Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus

A systematic and meta-analytic review of the literature on correctional T

officers: Identifying new avenues for research
⁎
H. Daniel Butler , Melinda Tasca, Yan Zhang, Channing Carpenter
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, 816 17th Street, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Scholarly interest in the experiences and behaviors of correctional officers has increased over the past several
Correctional officers decades. Yet, considerably less is known about those who oversee and manage prison populations relative to
Systematic review other criminal justice professionals. In this study, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of 172 peer-
Meta-analysis reviewed articles published between 1980 and 2017 that include samples of correctional officers. The goal of this
Job stress
review is to “take stock” of the correctional officer literature in an effort to inform future research, policy, and
Organizational commitment
Job satisfaction
practice. Specifically, we examine publication trends over the past several decades in addition to examining all
outcomes across the included studies. We find that job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment
are the most frequently examined outcomes. Next, we examine the most commonly included correlates across
each of these outcomes, which include age, female, white, education, experience, supervisor support, and peer
support. Findings reveal that organizational factors such as supervisor support and peer support influence each
of these outcomes, while demographic characteristics have mixed effects. Recommendations for future research
include the need to examine other attitudes and experiences of correctional officers in addition to exploring
variation in the effects examined in this review.

1. Introduction
Correctional officers work in environments that demand constant
awareness of surroundings in an effort to maintain the safety and
wellbeing of other staff and inmates (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993;
Liebling, Price, & Shefer, 2011; Poole & Regoli, 1980). These environ-
ments expose correctional officers to increased levels of victimization
due to the supervision and management of potentially violent offenders
in enclosed spaces (e.g., housing units, exercise yards) (Ferdik & Smith,
2017; Harrell, 2011). In addition to the risk of victimization, correc-
tional officers are tasked with maintaining institutional security and
managing the needs of the inmate population in a manner that is
consistent with organizational goals and directives that may induce
stress, dissatisfaction, or turnover (Finney, Stergiopoulos, Hensel,
Bonato, & Dewa, 2013; Huckabee, 1992; Lambert, 2001a; Lambert,
Barton, & Hogan, 1999). Due to these concerns, a growing body of
literature has examined “the work-related, institution-related, and
psycho-social” factors that influence correctional officers' attitudes and
behaviors (Ferdik & Smith, 2017, p.22).
In an effort to understand the factors that influence correctional
officer attitudes and behaviors, researchers have relied on reviews of
the literature to synthesize study findings, inform model specification,
and identify avenues for future research. Most efforts to take stock of
the literature on correctional officers were published prior to the early
2000s (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Finn, 1998; Huckabee, 1992; Lambert,
2001a, 2001b; Lambert et al., 1999; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002a;
Philliber, 1987; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). In total, we identified 11
reviews that examined a variety of correctional officer experiences and
attitudes that include job stress, job satisfaction, turnover intent, and
the physiological health of correctional officers (Finney et al., 2013;
Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2017). These reviews have found that model
specification, such as the inclusion of relevant correlates is improving
(Finney et al., 2013; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). To date, however, re-
latively few studies have taken stock of research on correctional offi-
cers. Such an investigation is important as correctional agencies at-
tempt to identify “what matters” in regards to understanding
correctional officer experiences that can better inform policy and
practice in a challenging profession that is tasked with accomplishing a
growing list of often competing goals (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank,
1985; Lambert et al., 2017).
In this study, we perform a systematic review of 172 peer-reviewed
publications that contained samples of correctional officers in which
multivariate analyses were conducted between 1980 and 2017.
Specifically, we examine the most frequently studied outcomes to

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, 816 17th Street, Huntsville, TX, 77341.
E-mail addresses: Hdb019@shsu.edu (H.D. Butler), mtasca@shsu.edu (M. Tasca), zhangyan@shsu.edu (Y. Zhang), Crc063@shsu.edu (C. Carpenter).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.12.002
Received 26 August 2018; Received in revised form 21 December 2018; Accepted 22 December 2018
Available online 03 January 2019
0047-2352/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.D. Butler et al.
identify attitudes and experiences that receive the most scholarly at-
tention in addition to those outcomes in greater need of research. In
doing so, we find that job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational
commitment are the most frequently examined outcomes. Finally, we
conduct 21 separate meta-analyses of the most commonly examined
correlates across these outcomes to synthesize the study findings. These
commonly examined correlates include age, female, white, education,
experience, supervisor support, and peer support. We conclude with
recommendations for advancing this body of work both theoretically
and empirically.
2. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as the degree of “affective response” an
employee has towards an organization (Lambert et al., 2002a, p. 116).
Researchers have typically measured job satisfaction by examining
perceptions of work-related tasks, current job assignments, and enjoy-
ment of the job itself (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951; Hepburn, 1985;
Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). Employees' objective (e.g., promotions,
salary) and subjective (e.g., fairness, job stress) perceptions of the or-
ganization contribute to job satisfaction. Officers who perceive that
their personal needs are met by the organization tend to typically report
higher levels of job satisfaction.
In one of the few reviews of job satisfaction among correctional
officers, Lambert et al. (2002a) separated correlates by personal char-
acteristics and the work environment. Demographic characteristics,
such as age, gender, education, and race can influence levels of job
satisfaction. For instance, the race/ethnicity of correctional officers
may be associated with job satisfaction if the treatment of an employee
is perceived to be predicated on race (e.g., favorable or unfavorable
treatment by administrators due to race/ethnicity) (Wright & Saylor,
1992). Similarly, gender may influence job satisfaction if a work en-
vironment is perceived to be hostile (Zupan, 1986). Overall, Lambert
et al. (2002a) and (2002b) found mixed support or null findings for the
relationship between demographic characteristics and job satisfaction.
However, organizational factors and task-specific factors, such as su-
pervisor support, may influence levels of job satisfaction (Lambert
et al., 2002a; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986). It is important to note that
a growing body of research has examined job satisfaction since the
review by Lambert et al. (2002a), which supports the need for an up-
dated review of the literature (Armstrong, Atkin-Plunk, & Wells, 2015;
Lambert et al., 2002b;Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Law & Guo,
2016).
3. Job stress
Job stress occurs when environmental demands or work-related
tasks exceed the operational capabilities of employees due to the pro-
vision of limited resources or through physical and mental exhaustion
(Levi, 1987). Exposure to stressors may elicit adverse physiological
(e.g., high blood pressure, fatigue), psychological (e.g., anxiety), and
behavioral responses (e.g., absenteeism) (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000, p.
21). Applied to an understanding of correctional officer experiences, job
stress may jeopardize institutional security if maladaptive coping me-
chanisms, such as anger or abuse, are used to alleviate the effect of
stressors (Finney et al., 2013; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Additionally,
job stress may undermine attempts to provide effective management,
treatment, and programming efforts to inmates (Schaufeli & Peeters,
2000).
Prior research has examined whether demographic and organiza-
tional characteristics influence stress (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Finney
et al., 2013; Philliber, 1987; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). One review by
Dowden and Tellier (2004) found no association between gender,
education, and marital status and job stress, while a weak association
was found between age and job stress. One explanation for the null
findings is that demographic characteristics may have an effect prior to
85
Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92
the inclusion of organizational correlates of job stress, but once the
model is properly specified the effect of demographic characteristics
dissipates (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Philliber, 1987). To date, no re-
views of correctional officer research have examined the precise role
race/ethnicity may have on job stress. It is posited that race/ethnicity
may be associated with job stress as correctional officers of color may
be exposed to greater racism or harassment at the workplace (Britton,
1995, 1997). In regards to organizational factors, such as supervisor
support or peer support, these experiences may influence levels of job
stress in that officers who perceive greater levels of support from su-
pervisors and colleagues may experience lower levels of stress
(Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Cullen et al., 1985; Finney et al., 2013).
Although the reviews of the job stress literature have provided
considerable insight into identifying “what matters” there are con-
siderable differences across reviews that merit discussion. First, the
number of individual studies included in the reviews varied con-
siderably, such as including 43 studies (some not multivariate) or by
having narrow inclusion criteria that ledto the examination of 8 studies
(out of a possible 129 studies) (Finney et al., 2013; Schaufeli & Peeters,
2000). The inclusion criteria also varied considerably, such as ex-
amining strictly correctional officers employed in prisons as compared
to jails (Finney et al., 2013; Lambert et al., 2002a), or by including
studies with recommendations to reduce job stress rather than strictly
the experience of job stress (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Since the most
recent review of job stress by Finney et al. (2013), there have been
several publications that include job stress as an outcome that warrants
further investigation (Armstrong et al., 2015; Cheeseman & Downey,
2012; Hartley, Davila, Marquart, & Mullings, 2013; Law & Guo, 2016;
Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015).
4. Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment, or the degree to which an employee is
invested in a job, includes the loyalty and identity an employee pos-
sesses within an organization (Dougherty, Bluedorn, & Keon, 1985;
Etzioni, 1975). Compared to other correctional officer experiences and
attitudes, such as job stress, organizational commitment has received
less empirical attention (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005). However, re-
searchers have found that organizational commitment is related to
correctional officer attrition and turnover and merits increased atten-
tion (Camp, 1994; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Prior research examining
the relationship between correctional officers and organizational com-
mitment has found certain demographic and organizational character-
istics influence commitment (Hogan, Lambert, Jenkins, & Hall, 2009;
Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2007; Law & Guo, 2016). Although few
studies have found a relationship between demographic characteristics
and organizational commitment, one study found that, officers who are
older, female, and nonwhite reported higher levels of organizational
commitment (Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). Similar to job stress and job
satisfaction, most research has found that organizational factors, such
as supervisor support, increase perceptions of organizational commit-
ment (Lambert et al., 2009; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). A considerable
number of studies have been published since the last review by Lambert
et al. (1999) that may provide a greater understanding of the correlates
of organizational commitment (Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2007;
Law & Guo, 2016; Savicki, Cooley, & Gjesvold, 2003).
5. Current study
Prior reviews of the correctional officer literature have provided
considerable insight into the factors that may influence workplace at-
titudes and behaviors. Few studies in recent years have examined the
state of scientific research on correctional officers across outcomes,
despite a growing number of studies examining correctional officers. In
this study, we performed a systematic review of multivariate peer-re-
viewed publications containing samples of correctional officers
H.D. Butler et al.
between 1980 and 2017. We first examined the most frequently studied
outcomes published during this period. This review revealed job sa-
tisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment are the most
frequently examined outcomes. Next, we conducted a meta-analysis of
the most frequently included correlates across each of the outcomes,
which means correlates published in three studies with unique samples
(e.g., identical samples are not used to examine the same outcome).
This led to the examination of age, female, white, education, experi-
ence, supervisor support, and peer support. We conclude by examining
whether the correlates differ in their effect (direction, strength, and
significance) across each of the outcomes.
6. Method
6.1. Selection criteria
In this study, we systematically examined multivariate peer-re-
viewed articles published between 1980 and 2017 that include samples
of correctional officers. We used several databases that include Criminal
Justice Abstracts, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and Google Scholar to obtain
these studies in an effort to capture studies of correctional officers
across disciplines. A broad search term, correctional officer, was used in
an effort to capture all studies that qualify for inclusion in this sys-
tematic review, which resulted in an initial assessment of 1800 studies
(many of which were duplicate studies).1 After identifying studies that
included the term correctional officer in the abstract or title of the
publication, we examined each of the studies to determine whether
multivariate models were used. We only selected studies using multi-
variate models (e.g., estimation of a model that predicts an outcome
with several independent variables) in an effort to take stock of all
outcomes examined in studies using samples of correctional officers.
Next, we limited our review to studies that include samples of correc-
tional officers who work in male or female state or federal adult con-
finement facilities or equivalent long-term confinement facilities and
agencies outside of the United States. This review does not include
studies with samples of correctional officers who work in jails, com-
munity residential facilities, or juvenile detention centers. The decision
to exclude these confinement facilities is grounded in the broader cor-
rections literature that there may be unmeasured differences in the
clients, stressors, and demands associated with each type of confine-
ment facility (Finney et al., 2013). This review also does not include
studies comprised solely of supervisors or administrators for the reasons
mentioned above. The systematic review revealed 172 studies that met
the inclusion criteria for this review.2 In total, 82 distinct outcomes
were identified in our review of the literature with the most frequently
examined outcomes being job satisfaction, job stress, and organiza-
tional commitment.
We included studies in this review that contain any sample of cor-
rectional officers, and in some instances, studies that targeted correc-
tional staff. Correctional staff is a broad term that includes correctional
officers, counselors, line-officers, and middle- and upper-management
officers (e.g., supervisors). Some of these positions may include cus-
tody-oriented officers that oversee and supervise inmates in addition to
nonsupervisory staff who serve as counselors and other types of support
staff positions (Lambert et al., 2002a). In total, 76 studies (of the 172
studies included in this review) sampled correctional staff. Prior re-
search has typically found similarities across correlates of job stress, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment regardless of job assign-
ment (e.g., custody versus noncustody officers) (see Lambert, 2004;
1
A search term for the word “correctional officer” in Google Scholar revealed
92,000 search results. Therefore, we used Google Scholar to help identify stu-
dies that were potentially not indexed in any of the other databases.
2
The complete list of references for all studies included in this review are
available upon request in an effort to conserve page space.
86
Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92
Lambert et al., 2002a;Lambert et al., 2002, p. 119). Prior to including
these studies in our review, we closely examined the recommendations
provided by Lambert et al. (2002a) that correctional staff share similar
work-related experiences with correctional officers. First, we examined
the proportion of staff across studies who identify as correctional offi-
cers. If correctional officers comprised a small percentage of the cor-
rectional staff included across studies, then we may not be adequately
measuring correctional officer experiences. A sample of the studies
containing correctional staff is included in Appendix A, and we found
that correctional officers represented approximately 56% of the total
samples across studies that included correctional staff. Therefore, we
believe this substantive representation of correctional officers across
studies that examine correctional staff warrants their inclusion in this
review. We also examined whether job assignment is related to the
examined outcomes in this study. If job assignment is significantly as-
sociated with the outcomes of interest, then it would be misleading to
include them in this review even though the samples are primarily
comprised of correctional officers. In most of the studies reported in
Appendix A, we did not find an effect for officer assignment on job
satisfaction, job stress, or organizational commitment (e.g., 1 of 21
multivariate analyses reported a significant effect for job assignment).
Information from all of the studies that meet the inclusion criteria
are used to identify the most frequently examined outcomes across
studies (e.g., simple frequency distribution of outcomes examined
across studies). These studies are then further stratified to conduct se-
parate meta-analyses to examine effect sizes of frequently examined
correlates across these outcomes, which include job satisfaction, job
stress, and organizational commitment. In total, we identified seven
variables across these outcomes that were included in at least three
studies that use unique samples. These variables include age, female,
white, education, experience, supervisor support, and peer support. We
now turn to the description of the analytical strategy for the meta-
analysis.
6.2. Meta-analysis
In a meta-analysis, the effect size is often a scale-free index that
quantifies the relationship between two variables or a difference be-
tween two groups. Conventional effect size indices include mean dif-
ferences, odds ratios, and correlations of bivariate relationships
(Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Due to the increas-
ingly complex models examined in most studies, results from regression
models have also been considered as effect size indices by researchers
(e.g., Aloe & Becker, 2012; Aloe & Thompson, 2013; Becker & Schram,
1994; Becker & Wu, 2007; Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Greenwald, Hedges,
& Laine, 1996; Peterson & Brown, 2005; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper,
2004; Wu & Becker, 2013).
In the current study, the primary effect size index used is the bi-
variate Pearson's correlation (r). When the bivariate correlation is not
directly reported in the primary study, standardized beta coefficients
are utilized to approximate the bivariate correlation (Kim, 2011;
Peterson & Brown, 2005).
6.3. Methods of synthesizing effect sizes
In synthesizing effect sizes in meta-analysis, two types of models can
be used, which include the fixed-effect model and a random-effects
model. Fixed-effect models are used when all the studies included in the
synthesis are functionally identical. Random-effects models are used
when studies are operated independently by researchers and it is un-
likely that all the studies are functionally equivalent (Borenstein et al.,
2009). Given most of the studies included in this review were con-
ducted under different settings by independent researchers, random-
effects models are considered appropriate but with some exceptions.
When the number of primary studies is very small, the estimate of the
between studies variance will be imprecise. While the random-effects
H.D. Butler et al.
model is still appropriate, we lack the information needed to apply it
correctly (Borenstein et al., 2009). Therefore, in the current study, we
use random-effects model generally, but when the number of primary
studies is equal to or less than three, we use fixed-effect models to
synthesize the overall effect size. When performing fixed-effect models,
it produces a descriptive analysis of the included studies, but this
strategy does not allow us to make inferences about a wider population.
In addition to selecting statistical models, weighting schemes are cru-
cial in synthesizing effect sizes in a meta-analysis. The most general
method is to weight the effect size of each study by the inverse of its
variance. When the effect size index is the bivariate correlation r, the
variance of r is calculated as (Borenstein et al., 2009)
(1 − r 2)2
Vr =
n − 1.
When the effect size index is the standardized beta coefficient bj∗,
the variance of bj∗is calculated through the standard error of bj∗, where
(Kim, 2011)
b∗j
s. e . (bj∗) =
tj
If the t-value of the coefficient is not reported, it is calculated
through other parameters such as the unstandardized coefficient,
standard error of the unstandardized coefficient, and p-value, etc. (Kim,
2011). Finally, Fisher's z transformation is used to adjust the skewness
of the distribution of correlations (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hunter &
Schmidt, 1990).
6.4. Test of Heterogeneity and Meta-Analysis Specifications
The observed dispersion in effect sizes from study to study includes
both true variance and random error. The test of heterogeneity is used
to identify the variance of true effect sizes. The Q statistics, which is the
ratio of the observed variation to the within-study error, is usually used
to estimate this heterogeneity (Borenstein et al., 2009). The current
study uses Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Version 3 to calculate
the effect size indices and parameters. It is important to note that stu-
dies that used identical samples are only included once in the calcula-
tion of an effect size. For instance, if a researcher uses the same sample
to examine job stress but includes age as a control measure, then the
effect size for age is calculated from one of those studies (not both). This
reduces the likelihood that several studies using one sample unduly bias
the estimation of an effect size. Studies were not included that provided
incomplete information to sufficiently calculate an effect size (e.g., no
correlation, standardized regression coefficient and corresponding
standard error, etc.). Additionally, studies using aggregate-level (e.g.,
proportion of officers within a prison) designs, multilevel models,
generalized models (e.g., logistic regression), or structural equation
models are excluded from the calculations of the effect sizes for pur-
poses of this review. When necessary, measures were reverse coded for
purposes of calculating an effect size, such as reversing the effect of
being male on job stress to being female on job stress. Finally, the effect
sizes are interpreted using Fisher's z statistic, which provides an easy
interpretation of the strength and direction of the relationship between
the predictors and outcome measures that is akin to a standardized
correlation coefficient r (Hubbard & Pratt, 2002).
7. Findings
The systematic review identified 172 multivariate peer-reviewed
studies that were published between 1980 and 2017. Briefly, it is worth
mentioning scholarly attention on correctional officers has increased
considerably since the 1980s. Between 1980 and 1999, there were a
total of 39 multivariate studies on correctional officers. Between 2000
and 2009, 56 additional studies were published, and since 2010 77
87
Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92
Table 1
Most frequently examined outcomes
Dependent variable Studies
Job satisfaction 37
Job stress 34
Organizational commitment 30
Turnover intent 21
Emotional exhaustion 18
Rehabilitation orientation 16
Depersonalization 15
Personal accomplishment 12
Punitive orientation 11
Mental health 9
Total 203*
Note: The 10 most frequently examined outcomes are pre-
sented in the table; however, the total number of outcomes
included in our review of the literature is 82. *The same study
may be included multiple times if several outcomes are ex-
amined within that study.
additional multivariate studies of correctional officers were published.
This increase in research reinforces the need for an updated review of
the scientific evidence pertaining to correctional officers.
Next, we examined which outcomes were most frequently examined
across studies (see Table 1). It is important to note that studies may
include more than one outcome (e.g., job stress and turnover intent),
and that the total number of studies may appear to exceed those ex-
amined in this review. Our systematic review revealed a total of 82
unique outcomes examined across the 172 studies. We found that job
satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment are the most
frequently examined outcomes in our systematic review. These out-
comes were examined in 66 of the 172 included studies (e.g., 38% of
studies examined one of these three outcomes). Other examined out-
comes listed in order of frequency of inclusion in studies include
turnover intent, emotional exhaustion, rehabilitation orientation, de-
personalization, personal accomplishment, punitive orientation, and
mental health. These findings also reveal most of the 82 outcomes in-
cluded in this systematic review receive little empirical attention.
Specifically, only 9 studies examined correctional officers' mental
health, and this is the 10th most frequently examined outcome in our
systematic review that contains 82 outcomes.
Table 2 provides author names, sample sizes, and types of outcomes
examined for the studies that are included in the meta-analysis. In total,
there are 33 unique studies that contributed to the calculation of the
effect sizes. Some studies examined more than one outcome and con-
tributed to more than one of the effect sizes reported in the meta-
analysis, such as studies that examine job stress and job satisfaction.
Overall, most studies included in the meta-analysis reported informa-
tion to calculate effect sizes for job satisfaction (17 studies) and job
stress (21 studies) as compared to organizational commitment (7 stu-
dies).
Table 3 provides the effect size and heterogeneity index (Q) for each
of the examined correlates of job satisfaction. Overall, age, supervisor
support, and peer support appear to influence levels of job satisfaction.
The Fisher's z statistic provides an easy interpretation of the strength
and direction of the relationship between the correlates and job sa-
tisfaction that is similar to the correlation coefficient r. Age is positively
and weakly associated with job satisfaction, which means as officers'
age increases so too does job satisfaction. Officers who receive support
from supervisors and fellow colleagues report higher levels of job sa-
tisfaction, and these relationships are moderate-to-strong in their effect.
No effect was found for female, white, education, and experience and
the outcome measure, job satisfaction. No effect was found for age,
female, white, education, and work experience. An examination of the
heterogeneity index indicates the true effect sizes vary significantly
from study to study. Such variation may include the sampling
H.D. Butler et al. Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92

Table 2
Overview of studies included in the meta-analysis
Author name(s) Sample size Job satisfaction Job stress Organizational commitment

Armstrong and Griffin (2004) 3091 X

Armstrong et al. (2015) 441 X X
Avdija and Roy (2012) 480 X
Britton (1997) 2979 X X
Brough and Williams (2007) 132 X
Cheeseman and Downey (2012) 501 X
Cullen, Link, Cullen, and Wolfe (1990) 155 X
Cullen et al. (1985) 155 X
Dial, Downey, and Goodlin (2010) 501 X
Dollard and Winefield (1998) 419 X
Farnese, Bellò, Livi, Barbieri, and Gubbiotti (2016) 117 X
Griffin (2006) 636 X
Griffin (2006) 1940 X
Grossi and Berg (1991) 106 X
Hartley et al. (2013) 1557 X X
Hepburn and Knepper (1993) 428 X
Hepburn and Knepper (1993) 546 X
Hogan et al. (2017) 501 X
Jurik, Halemba, Musehno, and Boyle (1987) 179 X
Lambert (2004) 272 X X
Lambert (2004) 122 X X
Lambert and Hogan (2010) 270 X
Lambert et al. (2009) 160 X X X
Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, and Clarke (2005) 160 X
Lambert, Kim, Keena, and Cheeseman (2017) 168 X X
Lambert, Kim, et al. (2017) 333 X X
Lambert, Minor, Wells, & Hogan (2016) 160 X X X
Lambert, Cluse-Tolar, and Hogan (2007) 272 X
Law and Guo (2016) 133 X X X
Lindquist and Whitehead (1986) 216 X X
Misis, Kim, Cheeseman, Hogan, and Lambert (2013) 501 X
Mohamed, Taylor, and Hassan (2006) 1149 X
Moon and Maxwell (2004) 232 X
Tewksbury and Higgins (2006) 228 X
Triplett, Mullings, and Scarborough (1996) 254 X
Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, and Wolfe (1991) 155 X
Vickovic and Griffin (2014) 2032 X

Note: Some studies that have identical samples may include a correlate in one study but not in another (e.g., examinations of the effect of gender on job stress). In
these instances, another study that uses the same sample is used to provide (i.e., substitute) the necessary information to calculate an effect size.

population, type of prison, or factors not included in the studies that
contribute to between-study heterogeneity. The heterogeneity test also
shows that the effect of white and peer support is consistent across
studies.
Next, we examined the relationships between frequently examined
predictor variables and job stress (see Table 4). We find that female
correctional officers are more likely to report higher levels of job stress
than male correctional officers although the relationship is weak. Of-
ficers with more tenure as a correctional officer reported higher levels
of job stress, but this relationship is also weak. Supervisor support and
peer support decreased job stress and these relationships are weak-to-
moderate. No effect was found for age, white, and education. The
heterogeneity index reveals the true effect size varies for each of the
examined correlates except for education, which indicates the effect
size for education does not vary from study to study.
Fewer studies have explored organizational commitment, but we
find that female, job experience, supervisor support, and peer support
are associated with perceptions of organizational commitment
(Table 5). In particular, female correctional officers are more likely to
report commitment to the organization compared to male correctional
officers. Correctional officers with higher levels of job tenure are less
likely to be committed to the organization. Both the effects for female
and job experience are weakly associated with organizational com-
mitment. Similar to the findings for job satisfaction and job stress, we
find that supervisor support and peer support are associated with or-
ganizational commitment in that officers who report receiving support
from supervisors and peers are more likely to be committed to the or-
ganization. This relationship is weak for supervisor support but mod-
erate-to-strong for peer support. Finally, no association was found for
age, white, and education. The heterogeneity test reveals the true effect
for education varies from study to study but that the effects do not vary
across studies for the other correlates.

Table 3
The synthesized effect sizes of factors correlated with job satisfaction
Variables (k) Model Fisher's z s.e. Lower-Limit Upper-Limit p Q (df) p

Age (14) Random 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.01 44.26 (13) 0.00
Female (12) Random 0.02 0.02 −0.02 0.07 0.37 24.54 (11) 0.01
White (11) Random −0.02 0.02 −0.06 0.03 0.44 15.53 (10) 0.11
Education (15) Random −0.01 0.02 −0.05 0.04 0.75 39.98 (14) 0.00
Experience (11) Random 0.03 0.03 −0.03 0.09 0.38 28.61 (10) 0.01
Supervisor support (11) Random 0.44 0.05 0.34 0.53 0.01 76/96 (10) 0.01
Peer support (5) Random 0.26 0.04 0.19 0.34 0.01 7.78 (4) 0.10

88
H.D. Butler et al. Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92

Table 4
The synthesized effect sizes of factors correlated with job stress
Variables (k) Model Fisher's z s.e. Lower-Limit Upper-Limit p Q (df) p

Age (13) Random −0.01 0.03 −0.06 0.04 0.71 250.01 (12) 0.01
Female (11) Random 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.11 0.03 18.14 (10) 0.05
White (12) Random −0.01 0.04 −0.08 0.07 0.89 37.45 (11) 0.00
Education (12) Random −0.01 0.02 −0.03 0.03 0.94 9.07 (11) 0.62
Experience (15) Random 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.14 0.01 23.59 (14) 0.01
Supervisor support (12) Random −0.28 0.05 −0.38 −0.17 0.01 198.79 (11) 0.01
Peer support (9) Random −0.15 0.03 −0.21 −0.08 0.01 38.97 (8) 0.01

Table 5
The synthesized effect sizes of factors correlated with organizational commitment
Variables (k) Model Fisher's z s.e. Lower-Limit Upper-Limit p Q (df) p

Age (5) Random 0.02 0.03 −0.04 0.08 0.53 6.03 (4) 0.20
Female (7) Random 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.01 2.43 (6) 0.88
White (4) Random 0.01 0.04 −0.07 0.08 0.83 6.37 (3) 0.10
Education (4) Random 0.04 0.07 −0.11 0.18 0.63 20.39 (3) 0.01
Experience (5) Random −0.08 0.04 −0.16 −0.01 0.03 9.06 (4) 0.06
Supervisor support (3) Fixed 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.01 6.14 (2) 0.05
Peer support (3) Fixed 0.46 0.02 0.42 0.50 0.01 3.58 (2) 0.17

8. Discussion and conclusion
In an effort to identify trends and changes in research on correc-
tional officers that is timely and relevant, this review aimed to “take
stock” of the existent literature by examining all outcomes of studies
published between 1980 and 2017. We also examined the correlates of
the three most frequently examined outcomes that include job sa-
tisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment by use of meta-
analysis. The increased attention afforded to correctional officers in the
discipline of criminology and criminal justice is made evident by the
considerable growth in multivariate peer-reviewed publications since
1980. Researchers have heeded the call from scholars and practitioners
that correctional officers, compared to the study of inmates and law
enforcement officers, are an understudied group (Philliber, 1987). If the
interest in studying correctional officers continues, the total number of
publications that include correctional officers as a targeted population
may exceed 100 between 2010 and 2019. This would effectively double
the number of studies that were completed between 2000 and 2009 (56
studies). Prior reviews of the literature on correctional officers have
been instrumental towards identifying new avenues of research and the
further specification of models for frequently examined outcomes
(Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Ferdik & Smith, 2017; Finn, 1998; Finney
et al., 2013; Huckabee, 1992; Lambert, 2001a, 2001b; Lambert et al.,
1999, 2002a; Philliber, 1987; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000).
The increased attention afforded to correctional officers since the
1980s has identified new avenues of research. In our review, we iden-
tified 82 unique outcomes across 172 multivariate peer-reviewed pub-
lications. The majority of research on correctional officers appears to
examine job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment.
We found that approximately 38% of studies included in this review
examined one of those three outcomes. However, the remaining 79
outcomes were typically examined in less than 9 studies. Therefore,
while researchers tend to examine a select few outcomes, we found that
most of the remaining outcomes have received very little empirical
attention. Some outcomes that appear to be at the forefront of concerns
among correctional administrators and policymakers, such as physio-
logical and psychological health, were only examined in 12 of the 172
studies (excluding factors associated with burnout, such as emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment) (Ferdik &
Smith, 2017).
Although researchers have examined a variety of outcomes, there is
insufficient empirical evidence to provide reviews of most correctional
officer attitudes and behaviors. We advise researchers to identify ave-
nues of research that align with the needs of correctional departments,
such as examining officer health (Ferdik & Smith, 2017), burnout
(Finney et al., 2013), absenteeism and turnover (Lambert, 2001a;
2001b), job demands (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2017), and procedural
justice (Baker, Gordon, & Taxman, 2015). These outcomes are directly
relevant to the goals and operations of correctional institutions in that
officers who experience job stress, burnout, and increased job demands
may be more likely to leave the job or develop prolonged health pro-
blems (Ferdik & Smith, 2017). This list of outcomes is not exhaustive,
but it appears these attitudes and behaviors are garnering increased
attention from researchers.
We also explored the relationship between commonly included
predictors that are examined in at least three studies with unique
samples of job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment.
Across all three outcomes, we found that the effect of demographic
characteristics varied across outcomes but work-related factors, such as
supervisor support and peer support were significantly associated with
each of the outcomes. Specifically, we found that female correctional
officers reported higher levels of job stress and organizational com-
mitment than male correctional officers, but no association was found
for job satisfaction. In a prior systematic review of the literature on
correctional officers and job stress, Dowden and Tellier (2004) found no
relationship between gender and job stress. However, it is important to
note that the effect size for the associations observed in this study are
weak. We echo the calls by Dowden and Tellier (2004) that more re-
search should investigate whether the correlates of job stress differ by
gender. Research has found that correlates, such as experience and age,
vary in their effects on job stress for male and female correctional of-
ficers (see e.g., Lambert, Kim, et al., 2017). Age and job experience are
two other correlates examined across studies of job satisfaction, job
stress, and organizational commitment that have varying effects. Offi-
cers who are older reported higher levels of job satisfaction, and officers
with more job experience as a correctional officer reported higher levels
of job stress and lower levels of organizational commitment. These two
measures positively covary together in that age and work experience
will always increase. The inclusion of one variable in a model may
reduce the significance of the other in explaining the outcome. Re-
gardless, these findings have considerable implications for policy and
practice. First, correctional officers who are older may have a better
understanding of the prison environment and also look at this occu-
pation as a long-term career, which increases job satisfaction (Avdija &

89
H.D. Butler et al.
Roy, 2012; Warr, 1992). However, experience increased job stress and
decreased organizational commitment. These findings are consistent, in
part, with Dowden and Tellier's (2004) review of the literature and may
indicate the presence of a curvilinear relationship between experience-
job stress and age-job stress. Researchers should explore thresholds in
job tenure that accompany increases in job stress, which may be due to
lack of promotional or advancement opportunities within the agency
(Lambert, Paoline III, Hogan, & Baker, 2007).
No relationship was found for race/ethnicity (white) and education
across job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment. One
explanation for the null findings is that the empirical models examined
included relevant organizational or work-related factors that account
for much of the variation in the outcomes. In other words, once work-
related factors are taken into account, demographic characteristics,
such as race and education are no longer associated with the outcomes.
However, we encourage researchers to further explore the ways in
which the examined demographic characteristics shape experiences
that are often considered nuanced and complex (Kruttschnitt & Gartner,
2005). For instance, the correlates of outcomes may differ across jur-
isdictions where female officers are considerably outnumbered com-
pared to male staff (Acker, 1992). The studies that reported significant
gender differences posited barriers to promotion, differences in super-
vision strategies, and concerns regarding liability may contribute to
levels of job stress (Dial et al., 2010).
Researchers should continue to examine the effect work-related
factors may have on correctional officer attitudes and behaviors. Our
review revealed officers who perceive having support from supervisors
and peers reported increased job satisfaction and organizational com-
mitment in addition to less stress. The effect size calculations for these
measures were the strongest in our review of the literature. In other
words, researchers should explore the factors that increase supervisor
support and peer support, which will increase positive workplace ex-
periences (e.g., reduced stress, increased satisfaction). One re-
commendation is to survey correctional officers about their favorable
and unfavorable experiences with administrators and correctional of-
ficers in an effort to identify important sources of support (see e.g.,
Britton, 1997; Camp, Saylor, & Harer, 1997; Van Voorhis et al., 1991).
However, there are several other work-related and organizational fac-
tors that merit increased attention not included in this review, such as
role strain and ambiguity, perceptions of dangerousness, and role
overload. Role strain/ambiguity and role overload are conceptualized
as the inability to achieve or fulfill the operational responsibilities and
expectations of officers in addition to feeling overburdened to accom-
plish agency goals and directives (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Cullen
et al., 1985; Finney et al., 2013). Additionally, few studies have ex-
plored the effect job stress has on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in addition to specifying the time ordering of these ex-
periences (e.g., does job stress cause decreases in job satisfaction or
does increases in job satisfaction result in decreases in job stress).
Appendix A
Percentage and Number of Sample Identified as Correctional Officers in Studies that Examine Correctional Staff
Author(s) (year)
Gerstein, Topp, & Corell (1987)
Hepburn & Knepper (1993)
Camp et al. (1997)
Lambert et al. (2002)
Armstrong and Griffin (2004)
Lambert (2004)
Botha and Pienaar (2006)
Lambert, Hogan, & Allen (2006)
Tewksbury and Higgins (2006)
Lambert, Hogan, and Griffin (2007)
Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin (2008)
Hogan, Lambert, Jenkins, & Hall (2009)
Lambert and Hogan (2009)
Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92
Although this is one of the first reviews to take stock of all research
pertaining to correctional officers, it is not without limitations. First, we
did not include studies that sampled correctional officers in jails, ju-
venile detention facilities, and other non-prison institutions. Therefore,
we caution attempts to generalize these findings outside of the samples
examined in this study who are correctional officers employed in state
and federal agencies or equivalent facilities and agencies outside of the
United States. This study attempted to include all multivariate pub-
lications that met the inclusion criteria, but some publications may not
be indexed in the databases examined in this review. We attempted to
reduce the likelihood of this occurrence by use of Google Scholar, but
the search term for correctional officers resulted in a search field of
92,000 hits. Also, the findings are only generalizable to studies that are
published in peer-reviewed journals, which means the “filing cabinet”
problem of unpublished studies may influence the findings (Borenstein
et al., 2009). Next, this review did not examine the aggregate or prison-
level characteristics that may influence the correctional staff behaviors
and attitudes. This was done purposefully to ensure we accounted for
the appropriate level of measure, but also because there are very few
studies that employ multi-level methods (Baker et al., 2015; Steiner &
Wooldredge, 2017). One avenue for future research is to examine the
prison-level factors that may influence correctional staff attitudes and
behaviors. Another avenue for research that is largely missing from this
review is an examination of the relationship between the home and
work (Triplett, Mullings, & Scarborough, 1999). There were too few
measures of work-home indicators to meet the inclusion criteria for this
study, but researchers have found that the home environment may also
influence officer attitudes and behaviors.
Researchers have examined a variety of outcomes related to the
attitudes and experiences of correctional staff. Some of the examined
outcomes are related to staff psychological wellbeing (e.g., job stress,
job satisfaction, psychological symptoms) while others include phy-
siological health and safety (Botha & Pienaar, 2006; Ferdik & Smith,
2017). This review identified several avenues for future research, such
as exploring in what capacity demographic characteristics “matter.”
Other recommendations include the need to engage in research that is
timely and relevant for correctional agencies, which is difficult due to
the lagged relationship between science and current events. Such an
investigation is important as state policymakers and legislatures are
seeking strategies to reduce prison spending considering the costs as-
sociated with employee salaries and overtime accounted for approxi-
mately 44% of state prison spending in 2015 (Mai & Subramanian,
2017, p. 18). Therefore, retaining a dedicated and effective workforce is
essential for promoting safety, providing treatment, and reducing in-
cidents of violence inside facilities (DiIulio, 1987). In order to accom-
plish these goals, scholarly endeavors should be guided by science and
taking stock of the literature is a fruitful avenue by which that can be
done.
% Correctional officer # Correctional officer # Total Sample
44 73 166
78 428 546
33 2647 8022
53 143 270
81 3091 3794
50 136 272
n/a n/a 157
50 136 272
23 52 228
62 99 160
62 99 160
62 99 160
62 99 160
90
H.D. Butler et al.
Lambert et al. (2009) 62
Lambert, Hogan, & Tucker (2009) 50
Lambert, Altheimer, & Hogan (2010) 62
Lambert, Hogan, & Altheimer (2010a) 62
Lambert, Hogan, & Altheimer (2010b) 62
Lambert, Hogan, Jiang, Elechi, Benjamin, Morris, Laux, & Dupuy (2010) 62
Lambert, Altheimer, Hogan, & Barton-Bellessa (2011) 50
Lambert, Hogan, & Barton-Bellessa (2011) 50
Bierie (2012) 47
Griffin, Hogan, & Lambert (2012) 62
Lambert, Hogan, Barton-Bellessa, & Jiang (2012) 62
Hartley et al. (2013) 74
Hogan, Lambert, & Griffin (2013) 50
Lambert, Kelley, & Hogan (2013a) 50
Lambert, Kelley, & Hogan (2013b) 50
Lambert, Minor, Wells, & Hogan (2015) 62
Lambert, Griffin, Hogan, & Kelley (2015) 50
Notes: These studies represent some (not all) of the samples that contain correctional staff in an effort to explore differences in sampling officers as compared to staff.
References3
Acker, J. (1992). Gendered organizational analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Aloe, A. M., & Becker, B. J. (2012). An effect size for regression predictors in meta-
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 278–297.
Aloe, A. M., & Thompson, C. G. (2013). The synthesis of partial effect sizes. Journal of the
Society for Social Work and Research, 4, 390–405.
*Armstrong, G. S., Atkin-Plunk, C. A., & Wells, J. (2015). The relationship between
work–family conflict, correctional officer job stress, and job satisfaction. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 42, 1066–1082.
*Armstrong, G. S., & Griffin, M. L. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of
stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice,
32, 577–592.
*Avdija, A. S., & Roy, S. (2012). A psychosocial measure of the factual autonomy and job
satisfaction among prison employees. Criminal Justice Studies, 25, 251–264.
Baker, T., Gordon, J. A., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). A hierarchical analysis of correctional
officers' procedural justice judgements of correction institutions: Examining the in-
fluence of transformational leadership. Justice Quarterly, 32, 1037–1063.
Becker, B. J., & Schram, C. M. (1994). Examining explanatory models through research
synthesis. In H. M. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.). The handbook of research synthesis.
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Becker, B. J., & Wu, M. (2007). The synthesis of regression slopes in Meta-Analysis.
Statistical Science, 22, 414–429.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
meta-analysis. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Botha, C., & Pienaar, J. (2006). South African correctional official occupational stress:
The role of psychological strengths. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 73–84.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35, 307.
Britton, D. M. (1995). Sex, violence, and supervision: A study of the prison as a gendered
organization. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.
*Britton, D. M. (1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers:
Do race and sex matter. Criminology, 35, 85–106.
*Brough, P., & Williams, J. (2007). Managing occupational stress in a high-risk industry:
Measuring the job demands of correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34,
555–567.
Camp, S. D. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job sa-
tisfaction on turnover: An event history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279–305.
Camp, S. D., Saylor, W. G., & Harer, M. D. (1997). Aggregating individual-level evaluation
of the organizational social climate: A multilevel Investigation of the work environ-
ment at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Justice Quarterly, 14, 739–761.
*Cheeseman, K. A., & Downey, R. A. (2012). Talking ‘bout my generation': The effect of
“generation” on correctional employee perceptions of work stress and job satisfac-
tion. The Prison Journal, 92, 24–44.
Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). Potentials and limitations of research synthesis. In
H. M. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.). The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 521–529).
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
*Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Cullen, J. B., & Wolfe, N. T. (1990). How satisfying is prison
work? A comparative occupational approach. Journal of Offender Counseling Services
Rehabilitation, 14, 89–108.
*Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Wolfe, N. T., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of
correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 505–533.
*Dial, K. C., Downey, R. A., & Goodlin, W. E. (2010). The job in the joint: The impact of
generation and gender on work stress in prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38,
609–615.
DiIulio, J. (1987). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New
York, NY: Free Press.
*Dollard, M. F., & Winefield, A. H. (1998). A test of the demand-control/support model of
work stress in correctional officers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3,
243–264.
Dougherty, T., Bluedorn, A., & Keon, T. (1985). Precursors of employee turnover: A
3 of job characteristics on correctional staff job stress. Applied Psychology in Criminal
*Indicates a study is included in the systematic review.
91
Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92
99 160
136 272
99 160
99 160
99 160
99 160
136 272
136 272
817 1738
99 160
99 160
1152 1557
136 272
136 272
136 272
99 160
136 272
multiple-sample causal analysis. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 259–271.
Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31–47.
Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.
*Farnese, M. L., Bellò, B., Livi, S., Barbieri, B., & Gubbiotti, P. (2016). Learning the ropes:
The protective role of mentoring in correctional police officers' socialization process.
Military Psychology, 28, 429–447.
Ferdik, F. V., & Smith, H. P. (2017). Correctional officer safety and wellness literature
synthesis. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Finn, P. (1998). Correctional officer stress-a cause for concern and additional help. Federal
Probation, 62, 65.
Finney, C., Stergiopoulos, E., Hensel, J., Bonato, S., & Dewa, C. S. (2013). Organizational
stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: A systematic
review. BMC Public Health, 13, 82.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on
student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361–396.
*Griffin, M. L. (2006). Gender and stress: A comparative assessment of sources of stress
among correctional officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 4–25.
Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2005). Side-bets and reciprocity as determinants of or-
ganizational commitment among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33,
611–625.
*Grossi, E. L., & Berg, B. L. (1991). Stress and job dissatisfaction among correctional
officers: An unexpected finding. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 35, 73–81.
Harrell, E. (2011). Workplace violence, 1993–2009. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
*Hartley, D. J., Davila, M. A., Marquart, J. W., & Mullings, J. L. (2013). Fear is a disease:
The impact of fear and exposure to infectious disease on correctional officer job stress
and satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 323–340.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Hepburn, J. R. (1985). The exercise of power in coercive organizations: A study of prison
guards. Criminology, 23, 145–164.
*Hepburn, J. R., & Knepper, P. E. (1993). Correctional officers as human services workers:
The effect on job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315–337.
Hogan, N. L., Lambert, E. G., Jenkins, M., & Hall, D. E. (2009). The impact of job char-
acterizes on private prison staff: Why management should care. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 34, 151–165.
*Hogan, N. L., Lambert, E. G., Kim, B., Mendenhall, M., Cheeseman, K., & Griffin, M.
(2017). Research note: Career stage and job satisfaction among southern correctional
officers. Criminal Justice Studies, 30, 421–432.
Hubbard, D. J., & Pratt, T. C. (2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency
among girls. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 1–13.
Huckabee, R. G. (1992). Stress in corrections: An overview of the issues. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 20, 479–486.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*Jurik, N. C., Halemba, G. J., Musehno, M. C., & Boyle, B. V. (1987). Educational at-
tainment, job satisfaction, and the professionalization of correctional officers. Work
and Occupations, 14, 106–125.
Kim, R. S. (2011). Standardized Regression Coefficients as Indices of effect Sizes in Meta-
Analysis (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_
migr_etd-3109.
Kruttschnitt, C., & Gartner, R. (2005). Making time in the golden state: Women's imprison-
ment in California. U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Lambert, E. G. (2001a). Absent correctional staff: A discussion of the issue and re-
commendations for future research. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 279.
Lambert, E. G. (2001b). To stay or quit: A review of the literature on correctional staff
turnover. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 61–76.
*Lambert, E. G. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff members.
The Prison Journal, 84, 208–227.
Lambert, E. G., Barton, S. M., & Hogan, N. L. (1999). The missing link between job sa-
tisfaction and correctional staff behavior: The issue of organizational commitment.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 95–116.
*Lambert, E. G., Cluse-Tolar, T., & Hogan, N. L. (2007). This job is killing me: The impact
H.D. Butler et al.
Justice, 3, 117–142.
Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2009). Exploring the predictors of treatment views of
private correctional staff: A test of an integrated work model. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 48, 504–528.
*Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2010). Wanting change: The relationship of perceptions
of organizational innovation with correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 160–184.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2002a). Satisfied correctional staff: A re-
view of the literature on the correlates of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 29(2), 115–143.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2002b). The impact of work-family conflict
on correctional staff job satisfaction: An exploratory study. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 27(1), 35–52.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2007). The impact of distributive and
procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 644–656.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2017). Research note: A career-stage
analysis of correctional staff outcomes. The Prison Journal, 97, 411–430.
*Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Moore, B., Tucker, K., Jenkins, M., Stevenson, M., & Jiang,
S. (2009). The impact of the work environment on prison staff: The issue of con-
sideration, structure, job variety, and training. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
34, 166–180.
*Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Paoline, E. A., & Clarke, A. (2005). The impact of role
stressors on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among pri-
vate prison staff. Security Journal, 18, 33–50.
*Lambert, E. G., Kim, B., Keena, L. D., & Cheeseman, K. (2017). Testing a gendered
models of job satisfaction and work stress among correctional officers. Journal of
Crime and Justice, 40, 188–203.
Lambert, E. G., Paoline, E. A., III, Hogan, N. L., & Baker, D. N. (2007). Gender similarities
and differences in correctional staff work attitudes and perceptions of the work en-
vironment. Western Criminology Review, 8, 16–31.
*Law, F. M., & Guo, G. J. (2016). Correlation of hope and self-efficacy with job sa-
tisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment for correctional officers in the
Taiwan prison system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 60, 1257–1277.
Levi, L. (1987). Definitions and the conceptual aspects of health in relation to work. In R.
Kalimo, M. A. El-Batawi, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.). Psychosocial factors at work and their
relation to health (pp. 9–14). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Liebling, A., Price, D., & Shefer, G. (2011). The prison officer. New York: Willan.
*Lindquist, C. A., & Whitehead, J. T. (1986). Burnout, job stress and job satisfaction
among southern correctional officers. Journal of Offender Counseling Services
Rehabilitation, 10, 5–26.
Mai, C., & Subramanian, R. (2017). The price of prisons 2015: Examining state spending
trends, 2010–2015. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
*Misis, M., Kim, B., Cheeseman, K., Hogan, N. L., & Lambert, E. G. (2013). The impact of
correctional officer perceptions of inmates on job stress. SAGE Open, 1–13.
*Mohamed, F., Taylor, S. G., & Hassan, A. (2006). Affective commitment and intent to
quit: The impact of work and non-work related issues. Journal of Managerial Issues,
18, 512–529.
*Moon, B., & Maxwell, S. R. (2004). Assessing the correctional orientation of corrections
officers in South Korea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 48, 729–743.
Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 175–181.
Philliber, S. (1987). Thy brother's keeper: A review of the literature on correctional of-
ficers. Justice Quarterly, 4, 9–37.
Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1980). Examining the impact of professionalism on cyni-
cism, role conflict, and work alienation among prison guards. Criminal Justice Review,
5, 57–65.
Savicki, V., Cooley, E., & Gjesvold, J. (2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in
correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 602–619.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional
officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 19–48.
Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2015). Individual and environmental sources of work stress
among prison officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 800–818.
Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2017). Individual and environmental influences on prison
officer safety. Justice Quarterly, 34, 324–349.
*Tewksbury, R., & Higgins, G. E. (2006). Prison staff and work stress: The role of orga-
nizational and emotional influences. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30,
247–266.
*Triplett, R., Mullings, J. L., & Scarborough, K. E. (1996). Work-related stress and coping
among correctional officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 24, 291–308.
Triplett, R., Mullings, J. L., & Scarborough, K. E. (1999). Examining the effect of work-
home conflict on work-related stress among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 27, 371–385.
Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and
academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39,
111–133.
*Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Wolfe, N. T. (1991). The impact of race and
gender on correctional officers' orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 472–500.
*Vickovic, S. G., & Griffin, M. L. (2014). A comparison of line and supervisory officers and
the impact of support on commitment to the prison organization. Criminal Justice
Policy Review, 25, 719–742.
Warr, P. B. (1992). Age and occupational well-being. Psychology and Aging, 7, 37–45.
Wright, K. N., & Saylor, W. G. (1992). A comparison of perceptions of the work
92
Journal of Criminal Justice 60 (2019) 84–92
environment between minority and non-minority employees of the federal prison
system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 63–71.
Wu, M.-J., & Becker, B. J. (2013). Synthesizing regression results: A factorized likelihood
method. Research Synthesis Methods, 4, 127–143.
Zupan, L. L. (1986). Gender-related differences in correctional officers' perceptions and
attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 349–361.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2008). Being the good soldier:
Organizational citizenship behavior and commitment among correctional staff.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 56–68.
Lambert, E. G., Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., & Hogan, N. L. (2016). Social support’s re-
lationship to correctional staff stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organi-
zational commitment. The Social Science Journal, 53, 22–32.
Gerstein, L. H., Topp, C. G., & Correll, G. (1987). The role or the environment and person
when predicting burnout among correctional personnel. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
14, 352–369.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Allen, R. I. (2006). Correlates of correctional officer job
stress: The impact of organizational structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
30, 227–246.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Tucker, K. A. (2009). Problems at work: Exploring the
correlates of role stress among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 89, 460–481.
Lambert, E. G., Altheimer, I., & Hogan, N. L. (2010). Exploring the relationship between
social support and job burnout among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
37, 1217–1236.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Altheimer, I. (2010). An exploratory examination of the
consequences of burnout in terms of life satisfaction, turnover intent, and ab-
senteeism among private correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 90, 94–114.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Altheimer, I. (2010). The association between work-family
conflict and job burnout among correctional staff: A preliminary study. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 37–55.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Jiang, S., Elechi, O. O., Benjamin, B., Morris, A., ... Dupuy, P.
(2010). The relationship among distributive and procedural justice and correctional
life satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent: An exploratory study. Journal of
Criminal justice, 38, 7–16.
Lambert, E. G., Altheimer, I., Hogan, N. L., & Barton-Bellessa, S. M. (2011). Correlates of
correctional orientation in a treatment-oriented prison: A partial test of person-en-
vironment fit theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 453–470.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton-Bellessa, S. M. (2011). The association between
perceptions of distributive justice and procedural justice with support of treatment
and support of punishment among correctional staff. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 50, 202–220.
Bierie, D. M. (2012). The impact of prison conditions of staff well-being. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 81–95.
Griffin, M. L., Hogan, N. L., & Lambert, E. G. (2012). Doing “people work” in the prison
setting: An examination of the job characteristics model and correctional staff
burnout. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1131–1147.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Barton-Bellessa, S. M., & Jiang, S. (2012). Examining the
relationship between supervisor and management trust and job burnout among
correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 938–957.
Hogan, N. L., Lambert, E. G., & Griffin, M. L. (2013). Loyalty, love, and investments: The
impact of job outcomes on the organizational commitment of correctional staff.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 355–375.
Lambert, E. G., Kelley, T., & Hogan, N. L. (2013). Hanging on too long: The relationship
between different forms of organizational commitment and emotional burnout
among correctional staff. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 51–66.
Lambert, E. G., Kelley, T., & Hogan, N. L. (2013). The association of occupational stressors
with different forms of organizational commitment among correctional staff.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 480–501.
Lambert, E. G., Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., & Hogan, N. L. (2015). Leave your job at work:
The possible antecedents of work–family conflict among correctional staff. The Prison
Journal, 95, 114–134.
Lambert, E. G., Griffin, M. L., Hogan, N. L., & Kelley, T. (2015). The ties that bind:
Organizational commitment and its effect on correctional orientation, absenteeism,
and turnover intent. The Prison Journal, 95, 135–156.
H. Daniel Butler is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and
Criminology at Sam Houston State University. His research and publications examine how
the prison environment influences individuals’ institutional and post-release behaviors in
addition to the experiences and wellbeing of correctional officers.
Melinda Tasca is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and
Criminology at Sam Houston State University. Her research focuses on correctional
policy, the collateral consequences of incarceration, and the influence of gender and race/
ethnicity in the criminal justice system. Her work has been published in outlets such as
Justice Quarterly, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Crime and Delinquency.
Yan Zhang, who earned a PhD degree in Criminal Justice from Michigan State University,
is an associate professor at the department of criminal justice and criminology at Sam
Houston State University. Her current research interests include GIS and crime analysis,
Big Data and crime patterns, and correlates of racially motivated hate crimes.
Channing R. Carpenter, M.A. is a recent graduate of Sam Houston State University’s
Master of Arts in Criminal Justice and Criminology program. Her research examines the
behaviors and experiences of correctional officers. She is currently fulfilling a graduate
degree in social work at the University of Houston.