is the strength of the person’s feelings toward and views of the organiza-

tion, belief in its goals, loyalty, identification to and cognitive desire to belong that deter-

mines the level of commitment (Steers, 1977). Of the two forms of commitment, attitudinal

commitment is more frequently measured for several reasons (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

First, calculative commitment measures have been criticized as being underdeveloped and

not fully measuring organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Wallace, 1997).

Second, attitudinal measures are more likely to be linked with positive employee outcomes,

such as lower turnover and absenteeism and increased support for the organization

(Randall, 1990). For example, higher levels of attitudinal organizational commitment have

been linked to higher levels of job performance (Culliver, Sigler, & McNeely, 1991).

Conversely, lower levels of attitudinal organizational commitment have been found to be

related to correctional staff absenteeism and turnover (Camp, 1994; Lambert et al., 2005;

Stohr, Self, & Lovrich, 1992). Finally, it is easier for correctional administrators to affect

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 543 employees’ attitudinal commitment than it is to affect calculative commitment (Lambert

et al., 1999). In this study, organizational commitment refers to attitudinal commitment and

is viewed as an affective bond between the worker and the employing organization.Outside the field of criminal justice, it is theorized that there are three major groups of

antecedents for occupational attitudes—personal/demographic, job, and organizational

characteristics (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Steers, 1977).

There is evidence that personal characteristics are associated with correctional s\

taff occu-

pational attitudes. For example, gender, age, education, race, tenure, and supervisory sta-

tus, have all been found to be associated with correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment (Blau, Light, & Chamlin, 1986; Britton, 1997; Byrd et al.,

2000; Camp & Steiger, 1995; Griffin, 2001; Lambert, Barton, Hogan, & Clarke, 2002;

Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002a; Rogers, 1991); however, although some studies have

found a relationship, others have found no relationship (e.g., Lambert et al., 2002b). More

importantly, the overall impact of personal characteristics on occupational attitudes of co\

r-

rectional workers appears to be small compared to the impact of job and organizational

characteristics (Jurik & Winn, 1987; Lambert et al., 2002a, 2002b). It is theorized and supported by empirical findings that the work environment is criti-

cal in helping shape the occupational attitudes of job stress, job satisfaction, and organi-

zational commitment. The work environment refers to the factors or characteristics that

comprise the overall work conditions and situations, both tangible and intangible, for an

employee. The correctional work environment is complex; therefore, it is helpful to break

it up into separate dimensions. Although there are many facets of the work environment,

job and organizational characteristics are two major dimensions. Job characteristics relate

to a particular job that is being done by an individual (Hackman & Lawler, 1971).

Examples of job characteristics are job variety, role strain, task significance, task identity,

and supervision (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). In this study, dangerousness of the job, job

variety, and role strain were measured. One fairly unusual aspect of working in corrections

is that the job is often considered to be a dangerous one. Dangerousness\

refers to this per-

ception by the employee (Cullen et al., 1985). Job variety is the degree of variation in the

job (Price & Mueller, 1986). Some jobs are highly repetitive whereas other jobs have con-

siderable variation. Role strain results because of role problems, such as role ambiguity

and role conflict, which result from the job (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). Organizational

characteristics differ from job characteristics in that they are more global and affect all

employees of an organization rather than the employees occupying a particular job within

the organization. The organizational dimension refers to how an agency arranges, manages, and operates

itself (Oldham & Hackman, 1981). Major forms of organizational structure are formaliza-

tion, centralization, instrumental communication, integration, organizational justice (i.e.,

fairness of outcomes and procedures), and promotional opportunity (Lincoln & Kalleberg,

1990). In this study, formalization, centralization, instrumental communication, and pro-

motional opportunity were examined. Formalization is the extent to which (written) rules

and procedures are established and known by organizational members (Bluedorn, 1982).

Centralization refers to the degree of input employees are allowed in decision making

(Bluedorn, 1982). Instrumental communication is the “degree to which information about

the job is formally transmitted by an organization to its members” (Agho, Mueller, & Price,

544 Criminal Justice Review 1993, p. 1009). Promotional opportunity refers to the perceived opportunities for promo-

tions that a person has with the employing organization (Lambert et al., 2002a).There has been a considerable amount of research that has examined the impact of the

different aspects of the work environment on correctional staff. It has been reported that

dangerousness, role strain, role overload, and lack of input into decision making all have

been linked to higher levels of job stress for correctional staff (Cullen et al., 1985; Dowden

& Tellier, 2004; Grossi & Berg, 1991; Grossi et al., 1996; Shamir & Drory, 1982; Slate &

Vogel, 1997; Triplett et al., 1996, 1999; Van Voorhis et al., 1991; Whitehead & Lindquist,

1986). Job variety, job autonomy, dangerousness, role strain, input into decision making,

training, supervision, perceptions of pay, work-family conflict, perceived promotional

opportunity, organizational justice, integration, and job feedback all have significant rela-

tionships with job satisfaction for correctional staff (Brief, Munro, & Aldag, 1976; Cullen

et al., 1985; Griffin, 2001; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Jurik &

Winn, 1987; Lambert, 2002, 2003; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2003; Lambert, Reynolds,

Paoline, & Watkins, 2004; Stohr et al., 1994; Van Voorhis et al., 1991; Whitehead &

Lindquist, 1986; Wright, Saylor, Gilman, & Camp, 1997). Much less research has been

done on correctional staff organizational commitment. Job feedback, supervision, input

into decision making, organizational justice, integration, promotional opportunity, and

instrumental communication have been found to have significant impacts on organizational

commitment among correctional workers (Lambert, 2003, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002,

2002a; Stohr et al., 1994; Wright et al., 1997). Aside from the impacts that different aspects

of the work environment have on the occupational attitudes of job stress, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment, these attitudes have also been found to impact one another. Overall, the literature suggests that job stress impacts job satisfaction and organizational

commitment, and job satisfaction impacts organizational commitment. Specifically, indi-

viduals who perceive their jobs to be low in stress are generally more satisfied with their

jobs. Past research studies support a negative relationship between job stress and job satis-

faction (Blau et al., 1986; Byrd et al., 2000; Grossi et al., 1996; Lambert, 2004; Robinson,

Porporino, & Simourd, 1997; van Voorhis et al., 1991; Walters, 1993). There has been less

research on the impact of job stress on organizational commitment; however, those who

experience higher levels of stress from the job might blame the organization for creating

and allowing the stress, and, as such, are less likely to bond with the organization. Two

studies of prison staff suggest that job stress has an inverse association with organizational

commitment (Lambert 2004; Robinson et al., 1997). Job satisfaction is postulated to be a

powerful antecedent of organizational commitment (Lambert et al., 1999). Staff who are

displeased with their jobs generally blame the organization, which, in the end, leads to

reduced commitment to the organization. In a study of staff at a Midwestern prison, it was

reported that job satisfaction had a powerful, positive impact on organizational commit-

ment (Lambert, 2004). Four salient conclusions can be gleaned from the correctional staff job stress, job satis-

faction, and organizational commitment literature. First, although the impact of many dif-

ferent dimensions of the work environment on correctional staff occupational attitudes have

been studied, not all areas have been explored. For example, the impacts of instrumental

communication, formalization, and promotional opportunity on job stress have received

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 545 little attention in the literature. Second, few studies have examined the impact of variables

on all three salient correctional worker occupational attitudes of job stress, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment simultaneously. Looking at how work environment vari-

ables impact each of the three occupational attitudes in the same study \

allows for a better

understanding regarding how each of the occupational attitudes is shaped. Third, there has

been little research on how the three occupational attitudes are related to one another, par-

ticularly in terms of the impact of job stress and job satisfaction on organizational com-

mitment. Fourth, no published study could be located that examined whether job and

organizational characteristics differ in their impact on employees depending on the type of

occupational attitude being examined. It is unclear of how job and organizational charac-

teristics together help shape correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment. A few studies have explored the impact of specific job and/or organizational

characteristics; however, these studies often examine the work environment in a piecemeal

fashion and rarely involve multiple measures of both major dimensions of the work envi-

ronment. Nevertheless, there is some indication in the correctional staff literature that job

and organizational characteristics may have different effects on correctional staff occupa-

tional attitudes.In a study of Midwestern prison staff, Lambert et al. (2002) found that instrumental com-

munication and integration (both types of organizational characteristics) had a greater

impact on organizational commitment than they did on job satisfaction. The authors argued

that organization structure variables would have a greater impact on organizational com-

mitment than job characteristics because job characteristics are directl\

y related to a per-

son’s occupation, whereas organizational factors reflects one’s organization as a whole. In

another analysis of the data from the same Midwestern prison staff, Lambert et al. (2002a)

examined the impact of organizational fairness, promotional opportunities, and job feed-

back on organizational commitment. Although they found all three had significant impacts,

job feedback had the smallest effect. They concluded the reason that job feedback had the

smallest effect was that it probably represented more of a job characteristic than it did\

a

type of organizational factor, arguing that the organizational variables of fairness and pro-

motional opportunities would have a greater impact on correctional staff organizational

commitment than would job characteristic variables. These two studies suggest that job

characteristics have a greater impact on correctional staff job satisfaction, whereas organi-

zational characteristics have a stronger effect on correctional staff organizational commit-

ment. These postulations, however, have not been tested.

Research Questions

The current study addressed four research goals. The first research goal was to examine

the impact of demographic (i.e., race, education, age, gender, rank, position, and tenure),

organizational (i.e., instrumental communication, formalization, input into decision mak-

ing, promotional opportunity), and job characteristics (i.e., dangerousness, job variety, and

role strain) on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

As previously indicated, the effects of several of these variables on correctional staff occu-

pational attitudes have never been or have not fully been explored.

546 Criminal Justice Review The second goal of this research was to determine whether the effects of the aforemen-

tioned variables changed depending on the occupational attitude being studied. This infor-

mation is crucial to understanding how the work environment helps shape the attitudes of

correctional employees. The third research goal was to determine how the three occupational attitudes that served

previously as dependent variables were related to one another. Specifically, the impact of

job stress on job satisfaction was explored. Likewise, the effects of job stress and job satis-

faction on organizational commitment were tested. Finally, the fourth goal of this research was to determine whether demographic, job ,or

organizational characteristics were more important in explaining the variance of each of the

three occupational attitudes. The correctional literature suggests that demographic charac-

teristics are the least important influence on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment. In addition, the literature hints that job characteristics are

more important in shaping job satisfaction, and organizational characteristics are more

important in explaining organizational commitment.

Method

Respondents

In the fall of 2001, the Orange County Jail Oversight Commission contracted with the

Criminal Justice and Legal Studies department at University of Central Florida, the purpose

of which was to explore concerns and issues among Orange County Corrections Department

(OCCD) employees. The county contains one major city (i.e., Orlando) and ten other muni-

cipalities, all of which exclusively use the county jail for local detention needs. The OCCD is

an American Correctional Association (ACA) accredited institution, and housed approxi-

mately 4,000 inmates at the time of the survey. Ordered according to the inmate average daily

population, the jail was among the 15 largest jails in the country at the time data for this pro-

ject were collected, and the third largest in Florida (Beck, Karberg, & Harrison, 2002). The research team first conducted a series of focus groups designed to understand more

fully those work environment problems that might be unique to OCCD employees.

Research staff conducted seven 2-hour focus groups, with 48 OCCD employees from dif-

ferent organizational levels and facilities during a 10-day period. Findings from the focus

groups assisted in the development of a questionnaire that would be administered to staff

at all levels within the department. During five consecutive days in the fall of 2001, the staff from the nine separate facili-

ties of the OCCD, in Orlando, Florida, were surveyed.

1The staff were informed that the

survey was completely voluntary in nature and the responses would be anonymous. With

the consent of the jail director, personnel received two hours of overtime for participating

in the survey. Respondents represented all areas of the correctional facility, such as correc-

tional officers, case managers, medical staff, industry staff, food service workers, and so on.

Moreover, the respondents represented various administrative levels of the correctional

facility, from line staff to supervisors and managers. The jail employed approximately

1,500 paid employees at the time of the survey, and 1,062 staff members participated in the

survey, resulting in a response rate of 70%.

2

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 547 In terms of respondents, 3approximately 40% were Black, 11% Hispanic, 43% White,

and 6% other. With respect to educational status, 21% had a high school diploma or GED,

41% had some college but no degree, 16% had an associate’s degree, 18% had a bachelor’s

degree, and 4% had a graduate or professional degree. In terms of age, approximately 4%

of the respondents were less than 25 years old, 10% were between 25 and 29 years, 18%

were between 30 and 34 years, 20% were between 35 and 39 years, 19% were between 40

and 44 years, 12% were between 45 and 49 years, 11% were between 50 and 54 years, and

6% were 55 years old or older. For gender, about 54% of the respondents were men, and

46% were women. About 10% of the respondents indicated that they were supervisors of

other staff. Respondents represented all areas of the correctional facility, such as correc-

tional officers, case managers, medical staff, industry staff, food service workers, and so on.

About 67% of the respondents worked in custody, and 32% held noncustody positions. The

median tenure was 72 months and ranged from 0 to 336 months.

Measures

Job stress. A measure inquiring about an individual’s feelings of job-related tension,

anxiety, worry, emotional exhaustion, and distress was utilized, based on six items (i.e.,

“When I’m at work, I often feel tense or uptight;” “A lot of time my job makes me very

frustrated or angry;” “I am usually calm and at ease when I’m working [reverse coded];”

“Most of the time when I’m at work, I don’t feel that I have much to worry about [reverse

coded];” “I am usually under a lot of pressure when I am at work;” and “There are a lot of

aspects of my job that make me upset”), which were adapted from Crank, Regoli, Hewitt,

& Culbertson (1995). The items were answered using a 5-point Likert-type of scale of

strongly disagree (coded as 1),disagree(2),uncertain (3),agree (4), and strongly agree (5).

The six items were summed together to form an additive index which had a Cronbach’s

alpha reliability coefficient of .78.

Job satisfaction. A global, rather than facet, measure of job satisfaction was used

(Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992), which focuses on the broader domain of a worker’s satis-

faction with the overall job than with specific job facets, such as pay, benefits, coworkers,

or supervision. Job satisfaction was measured using five items (i.e., “I like my job better

than the average worker does;” “I am seldom bored with my job;” “Most days I am enthu-

siastic about my job;” “I am fairly well satisfied with my job;” and “I find real enjoyment

in my job”), which were adapted from Brayfield and Rothe (1951). The items were

answered using a 5-point Likert-type of scale ranging from strongly disagreeto strongly

agree . The five items were summed together to form an additive index which had an alpha

value of .83.

Organizational commitment. To measure organizational commitment, respondents were

queried regarding their bond to the entire employing organization. The two survey items

utilized (i.e., “I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization [jail]” and “this

job really inspires the best in me in the way of job performance”) were adopted from the

work of Mowday et al. (1982), and were answered using a 5-point Likert-type of scale

548 Criminal Justice Review ranging from strongly disagreeto strongly agree. The two items were summed together to

form an additive index which had an alpha value of .72.

Instrumental communication. Instrumental communication was measured by five survey

questions (i.e., “How well informed are you on what is to be done;” “How well informed

are you on what is most important about the job;” “How well informed are you on how the

equipment is used;” “How well informed are you of what you need to know to do the job

correctly, including computer software;” and “How well informed are you about rules and

regulations”). The items were measured using a 5-point scale of not informed at all(1),

informed very little (2), informed somewhat(3),informed (4), and very well informed (5),

which were adapted from Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller (1986). For this study, the five

items were summed together to form an additive index which had an alpha value of .89.

Formalization. Five items were used to measure formalization (i.e., “A ‘rules and proce-

dures’ manual exists and is readily available within this organization;” “Whatever situation

arises, we have procedures to follow in dealing with it;” “My organization keeps a written

record of everyone’s job performance;” “Job guidance is readily available;” and “There is

no policy manual for my job” [reverse coded]), all of which were adopted from Oldham

and Hackman (1981) and Taggart and Mays (1987). The five items also utilized a 5-point

Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly disagreeto strongly agree. The items

were summed together to form an additive index which had an alpha value of .60.

Input into decision making. Input into decision making was measured using four items

from Curry et al. (1986) (i.e., “How much does your job allow you to make decisions on

your own;” “How much freedom do you have as to how to do your job;” “How much say

do you have over what happens on your job;” and “How much does your job allow you to

take part in making decisions that affect you”). The items were answered using a 5-point

response scale of not at all (1),very little (2),some (3),a lot (4), and a great deal (5), and

were summed together to form an additive index with an alpha value of .88.

Promotional opportunity. Perceived opportunity to be promoted within the organization

was measured using five items (i.e., “There is a good opportunity for advancement;” “There

is a good chance to get ahead;” “Promotions are regular;” “There are chances for promo-

tion;” and “I’m in a dead-end job” [reverse coded]) derived from Curry et al. (1986). The

five items were answered using a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly

disagree to strongly agree. The items were summed together to form an additive index

which had an alpha value of .84.

Dangerousness. Perceived dangerousness of the job was measured using five items from

Cullen et al. (1985; i.e., “In my job, a person stands a good chance of getting hurt;” “There

is not really much chance of getting hurt in my job [reverse coded];” “I work in a danger-

ous job;” “A lot of people I work with get physically injured in the line of duty;” and “My

job is a lot more dangerous than other kinds of jobs”). The five items were also answered

using a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly disagreeto strongly agree.

The items were summed together to form an additive index which an alpha value of .79.

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 549 Job variety.Four items, adapted from Curry et al. (1986), were used to measure per-

ceived job variety/routinization (i.e., “My job requires that I do the same things over and

over again [reverse coded];” “My job requires that I keep learning new things;” “My job

requires me to be very creative;” and “I get to do a number of different things on my job”).

As with many other measures, the job variety items had a 5-point Likert-type response scale

ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The four items were summed together to

form an additive index which had an alpha value of .65.

Role strain. Role strain (i.e., consisting of role ambiguity and role conflict) was measured

using seven items (i.e., “I know that I have divided my time properly;” “I feel certain how

much authority I have;” “I know what my responsibilities are;” “I know what is exactly

expected of me;” “The rules that we’re supposed to follow never seem to be very clear;”

“The rules and regulations are clear enough here that I know specifically what I can and can-

not do on my job;” and “There are so many people telling us what to do here that you can

never be sure who the real boss is”). The items were derived from Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman

(1970), Cullen et al. (1985), and Poole and Regoli (1983), and were answered using a

5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The seven

items were summed together to form an additive index which had an alpha value of .72.

Personal/demographic characteristic variables. Measures of race, education, age, gen-

der, supervisory status, position (i.e., working custody or not), and tenure were included as

demographic characteristic variables, and they were measured as described in Table 1.

These demographic characteristics are often included as variables when examining correc-

tional staff attitudinal states, such as job satisfaction (Lambert et al., 2002b).

Results

The descriptive statistics for all the variables are reported in Table 1. There appeared to

be significant variation in both the dependent and independent variables. The median and

mean were similar to one another for each variable, which suggested that the variables were

normally distributed. All the indices had a Cronbach’s alpha value (i.e., a measure of reli-

ability) higher than .60, a level which is generally viewed as acceptable (Gronlund, 1981).

In addition, a principal factor analysis for each latent variable (i.e., index) was conducted.

Specifically, the items for a particular index were entered into a factor analysis using prin-

cipal axis factoring, a type of test for construct validity (Gorsuch, 1983). Based upon the

Eigenvalues and the Scree plot, a single factor was extracted for each latent concept. All the

items for a particular latent concept had factor loading of .50 or higher, which was above

the cutoff rule of .30. Pearson’s rcorrelation coefficients were calculated, and the results are presented in

Table 2. In examining the correlations between independent variables and job stress, we found

that, of the seven demographic characteristic variables, working in custody, being a super-

visor, and tenure were statistically correlated with job stress. Those who worked in custody

generally reported higher levels of job stress, supervisors reported lower levels of job stress,

and those with higher tenure reported greater levels of job stress. All the organizational and

550 Criminal Justice Review job characteristic indices had significant correlations with staff job stress. Specifically,

instrumental communication, formalization, input into decision making, promotional

opportunity, and job variety all had negative correlations with job stress, whereas danger-

ousness and role strain both had a positive correlation. The size of the correlations were

similar for all the indices except for job variety, which was lower.Turning next to our second dependent variable of interest, job satisfaction, we found that

race, age, and supervisory status all had statistically significant correlations with job satis-

faction. White employees had higher job satisfaction compared to Nonwhite staff. As age

increased, so did job satisfaction. Supervisors generally reported higher levels of job

satisfaction. Among the other variables, we found that all the organizational factors and job

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 551

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Measures (N = =

1062)

Variable Description Of Measure Med Min. Max. Mean St. dev. Rel.

Race

a 0 = Non-White,1 =White 0 0 1 0.43 0.50

Education a 0 = No college degree, 0 0 1 0.38 0.49

1 = College degree

Age Ordinal measure in years 1 =25, 4 1 8 4.53 1.81

2 = 25-29, 3 =30-34, 4 =35-39,

5 = 40-44, 6 =45-49, 7 =50-54,

8 = 55+

Gender

a 0 = Female,1 =Male 1 0 1 0.54 0.50

Supervisor a 0 = Not a supervisor, 0 0 1 0.10 0.30

1 = Supervisor

Custody/ 0 = Does not work in custody , 1 0 1 0.67 0.47

position

a 1 = Works in custody

Tenure Measured in months 72 0 336 95.33 74.68

Instrumental 5 item index (α=.89) 17 5 25 16.96 4.37 3.39

communication

Formalization 5 item index (α=.60) 17 5 25 17.04 3.78 3.41

Input into 4 item index (α=.88) 12 4 20 12.01 3.75 3.00

decision

making

Promotional 5 item index (α=.84) 15 5 25 14.97 5.13 2.99

opportunity

Dangerousness 5 item index (α=.79) 20 5 25 18.69 4.93 3.74

Job variety 4 item index (α=.65) 12 4 20 11.94 3.54 2.99

Role strain 7 item index (α=.72) 18 7 35 18.48 5.05 2.64

Job stress 6 item index (α=.78) 18 6 30 18.20 5.44 3.03

Job satisfaction 5 item index (α=.83) 17 5 25 16.42 4.92 3.28

Organizational 2 item index (α=.72) 6 2 10 5.98 2.37 2.99

commitment

Note: Med., Min., Max., St. dev., and Rel. stands for median value, minimum value, maximum value, standard

deviation, and relative value (the mean of the summed index divided by the number of indicators), respectively.

α is the symbol for Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, a measure of internal consistency reliability. The number of

missing cases ranged from 21 (Organizational commitment) to 189 (Supervisor).

a. Dichotomous variables, for which the mean represents a proportion. Table 2

Pearson’s rCorrelation Matrix (N =

=

1062)

Variable 12345678910111213141516

1. Race 1.00

2. Education 0.02 1.00

3. Age 0.23** 0.14** 1.00

4. Gender 0.14** 0.09** 0.15** 1.00

5. Supervisor 0.20** 0.11** 0.16** 0.08* 1.00

6. Custody 0.00 –0.22** –0.07 0.26** 0.04 1.00

7. Tenure 0.12** 0.01 0.45** 0.11** –0.02 0.16** 1.00

8. Inst. comm. 0.11** 0.01 0.08* –0.05 0.17** –0.17** –0.07* 1.00

9. Formal. 0.04 –0.08* –0.03 –0.06 0.13** –0.05 –0.12** 0.51** 1.00

10. Input 0.15** 0.07* 0.14** –0.01 0.27** –0.12** 0.01 0.54** .41** 1.00

11. Prom. opp. 0.01 –0.15** –0.13** 0.00 0.15** 0.19** –0.16** 0.32** .46** 0.41** 1.00

12. Dangerous. –0.04 –0.16** –0.12** 0.26** –0.01 0.49** 0.09* –0.26** –.14** –0.25** 0.01 1.00

13. Job variety 0.09** 0.04 0.19** 0.08* 0.17** –0.02 0.01 0.31** .28** 0.44** 0.31** –0.05 1.00

14. Role strain –0.04 0.06 –0.09** 0.01 –0.15** 0.14** –0.02 –0.56** –.50** –0.50** –0.34** 0.26** –0.31** 1.00

15. Job stress 0.00 –0.03 –0.01 0.05 –0.10** 0.13** 0.13** –0.38** –.35** –0.44** –0.44** 0.36** –0.22** 0.43** 1.00

16. Job sat. 0.10** –0.02 0.14** 0.01 0.15** –0.05 –0.03 0.44** .41** 0.51** 0.44** –0.20** 0.48** –0.42** –0.51** 1.00

17. Org. com. –0.02 –0.05 0.06 –0.03 0.10** –0.09** –0.14** 0.47** .46** 0.45** 0.51** –0.20** 0.45** –0.46** –0.49** .67** Note: Inst. Comm. = instrumental communication; Formal. = formalization; Input =input into decision making; Prom. Opp. =promotional opportunity;

Dangerous. =dangerousness; Job Sat. =job satisfaction; and Org. Com. = organizational commitment. See Table 1 for a brief description of the variables. The

number of missing cases based on pairwise deletion ranged from 21 to 266\

.

*p ≤.05. **p ≤.01.

552 characteristic indices had significant correlations with staff job satisfaction. Instrumental

communication, formalization, input into decision making, promotional opportunity, and

job variety all had positive correlations. Dangerousness and role strain had negative corre-

lations. Job stress had an inverse correlation with job satisfaction.For organizational commitment, our final dependent variable, the demographic charac-

teristics of being a supervisor, working in custody, and tenure had significant correlations.

Supervisors were more committed, whereas custody officers and those with greater tenure

were less committed. Similar to our job satisfaction results, all the organizational and job

characteristic indices had significant correlations with organizational commitment.

Instrumental communication, formalization, input into decision making, promotional

opportunity, and job variety all had positive correlations. Dangerousness and role strain

both had inverse correlations. All the indices had similar sized correlations with the orga-

nizational commitment measure except for dangerousness, which was lower. Job stress had

a negative correlation. Not only did job satisfaction have a positive correlation with orga-

nizational commitment, it had the largest sized correlation. Separate Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression equations were computed with the

job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment indices as the dependent vari-

ables. For each of the three OLS regression equations, the demographic variables and the

organizational and job characteristic indices were entered as independent variables. For the

job satisfaction model, job stress was also entered as an independent variable. For the orga-

nizational commitment equation, job stress and job satisfaction were also included as inde-

pendent variables. Based upon the correlation matrix in Table 2, the Variation Inflation

Factor (VIF) statistics (not reported), and the tolerance statistics (not reported), there

appeared to be no issue with collinearity or multicollinearity.

4The results of the OLS

regression analyses are reported in Table 3. The OLS regression model for job stress accounted for 46% of the observed variance in

job stress. In the multivariate analysis, three of the seven demographic characteristic vari-

ables had a statistically significant impact on job stress when controlling for the shared

effects of the other variables. Supervisors generally reported higher levels of stress than

nonsupervisors. Those in custody reported less stress than those in noncustody. As tenure

increased, so did job stress. Among the organizational characteristic measures, instrumen-

tal communication, input into decision making, and promotional opportunity all had sig-

nificant inverse effects on job stress. As each increased, job stress decreased. Among the

job characteristic measures, perceived dangerousness of the job and role strain had signif-

icant positive relationship with job stress. As each increased, job stress also increased. By

using the standardized regression coefficients (i.e., the βin Table 3), it is possible to com-

pare the magnitude of the impact of each of the independent variables on the dependent

variable job stress because standardized regression coefficients are metric free (i.e., repre-

sent standardized units) and thus can be compared to one another (Loeh\

lin, 1992). Among

the variables with significant effects on job stress, dangerousness had the largest sized

effect, followed by promotional opportunity, role strain, input into decision making, instru-

mental communication, tenure, position, and supervisory status. Role strain, input into

decision making, instrumental communication, tenure, position, and supervisory status had

effects which were almost half of that of either dangerousness or promotio\

nal opportunity.

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 553 The OLS regression model for job satisfaction accounted for 52% of the variance in job

satisfaction. Of the seven demographic characteristics, only age had a statistically signifi-

cant relationship with the job satisfaction index in the multivariate analysis. As age

increased, job satisfaction also increased. Multivariate analysis also showed that of the

organizational measures of instrumental communication, input into decision making, and

promotional opportunity each had a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction

after controlling for the shared effects of the other independent variables. Among the job

characteristics, only job variety had a significant impact; it had a positive relationship with

job satisfaction. Job stress had a significant negative effect. Based upon the standardized

regression coefficients, job variety and job stress had the largest impacts on job satisfaction,

followed by promotional opportunity, instrumental communication, age, and input into

decision making.

554 Criminal Justice Review

Table 3

OLS Regression Results on the Impact of Demographic Variables, Organizational Structure, and Job Characteristics on Job Stress, Job Satisfaction, and

Organizational Commitment ( N= =

1062)

Job Organizational

Job Stress SatisfactionCommitment

Variable BβB βB β

Demographic characteristics Race 0.22 .02 .27 .03 –.35 –.08*

Education –0.54 –.05 –.24 –.02 –.17 –.04

Age –0.05 –.02 .31 .11** .05 .04

Gender –0.54 –.05 –.36 –.04 .01 .01

Supervisor 1.34 .08* –.74 –.05 –.41 –.05

Custody/position –1.28 –.11** –.20 –.02 –.54 –.11**

Tenure 0.01 .11** .00 .00 –.01 –.08*

Organizational characteristics Instrumental comm. –0.15 –.12** .16 .13** .04 .08*

Formalization –0.01 –.01 .06 .04 .04 .07*

Input into decision making –0.22 –.15** .11 .08* –.04 –.06

Promotional opportunity –0.27 –.26** .19 .19** .10 .22**

Job characteristics

Dangerousness 0.40 .36** –.03 –.02 .01 .03

Job variety 0.01 .01 .40 .28** .10 .16**

Role strain 0.18 .15** .03 .03 –.03 –.07*

Job attitudes

Job stress — — –.27 –.28** –.04 –.10**

Job satisfaction — — — — .18 .39**

R-squared .46**.52**.59**

Note: See Table 1 for a description of the variables and how they were measured. Brepresents the unstandard-

ized regression coefficient, and β represents the standardized regression coefficient. After listwise deletion the

n for the job stress model was 599, the nfor the job satisfaction was 588, and the nfor the organizational com-

mitment model was 586.

*p ≤.05. **p ≤.01 The OLS regression model for organizational commitment accounted for 59% of the

variance in organizational commitment. 5Among the demographic characteristic variables,

race, working in custody, and tenure each had statistically significant effects. White staff,

custody officers, and staff with higher tenure, in general, reported lower levels of organi-

zational commitment as compared to Nonwhite, noncustody staff, and staff with lower

tenure, respectively. Instrumental communication, formalization, and promotional opportu-

nity all had positive impacts on organizational commitment. For the job characteristics, job

variety and role strain had an impact on organizational commitment. Job variety had a sig-

nificant positive relationship, whereas increases in role strain were associated with

decreases in organizational commitment. Job stress had a negative impact and job satisfac-

tion had a positive impact on organizational commitment. Looking at the standardized

regression coefficients, job satisfaction had the largest sized effect, followed by promo-

tional opportunity, job variety, working in custody, job stress, tenure, instrumental commu-

nication, formalization, and role strain. Finally, to determine the impact of the three groups of variables (i.e., demographic, job,

and organizational characteristics), each group was entered into an OLS regression equa-

tion without the other two groups. The results are presented in Table 4. For job stress, with

only the demographic characteristics entered as the independent variables, the R-squared

statistic of explained variance was .04. With only the organizational characteristic indices

as the independent variables, the R-squared was .30. For the job characteristics, the R-

squared was .26. For job satisfaction, the R-squared with only the demographic character-

istic variables was .06. With only the organizational measures, the R-squared was .36, and

for the job characteristic indices, it was .34. For organizational commitment, the equation

with only the demographic characteristic variables had an R-squared of .07. When only the

organizational characteristic measures were entered into the OLS regression equation, the

R-squared was .40. Finally, the equation with only the job characteristic measures had an

R-squared of .33. Overall, across each of the dependent variables, organizational charac-

teristics were the most powerful, followed by job characteristics. Demographic character-

istics accounted for very little of the variance of the three occupational attitudes.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although there are many conclusions that can be drawn based upon the current study,

we focus on four major ones. First, the impact of the various measures (i.e., demographic,

job, and organizational characteristics) differed from one another in terms of their impact

on a particular occupational attitude, and they also varied in their effects across the three

occupational attitudes. Second, organizational and job characteristics are more important

than demographic characteristics in helping shape the occupational attit\

udes of job stress,

job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Third, both organizational and job char-

acteristics are important in helping shape the job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment levels of correctional workers. Fourth, job satisfaction is a powerful

antecedent of organizational commitment. Although supervisory status, working in custody, and tenure had significant effects on

job stress, the work environment variables explained a far greater amount of job stress in

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 555 this study, suggesting that the work environment is the major cause of job stress for these

correctional workers. Of the demographic characteristics, only age had a significant rela-

tionship with job satisfaction. It appears that as correctional workers age, they become

more satisfied with their jobs. This may be a result of older workers finding positions they

enjoy and also acquiring the necessary skills to do the job. In terms of organizational com-

mitment, those who worked in custody were less committed to the job, which may be a

result of the difficulty of working in custody. In addition, supervisors had greater commit-

ment than nonsupervisory staff, which makes intuitive sense since supervisors have more

vested in the organization and have a greater say in the day to day operations. More impor-

tantly, none of the seven demographic characteristics had significant effects consistently

across all three types of occupational attitudes. It appears that the ef\

fects of demographic

characteristics vary by the type of attitude being examined, although exerting the most rel-

ative influence on organizational commitment.

556 Criminal Justice Review

Table 4

OLS Regression Results for Demographic Characteristics, Organization Structure,

and Job Characteristics Variables Entered as Separate Blocks (N = =

1062)

Organizational

Job Stress Job Satisfaction Commitment

Variable BβB βB β

Only demographic characteristics entered Race –0.02 –.01 0.55 .06 –.24 –.05

Education –0.05 –.01 –0.74 –.07 –.48 –.10**

Age –0.25 –.08 0.48 .18** .19 .15**

Gender 0.44 .04 –0.29 –.03 –.03 –.01

Supervisor –1.52 –.08* 1.83 .11** .69 .09*

Custody/position 1.19 .10* –0.76 –.07 –.51 –.10*

Tenure 0.01 .14** –0.01 –.12** –.01 –.20**

R-squared .04**.06**.07**

Only organizational characteristics entered Instrumental comm. –0.18 –.14** 0.18 .16** .11 .20**

Formalization –0.08 –.05 0.14 .10** .09 .15**

Input into decision making –0.36 –.24** 0.39 .30** .10 .15**

Promotional opportunity –0.28 –.27** 0.21 .22** .15 .32**

R-squared .30**.36**.40**

Only job characteristics entered Dangerousness 0.30 .27** –0.11 –.11** –.04 –.09**

Job variety –0.17 –.11** 0.56 .40** .23 .35**

Role strain 0.36 .33** –0.27 –.27** –.15 –.32**

R-squared .26**.34**.33**

Note: See Table 1 for a description of the variables and how they were measured. B represents the unstandardized

regression coefficient, and β represents the standardized regression coefficient. After listwise deletion the n for

the job stress model was 599, the nfor the job satisfaction was 597, and the nfor the organizational commit-

ment model was 608.

*p ≤.05. **p ≤.01 Not surprisingly, instrumental communication had a negative effect on job stress and

positive effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. A lack of instrumental

communication makes completing tasks difficult, which leads to frustration and ultimately

stress. Providing information makes a person’s job easier and more successful, which in

turn probably leads to the person liking their job. Finally, instrumental communication can

make an individual feel more like a valued member of the organization, which probably

leads to greater individual commitment. As such, it appears that instrumental communica-

tion is a critical element in the work environment for correctional staff. On the other hand, formalization, as measured by input into decision making, only had

a significant relationship with organizational commitment in our multivariate analyses. It

could be that formalization provides guidance to employees which in turn increases their

bond to the organization. Conversely, formalization was not linked to either job stress or

job satisfaction. It may be that organizational characteristics which are proximal to the

work performed by an employee have a greater impact on the individual than those orga-

nizational characteristics which are further removed (Morris & Steers, 1980). That is, those

forces which directly and regularly affect a worker should have a much greater impact on

the employee’s occupational attitudes than those that do not regularly affect him/her

(Morris & Steers, 1980). Formalization is an organizational factor that correctional staff

probably do not give much thought. Another organizational factor, input into decision making, had a significant negative

effect on job stress. Conversely, allowing correctional workers to have input increases their

job satisfaction. Not allowing staff to have input may lead to frustration regarding how they

are to accomplish their tasks, ultimately leading to increased levels of job stress. Allowing

input about how their jobs, are to be completed allows employees to be more effective at

their jobs, which leads to increased pride, and, hence, greater job satisfaction. Surprisingly,

in multivariate analysis, input into decision making did not have a significant relationship

with organizational commitment. It could very well be that there is no relationship. Another

explanation is that the measure used focused more on input involving the person’s job

rather than the organization in general. As such, input in the job is tied more to job satis-

faction, whereas input into the organization is connected more to organizational commit-

ment. In this study, input into decision making was not related to organizational

commitment, but was important in shaping job stress and job satisfaction. Perceptions of promotional opportunities had powerful significant effects for all three

occupational attitudes. This makes sense, given that many people are looking for a career

rather than just performing a job. If an employee does not perceive an opportunity for

career advancement, they may feel that they are in a dead-end job, resulting in job stress.

In addition, a perception of opportunities to move forward also increased job satisfaction.

Likewise, promotional opportunity had a positive relationship with correctional staff orga-

nizational commitment. Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) wrote, “More than earnings, we

think, opportunity for promotion is a key weapon in the corporatist arsenal for winning the

compliance and commitment of employees: workers who perceive that they have a career

with the company are more likely to be committed to its goals and fortunes over a long period

of time” (p.105). It appears that opportunity for promotion is also a powerful organizational

factor for correctional staff. It had the largest magnitude of effect on job satisfaction and

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 557 organizational commitment, and the second largest effect on job stress. The results suggest

that promotional opportunities within corrections should not be ignored \

or the occupational

attitudes of staff will suffer. This is not to say that institutions have to promote all person-

nel, as this may not be a feasible option. What it does mean is that there should be clear

pathways of fair opportunities for promotion. Fair, clear, objective criteria (as opposed to

informal/good old boy methods) might mitigate negative feelings by personnel should they

not be chosen for promotion. Moreover, opportunities provided by institutions to make staff

better candidates for promotion (e.g., special training, skill development, etc.), should they

arise, or other nonpromotion incentives (e.g., incentive pay, job rotation, etc.), might also

work toward staff feeling less stressed, more satisfied, and more committed.Turning next to job characteristics, we find that dangerousness leads to increased job stress

and decreased job satisfaction. The perception of working in a dangerous job probably causes

workers to be on edge, apprehensive, even fearful. These are powerful psychological states

that, in the long run, put strain on a person. In fact, dangerousness had the largest effect on

job stress. Being uneasy and concerned at work is stressful. Moreover, if workers cannot feel

comfortable and safe at work, it is unlikely they would like their jobs. Dangerousness did not

have a significant relationship with organizational commitment. It could be that the jail staff

did not blame the organization for their perceptions of working a dangerous job, as they

expected some level of danger when they accepted a career in corrections. Job variety had significant relationships with job satisfaction and organizational com-

mitment. Having a job that requires different tasks provides one with stimulation (as

opposed to boredom) which is a positive outcome. In addition, the employees who enjoy

job variety can attribute it to the organization, which increases their positive feelings toward

the institution. Job variety, however, did not have a significant relationship with job stress

in the multivariate analysis. Although most people do not desire repetitive jobs, it does not

mean that a lack of variety causes so much of a strain that a person feels occupational stres\

s. As expected, role strain led to stress. Ambiguity and conflicting directions generally lead

to frustration for most people. It appears that correctional staff are no different. Role strain

was also linked to decreased organizational commitment. Role stress generally arises

because of supervisors, managers, and/or administrators, which probably leads most work-

ers to blame the organization. It is difficult to bond with an organization that causes dis-

comfort. Interestingly, role strain was not related to job satisfaction in the multivariate

analysis. This suggests that one’s occupational satisfaction derived from more direct

aspects of the work (e.g., danger, promotional opportunities, job variety, etc. ) over more

abstract concepts such as role ambiguity and conflict. The results indicate that the three occupational attitudes (our depende\

nt variables) are

associated with one another. Job stress is inversely related to job satisfaction. It makes

sense that workers who report job stress tend to be less satisfied with their jobs in general.

Job stress is a negative outcome that causes people to look unfavorably toward their jobs in

the long run. Job stress also had negative association with organizational commitment.

Workers who experience stress from work probably blame the organization for their painful

experience, which ultimately means that they are less likely to form a bond with the orga-

nization. Job satisfaction not only had a positive impact on organizational commitment, but

it had the largest impact of all the independent variables in the equation. Employees who

are satisfied with their jobs are much more likely to become committed to the organization.

558 Criminal Justice Review People with job satisfaction generally see the organization in a more positive manner and

are more appreciative toward the organization for providing them with a job that meets their

needs and wants; therefore, correctional organizations should not only be concerned with

increasing job satisfaction because of its links to greater support for rehabilitation, compli-

ance with organizational rules, and decreased burnout, absenteeism, turnover intent, and

turnover (Byrd et al., 2000; Fox, 1982; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Kerce, Magnusson, &

Rudolph, 1994; Lambert et al., 2005; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986; Wright, 1993), but

also because increases in job satisfaction should lead to increases in organizational com-

mitment, which also has positive outcomes for the organization and employees.

Furthermore, the fact that the three occupational attitudes are linked together means that the

demographic, organizational, and job characteristics have not only direct effects but also

indirect effects. Specifically, these variables indirectly affect job satisfaction through job

stress and affect organizational commitment indirectly through both job stress and organi-

zational commitment.The impact of demographic characteristics on the three occupational atti\

tudes was much

less than that of organizational and job characteristics, which is congruent with the correc-

tional research outlined in our literature review. Demographic characteristics only

accounted for a small proportion of the variance of job stress, job satisfaction, and organi-

zational commitment. On the other hand, job and organizational characteristics accounted

for far more variance. In fact, they accounted for five to ten times more of the variance than

the demographic characteristics. This makes sense in light of the postulation made earlier

that forces that directly and regularly affect a worker should have a much greater impact on

the employee’s occupational attitudes than those that do not frequently hamper the

employee (Morris & Steers, 1980). Practically, this is encouraging news for organizational

leaders who wish to reduce the job stress and improve the job satisfaction and organiza-

tional commitment of their employees, as these are two aspects that are generally within

the control of most top correctional administrators. As with all studies, this one had limitations. To begin, staff at only one, albeit large, jail

agency in the southeast were surveyed. Future research should work toward replicating

these findings across institutions of varying size and locations. One area that seems to be a

logical extension of the work presented in this manuscript is the prison setting. The litera-

ture suggests that jails are different from prisons, especially with respect to how the work

environment may affect staff (Lambert et al., 2004). The nature and effects of these differ-

ences should continue to be the focus of researchers. We also recommend that additional

components of the occupational environment be explored, utilizing a variety of measures.

Many of the latent concepts (i.e., the concepts measured by indices) were measured using

only a handful of items. For example, organizational commitment could be measured with

more than the two items utilized in the current study. How a concept is measured might

influence the results and raises the issue of validity and reliability. Future research needs to

examine whether more detailed and extensive measures of the latent concepts would yield

the same results. This will ensure that validity and reliability measurement errors are min-

imized when researching job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment

among correctional staff. Furthermore, it is important to note that an attitudinal measure of

organizational commitment was used in this study. It is possible that different results would

have been observed if a calculative measure of organizational commitment was utilized.

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 559 There has been very little research on the antecedents of calculative commitment among

correctional staff. This should be explored to see if the same antecedents help shape both

forms of organizational commitment or if different work environment factors shape each

type of commitment. Moreover, this research only measured four organizational character-

istics and three job characteristics. There are other types of both that should be included in

future research so as to provide a more accurate picture of how the work environment

impacts correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.In conclusion, employees are the driving force of correctional organizations. Thus, it is

important to study the forces that shape the job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment of correctional staff. Our findings supported the notion that organizational and

job characteristics are related to correctional staff attitudes toward job stress, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment. Like others, we found that demographic characteristics

were weakly related to these occupational attitudes. In addition, we found that job stress had

a negative impact on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and job satisfac-

tion was a powerful predictor of organizational commitment. This suggests that not only

does the work environment have direct effects on job satisfaction and organizational com-

mitment, it also has indirect effects, through job stress for job satisfaction and job stress, and

job satisfaction for organizational commitment. Although we have attempted to add to the

growing body of knowledge on corrections, there is clearly much more work to be done.

Notes

1. The nine facilities include a juvenile center, work release center, central booking, main/traditional jail

facility, and five facilities that are podular/direct supervision units or new generation units. As such, inmates are

housed in either a traditional (i.e., combining linear and podular/remote supervision) or new generation areas.

Staff working in the new generation facilities that encourage individual creativity and more advanced interper-

sonal skills might be expected to have a more positive work experience, thus influencing job stress, job satis-

faction, and organizational commitment (the dependent variables of interest in this study). Given these

differences in assignment, it would seem prudent to capture this variation later within the statistical models. We

did not include a facility measure in this article based on findings, utilizing the same data, from another study

of the Orange County Corrections Department (OCCD; Applegate & Paoline, 2007). 2. The fact that the staff received a monetary incentive by the jail director to take part in the survey could be

responsible for the rather high response rate. That being said, it was still up to the employee to report to a train-

ing room at the main facility to be surveyed. Surveys were administered at three different times (i.e., 6.00 a.m.,

3.00 p.m., and 10.00 p.m.) across each of the three primary work shifts. Those that did not take part in the sur-

vey were either physically absent from work during this week (e.g., sick, injured, vacationing, training, etc.),

did not want to be surveyed, or did not want to (or could not) come in before or after their shift to take part in

the survey. 3. Although there is no reason to believe that the sample of respondents that we surveyed is any different

from the overall OCCD population, data are not available for complete comparisons (i.e., for all of the demo-

graphic characteristics included in our analyses). We do have data with respect to national and state jail figures

for gender, ethnicity, and custody variables that compare favorably. Comparisons to national and state data

reveal that our sample of OCCD staff include more females (44%—compared to 34% nationally and 40% in

Florida), Blacks (39%—compared to 24% nationally and 33% in Florida), Hispanics (10%—compared to 8%

nationally and 9% in Florida), and Other races (6%—compared to 2% nationally and 1% in Florida), and

slightly fewer custody personnel (68%—compared to 74% nationally and 74% in Florida; Stepha\

n, 2001). We

thank an anonymous reviewer for stimulating this thought. 4. None of the Variation Inflation Factor (VIF) statistic values for the independent variables were greater

than 2.21, which is far lower than the VIF values of 7, which indicates an issue of multicollinearity (Maruyama,

560 Criminal Justice Review 1998). In addition, across all three equations, none of the independent variables had low tolerance values (i.e.,

all were above .47), which indicates no problem with multicollinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).5. As the organizational commitment index had a smaller range than the other dependent variables, and

could be viewed more as an ordinal level measure, Ordered Logistic regression was also computed. Ordinary

Least Squares (OLS) results tend to be robust for ordinal data, but it is sometimes argued that it is more appro-

priate to use ordered regression (Long, 1997). We found no differences in terms of statistically significant pre-

dictors or explained variance (i.e., the Cox and Snell pseudo R-squared was .51 and the Nagelkerek pseudo

R-squared was .52), so we report the more easily interpretable OLS results.

References

Agho, A., Mueller, C., & Price, J. (1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46 , 1007-1027.

Applegate, B. K., & Paoline, E. A., III. (2007). Jail officers’ perceptions of the work environment in traditional versus new generation facilities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 64-80.

Armstrong, G., & Griffin, M. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among t\

reatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577-592.

Beck, A. J., Karberg, J. C., & Harrison, P. M. (2002). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2001.Washington,

DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Becker, H. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66,32-42.

Blau, J., Light, S., & Chamlin, M. (1986). Individual and contextual effects on stress and job satisfaction: A study of prison staff. Work and Occupations, 13, 131-156.

Bluedorn, A. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35,135-153.

Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35,307-311.

Brief, A., Munro, J., & Aldag, R. (1976). Correctional employees’ reactions to job characteristics: A data based argument for job enlargement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 4, 223-230.

Britton, D. (1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do race and sex matter? Criminology, 35, 85-105.

Byrd, T., Cochran, J., Silverman, I., & Blount, W. (2000). Behind bars: An assessment of the effects of job sat- isfaction, job-related stress, and anxiety on jail employees’ inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime and Justice,

23, 69-89.

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

Camp, S., & Lambert, E. G. (2005). The influence of organizational incentives on absenteeism: Sick leave use among correctional workers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 144-172.

Camp, S., & Steiger, T. (1995). Gender and racial differences in perceptions of career opportunities and the work environment in a traditionally White, male occupation. In N. Jackson (Ed.), Contemporary issues in

criminal justice: Shaping tomorrow’s system (pp. 258-290). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cheek, F. (1984). Stress management for correctional officers and their families. College Park, MD: American

Correctional Association.

Cheek, F., & Miller, M. (1983). The experience of stress for correctional officers: A double-bind theory of cor- rectional stress. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 105-120.

Crank, J., Regoli, R., Hewitt, J., & Culbertson, R. (1995). Institutional and organizational antecedents of role stress, work alienation, and anomie among police executives. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22,152-171.

Cranny, C., Smith, P., & Stone, E. (Eds.). (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it

affects their performance. New York: Lexington Books.

Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice

Quarterly, 2, 505-533.

Culliver, C., Sigler, R., & McNeely, B. (1991). Examining prosocial organizational behavior among correc- tional officers. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15, 277-284.

Curry, J., Wakefield, D., Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organi- zational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847-858.

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 561 Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis.Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31-47.

Fox, J. (1982). Organizational and racial conflict in maximum-security prisons . Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books.

Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Griffin, M. (1999). The influence of organizational climate on detention officers’ readiness to use force in a county jail. Criminal Justice Review, 24, 1-26.

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

Gronlund, N. (1981). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: MacMillian.

Grossi, E., & Berg, B. (1991). Stress and job satisfaction among correctional officers: An unexpected finding. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 73-81.

Grossi, E., Keil, T., & Vito, G. (1996). Surviving “The Joint”: Mitigating factors of correctional officer stress. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 103-120.

Hackman, J., & Lawler, E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,

55, 259-286.

Hepburn, J., & Knepper, P. (1993). Correctional officers as human service workers: The effect of job satisfac- tion. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315-335.

Hopkins, A. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sectors. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allonheld.

Hrebiniak, L., & Alutto, J. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational com- mitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555-573.

Jayewardene, C., & Jayasuriya, D. (1981). The management of correctional institutions. Toronto, Canada:

Butterworths.

Jurik, N., & Halemba, G. (1984). Gender working conditions and the job satisfaction of women in a nontradi- tional occupation: Female correctional officers in men’s prisons. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 551-566.

Jurik, N., & Winn, R. (1987). Describing correctional security dropouts and rejects: An individual or organiza- tional profile? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 5-25.

Kerce, E., Magnusson, P., & Rudolph, A. (1994). The attitudes of navy corrections staff members: What they

think about confinees and their jobs . San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

Lambert, E. (2003). Justice in corrections: An exploratory study of the impact of organizational justice on cor- rectional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 155-168.

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

Lambert, E., Barton, S., Hogan, N., & Clarke, A. (2002). The impact of instrumental communication and inte- gration on correctional staff. Justice Professional, 15, 181-193.

Lambert, E., Edwards, C., Camp, S., & Saylor, W. (2005). Here today, gone tomorrow, back again the next day: Absenteeism and its antecedents among federal correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 165-175.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (1999). The missing link between job satisfaction and correctional staff behavior: The issue of organizational commitment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24,95-116.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002a). Building commitment among correctional staff: The issue of feed- back, promotional opportunities, and organizational fairness. Corrections Compendium, 27(3), 1-5, 24-28.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002b). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the literature on the antecedents and consequences of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29,115-143.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2003). The impact of work–family conflict on correctional staff job satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 35-51.

Lambert, E., Reynolds, M., Paoline, E. A., III, & Watkins, C. (2004). The effects of occupational stressors on jail staff job satisfaction. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27, 1-32.

Lincoln, J., & Kalleberg, A. (1990). Culture, control and commitment: A study of work organization and work

attitudes in the United States and Japan . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Loehlin, J. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Long, J. (1997). Re

gression models for categorical and limited dependent variables: Advanced quantitative

techniques in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maruyama, G. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodologi- cal considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.

Morris, J., & Steers, R. (1980). Structural influences on organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 17, 50-57.

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.

Oldham, G., & Hackman, J. (1981). Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 66-83.

Pastore, A., & Maguire, K. (Eds.). (2006). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics(31st ed.). Retrieved on

March 19, 2006, from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/

Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1983). Professionalism, role conflict, work alienation, and anomia: A look at prison management. Social Science Journal, 20, 63-70.

Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover among hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Randall, D. (1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological investigation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 11, 361-378.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1997). The influence of educational attainment on the attitudes and job performance of correctional officers. Crime and Delinquency, 43 , 60-77.

Rogers, R. (1991). The effect of educational level on correctional officer job satisfaction. Journal of Criminal

Justice, 19, 123-137.

Shamir, B., & Drory, A. (1982). Some correlates of prison guards’ beliefs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8,

233-249.

Slate, R., & Vogel, R. (1997). Participative management and correctional personnel: A study of the perceived atmosphere for participation in correctional decision making and its imp\

act on employee stress and thoughts

of quitting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 397-408.

Spector, P. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. New York: John Wiley.

Steers, R. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly,

22, 46-56.

Stephan, J. J. (2001). Census of jails, 1999. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Stohr, M., Lovrich, N., Monke, B., & Zupan, L. (1994). Staff management in correctional institutions: Comparing DiIulio’s “control model” and “employee investment model” outcomes in five jails. Justice

Quarterly, 11, 471-497.

Stohr, M., Self, R., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investigation of its causes and preventions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455-478.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

Taggart, W., & Mays, L. (1987). Organizational centralization in court administration: An empirical assessment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 180-198.

Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1996). Work-related stress and coping among correctional offi- cers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24,291-308.

Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1999). Examining the effect of work–home conflict on work- related stress among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 371-384.

Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F., Link, B., & Wolfe, N. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional offi- cers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 472-500.

Wallace, J. (1997). Becker’s side-bet theory of commitment revisited: Is it time for a moratorium or a resur- rection? Human Relations, 50, 727-749.

Walters, S. (1993). Gender, job satisfaction, and correctional officers: A comparative analysis. Justice

Professional, 7, 23-33.

Lambert, Paoline / Influence of Individual, Job, and Organizational Characteristics on Correctional Staff 563 Whitehead, J., & Lindquist, C. (1986). Correctional officer burnout: A path model. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency, 23, 23-42.

Woodruff, L. (1993). Occupational stress for correctional personnel. American Jails, 7,15-20.

Wright, K., Saylor, W., Gilman, E., & Camp, S. (1997). Job control and occupational outcomes among prison workers. Justice Quarterly, 14, 525-546.

Wright, T. (1993). Correctional employee turnover: A longitudinal study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 131-142.

Eric G. Lambert is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Toledo. He

received his PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. His

research interests include criminal justice organizational issues, job and organizational effects on the attitudes,

intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees, the evaluation of correctional interventions, the ethical

behavior of criminal justice employees and students, and international attitudes toward criminal justice issues.

Eugene A. Paoline III is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies at the

University of Central Florida. He holds a PhD in criminal justice from the S\

tate University of New York at

Albany. His research interests include police culture and the use of coercion,\

occupational attitudes of criminal

justice practitioners, and theoretical development in criminal justice. He is the author of Rethinking Police

Culture (2001, LFB Scholarly Publishing), and he is currently working on a National Institute of Justice grant

geared toward examining the variation in American less-than-lethal use of force policies and the various out-

comes associated with the different policies.

564 Criminal Justice Review