G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Social Science Journal

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

Social supports relationship to correctional staff job stress,

job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment
Eric G. Lambert a, , Kevin I. Minor b,1 , James B. Wells b,2 , Nancy L. Hogan c,3
a
b
c

Department of Legal Studies, The University of Mississippi, 202 Odom Hall, Mississippi, MS 38677, USA
School of Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky University, Stratton 467, 521 Lancaster Avenue, Richmond, KY 40475, USA
School of Criminal Justice, Ferris State University, 525 Bishop Hall, Big Rapids, MI 49307, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 18 December 2014
Received in revised form 18 April 2015
Accepted 5 October 2015
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Correctional staff
Social support
Job stress
Job satisfaction
Job involvement
Organizational commitment

a b s t r a c t
The literature suggests that social support, in general, is linked to positive outcomes among
correctional staff, but the different types of social support may differ in their effects. Using
survey data from staff working at a privately-owned, maximum security prison for juveniles
sentenced as adults, this study analyzes three intra-organizational supports, administrative, supervisory, and coworker, and one extra-organizational form, family/friends support,
as antecedents of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Personal variables serve as controls. Administrative and supervisory support are
inversely related to job stress, while job involvement is affected positively by supervisory support and negatively by family/friends support. All three intra-organizational forms
of support are signicant antecedents of job satisfaction and organizational commitment
however family/friends support is not. These ndings hold implications for improving job
outcomes among correctional staff and for future research.
2015 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Prisons are expensive to administer and operate.

Henrichson and Delaney (2012) report that over 35 billion
dollars is spent on prisons each year in the United States
to house 1.4 million adult inmates. Operating prisons is
labor intensive, with staff being the largest expenditure,
often accounting for over 75% of a prisons annual budget
(Camp & Lambert, 2005). Additionally, staff are a valuable resource, as they are responsible for the multitude of
tasks and duties necessary for the operation of a humane,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 662 915 2672.

E-mail addresses: eglamber@olemiss.edu (E.G. Lambert),
Kevin.Minor@eku.edu (K.I. Minor), James.Wells@eku.edu (J.B. Wells),
Hogann@ferris.edu (N.L. Hogan).
1
Tel.: +1 859 622 2240.
2
Tel.: +1 859 622 1158.
3
Tel.: +1 231 591 2664.

secure, and safe prison. In a sense, staff are a prisons heart

and soul. In an era of reduced government budgets, investigating the factors that may affect correctional staff is
imperative.
A growing body of research focuses on prison staff,
particularly in terms of job stress, job involvement, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Stressed,
uninvolved, dissatised, and uncommitted staff can be
detrimental to a prisons operations. On the other hand,
having relatively unstressed, involved, satised, and committed staff is a desired outcome. To reach this outcome,
researchers and administrators need information on the
factors that help shape the job stress, job involvement,
job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of prison
staff.
Working in a prison differs from working in other
types of organizations. The prison work environment is
unique because it involves conning individuals against

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001
0362-3319/ 2015 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model
SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

their willindividuals who have been convicted of violating criminal law. As Armstrong and Grifn (2004) point out,
Few other organizations are charged with the central task
of supervising and securing an unwilling and potentially
violent population (p. 577). As the work environment in
prisons varies from that found in most other organizations,
the factors which inuence job stress, job involvement, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment may also vary
compared to other organizations. Research needs to identify factors that mitigate job stress and contribute to the
prison staffs job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
The literature suggests that social support is important
for staff to deal with the unique strains and challenges
encountered in a prison work environment (Keinan &
Maslach-Pines, 2007; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). Social
support should help staff deal with strains that would
otherwise increase job stress and decrease job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
There are different types of social support, and the literature is limited and unclear about what types of social
support are linked with job stress, job involvement, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment among prison
staff. This studys objective is to explore the nature of the
relationship between administrative support, supervisory
support, coworker support, and family and friends support
with job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Expanding knowledge of these
relationships provides a framework for the future development of research in this area and provides correctional
administrators with information on how different forms of
social support affect prison staff.

1. Literature review
1.1. Job stress
According to Matteson and Ivancevich (1987), there are
literally hundreds of denitions for stress to be found in the
research and professional literature. Virtually all of them
can be placed into one of two categories, however: stress
can be dened as either a stimulus or a response (p. 10).
Stressors are negative stimuli that cause strain for a person,
which ultimately can result in stress (Cullen, Link, Wolfe,
& Frank, 1985). Job stress is psychological strain leading to
leading to job-related hardness, tension, anxiety, frustration, and worry arising from work (Misis, Kim, Cheeseman,
Hogan, & Lambert, 2013). Job stress can be harmful over
time, leading to increased mental withdrawal from the job,
reduced interactions with clients and coworkers, increased
conict with family and friends, absenteeism, substance
abuse, turnover, burnout, health/medical problems, and
even premature death (Cheek, 1984; Cheek & Miller, 1983;
Lambert, Edwards, Camp, & Saylor, 2005a; Matteson &
Ivancevich, 1987; Mitchell, MacKenzie, Styve, & Gover,
2000; Slate & Vogel, 1997; Whitehead, 1989; Whitehead
& Lindquist, 1986; Woodruff, 1993). Job stress is harmful to both staff and the prison organization, and its
antecedents need to be studied. Social support may be one
such antecedent.

1.2. Job involvement

Job involvement is the level of psychological identication with a job (Kanungo, 1982a,b). As Elloy, Everett, and
Flynn (1992) note, it refers to a cognitive bond people can
form with their jobs. Paullay, Alliger, and Stone-Romero
(1994) point out that job involvement is a psychological
state wherein an individual is cognitively preoccupied
with, engaged in, and concerned with ones present job
(p. 224). DeCarufel and Schaan (1990) note that an individual with a high degree of job involvement would place the
job at the center of his/her lifes interests. The well-known
phrase I live, eat, and breathe my job would describe
someone whose job involvement is very high (p. 86). Persons with low job involvement focus on interests other
than their work (Hogan, Lambert, & Grifn, 2013). Elloy
et al. (1992) contend that job involvement is a measure
work lifes quality. Chen and Chiu (2009) point out that people with high job involvement are more independent and
self-condentthey not only conduct their work in accordance with the job duties required by the company but are
also more likely to do their work in accordance with the
employees perception of their own performance (p. 478).
Pfeffer (1994) contends that job involvement translates to
organizational effectiveness in the long run. Additionally,
job involvement is linked with reduced turnover intent
among jail staff (Lambert & Paoline, 2010). There is a need
to examine possible antecedents of prison staff job involvement, and social support may be an important antecedent.
1.3. Job satisfaction
Locke (1976) denes job satisfaction as a pleasurable
or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal
of ones job or job experiences (p. 1300). Weiss (2002)
contends job satisfaction is the summative positive and
negative emotions arising from the job. Simply, job satisfaction is the extent to which people like their jobs (Spector,
1996, p. 214). In all these denitions, job satisfaction is
an affective/emotional response by an employee concerning his/her particular job and whether the employee likes
the job. Job satisfaction is a salient and powerful workplace concept. Low levels have been found to be associated
with absenteeism, turnover, and job burnout among correctional staff (Byrd, Cochran, Silverman, & Blount, 2000;
Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986; Wright, 1993). Conversely,
high levels are related to improved work performance,
organizational innovation, greater compliance with organizational rules, greater support for rehabilitation of inmates,
and greater life satisfaction among correctional staff (Fox,
1982; Lambert, 2004; Lambert & Hogan, 2010; Lambert
et al., 2009; Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Baker, 2005b;
Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd, 1992). Given its significance, it is important to explore how different forms of
social support may be associated with job satisfaction.
1.4. Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is the bond between an
employee and the employing organization (Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982). Continuance and affective

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model
SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

commitment are two major forms of commitment, and

they differ in how the bond is formed (Hogan et al., 2013).
Continuance commitment refers to a bond that occurs due
to investments made in the employing organization, such
as social relationships, pension, salary and benets, and
nontransferable job skills (Allen & Meyer, 1990). These
investments bond the person to the organization and result
in a desire to stay with the organization (Garland, Hogan,
Kelley, Kim, & Lambert, 2013). With affective commitment,
a voluntary bond is formed by positive work experiences
(Allen & Meyer, 1990). The concept encompasses the elements of loyalty to the organization, identication with the
organization, such as pride in the organization and internalization of organizational goals, and involvement in the
organization, such as personal effort made for the sake
of the organization (Hogan et al., 2013; Mowday et al.,
1982). With continuance commitment, a worker bonds
with the organization because they must do so. With affective commitment, a worker bonds with the organization
because they choose to do so (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Of the
two, affective commitment tends to have far more salient
outcomes for both employees and organizations. Further,
continuance commitment has been found to be associated with some negative consequences, as burned out
employees may feel trapped in the job and view quitting
as an attractive but untenable option. As such, the current
study focused on affective commitment, a concept generally viewed as a highly desirable outcome (Lambert, Kim,
Kelley, & Hogan, 2013). Among correctional staff, affective
commitment has been inversely linked with absenteeism
and turnover and positively associated with job performance, life satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors, which is going beyond what is expected at work
(Camp, 1994; Culliver, Sigler, & McNeely, 1991; Lambert
et al., 2005a, 2013; Lambert, Hogan, & Grifn, 2008).
1.5. Social support
Social support refers to a network of connections with
other human beings that can provide assistance, support,
and help for a person (Cohen, Underwood, & Gottlieb, 2000;
Harvey, 2014; Lambert, Altheimer, & Hogan, 2010). A lack
of social support can lead employees to feel isolated and
alone at work, exacerbating the effects of workplace stressors (Ileffe & Steed, 2000). In addition, social support can
provide resources for people to deal more effectively with
stressors, ultimately reducing job stress (Neveu, 2007). Furthermore, social support is a valuable resource because it
provides psychological support, assistance, feedback, and
motivation for employees (Lambert et al., 2010). Most people are social creatures, and social support can be a positive
element for employees (Cohen et al., 2000), but its benets
extend to both employees and employers. Social support
systems can allow innovation to occur, which can result
in quicker solutions to workplace issues, allowing work to
become more productive and enjoyable. Conversely, a lack
of social support can be seen as a form of resource depletion
for prison workers, detracting from positive outcomes from
work. Social support can be an excellent way to boost selfcondence and self-esteem (Lambert et al., 2010). Social
support can increase the likelihood that a staff member

will bond with the job. In addition, the positive experiences

with support can result in greater satisfaction from the job.
Based on the social exchange theory, affective commitment
arises due to positive work experiences that allow individuals to see the organization in a favorable light (Colquitt
et al., 2013).
There is a gap in the literature in terms of which
forms of social support are potential antecedents of prison
staffs job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment. Social support comes in different forms (Lee & Ashford, 1996; Whitehead & Lindquist,
1986). The social supports major forms are administrative support, supervisory support, coworker support, and
family and friends support. Support from coworkers, supervisors, and management represents intra-organizational
social support systems, while support from family and
friends represents an extra-organizational support system
(Lambert et al., 2010; Ray & Miller, 1994).
Administrative support refers to the staffs perception that they are supported by the prisons management/administration (Garland & McCarty, 2006; Grifn,
2006). Administrative support can help staff deal with
stressors and being stressed from work. A lack of administrative support can make work difcult and straining.
Cheek and Miller (1983) contend that a lack of administrative social support can lead to staff feeling pressured
by both management and the inmates, resulting in being
between the proverbial rock and a hard place. They term
this situation a double-bind of stress for correctional
staff. Administrative support sends a message to staff that
they are valued and respected by organization. In addition,
administrative support can help staff be more successful
in their jobs, possibility resulting in greater identication
with the job and satisfaction. Administrative support, or
a lack thereof, for most staff will represent the organization. Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986)
report that employees personify the organization, viewing
actions by agents of the organization as actions of the organization itself (p. 504). In a sense, administrative support
reects the level of commitment an organization has for
its employees. If staff perceive that the administration supports them, it is easier for them to form a cognitive bond
with the organization. These postulations have a basis in
the literature. Administrative support is inversely associated with correctional staff job stress (Armstrong & Grifn,
2004; Auerbach, Quick, & Pegg, 2003; Grifn, 2006). Likewise, administrative support is positively associated with
job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Lambert
& Hogan, 2009).
Supervisory support focuses on staff perceptions of the
level that their supervisor supports them (Cullen et al.,
1985). Supervisory support can help remove stressors
or reduce their negative effects, which should translate
to lower stress from the job (Brough & Williams, 2007).
Supervisors can help staff see challenges in a more positive
light. Lee and Ashford (1996) note that with the right kind
of supervisory support, workers may come to perceive
ambiguous role expectations as opportunities to carry
out their own initiatives (potential gains) rather than as
restrictions on their actions (certain losses) (p. 131). On
the other hand, a lack of supervisory support can be a

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model
SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

straining and frustrating experience, which over time can

lead to job stress (Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Supervisory
support is important for employees to succeed in their
jobs. It is a resource which can help staff do their jobs in
an effective manner. Being productive tends to provide
people with a sense of pride and accomplishment. In the
end, prison staff are probably more likely to feel that the
job is meeting some of their needs and wants, and, as
such, will view the job in a more favorable light, increasing
the level of job involvement and satisfaction. Supervisors
are also seen as the prison organizations representatives
(Lambert, 2004). Supervisory support sends a message
that staff are valued; thus, supervisory support likely
will increase favorable views of the organization, and, in
turn, strengthen the bond to it. On the contrary, a lack of
supervisory support can be a type of resource withdrawal
that leads to staff to question the organization, and, in
the long run, drive a wedge between staff and the prison
organization. Supervisory support is associated with lower
job stress and increased job satisfaction and organizational
commitment of correctional staff (Cullen et al., 1985;
Grossi, Keil, & Vito, 1996; Lambert, 2004; Lambert &
Hogan, 2009; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991).
Coworker support refers to the perceptions of support
from peers at work (Liaw, Chi, & Chuang, 2010). Coworker
support can help deal with stressors and facilitate management of minor problems quickly before they get out
of hand (Bakker & Demerouti Schaufeli, 2005). A lack of
peer support can be a trying experience in itself, raising
the degree of frustration encountered at work. Coworker
support should help reduce job stress among prison staff.
Support from work peers is also a resource for many people (Lambert et al., 2010). It allows a chance to discuss
work issues and, at times, to vent. Cherniss (1980) points
out that when one can discuss work experiences with
colleagues, those experiences often become more interesting and meaningful (p. 120). It provides a place for
advice and social companionship, as well as a support system (Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). In the end, coworker
support can make the job enriching and enjoyable, increasing the level of job involvement and job satisfaction for
staff. A lack of support for coworkers could lead to less
identication with the job, as well as having unmet needs
from the job. Positive experiences from coworker support
may spillover and allow staff to see the prison organization
in a more positive light, promoting greater attachment to
the organization. Having positive relations with coworkers
is associated with increased satisfaction and lowered job
stress among jail staff (Paoline, Lambert, & Hogan, 2006),
and lower job stress among Australian prison staff (Dollard
& Wineeld, 1998).
Family and friends social support deals with the perception by staff that their non-work signicant others
care and help them with work matters (Lambert et al.,
2010). Family and friends are the primary social support
for people outside the workplace (Adams, King, & King,
1996). This form of support can help individuals deal
with work problems (Kurtz, 2008). Working in a prison
can be a trying experience (Armstrong & Grifn, 2004).
Having support at home may help reduce stress from
work. This form of support may also provide a safe haven

for staff to escape the trying work experiences, even if it is

a temporary respite, and, in turn, may help alleviate stress
from the job. In addition, having support from family and
friends for working in a prison may give a person a sense
of pride, allowing them to have a greater bond with the job
and the organization. In addition, having positive social
support from family and friends concerning the job may
result in positive feelings about their lives and their jobs,
spilling over to raise job satisfaction levels (Kwok, Cheng,
& Wong, 2014). Finally, family and friends support can
allow prison staff to lead a more balanced life, which, in
the end could result in general positive feelings that help
raise the levels of job involvement, job satisfaction, and
affective commitment (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993).
1.6. Research focus
While limited research exists on the effects of the different forms of social support on correctional staff, gaps
remain to be addressed. First, there has not been sufcient
research to date to uphold derive rm conclusions. Second, there has been far more research on the effects of
supervisory support than there has been for administration, coworker, and friends and family support. There needs
to be more research on all four forms of social support
among prison staff in order to understand the role social
support plays. Third, no published study has examined the
relationships of the four forms of support with job stress,
job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among prison staff in the same study. As a result,
the knowledge about the effects of social support in limited
and fragmentary. For example, one form of support may
be more important in shaping a particular outcome area
among prison staff than the other forms of support. This
studys purpose is to address these gaps in knowledge.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
All the available staff at a private Midwestern prison for
juvenile offenders were provided a survey packet, which
contained a cover letter, survey, and return envelope. The
cover letter explained the studys purpose, that participation was voluntary, how to participate in the study, how to
return the surveys, and stressed that all responses would be
anonymous and would be kept condential. At the time of
the survey, there were 220 employees assigned to work at
the prison, but due to leave, such as sick leave and administrative leave, only 200 were available to be provided the
survey packet. A total of 160 usable surveys were returned,
which represents a response rate of 80% of those given the
packet and 72.7% of those who worked at the prison1 . The

1
The survey measured a wide array of workplace perceptions, views,
attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of employees. Because of the wealth
of information from the survey, other studies have been conducted using
different parts of the survey. The full citations of these studies are available
upon request. None of these previous studies examined the impact of the
four forms of social support on job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment together.

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model
SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

prison housed approximately 450 juvenile offenders under

the age of 20 who were juveniles sentenced in adult court.
The prison was a high security closed facility.
Employees came from all positions except administration. Demographic characteristic of the respondents are
listed in Table 1. Institutional records indicate that, at
the time of the survey, the demographic breakdown of
the prisons staff was approximately 81% White and 61%
male; the staffs median age was about 35, the median
tenure was about 20.64 months, and about two-thirds of
the employees held a custody position. As such, the respondents appear to be demographically representative of the
staff at the private correctional facility.

coworkers provide me support in solving personal problems, and The people I work with are friendly. An index
for support for family and friends comprises two items. For
example, one item is When my job gets me down, I know
that I can turn to family and friends for support. Finally,
the personal characteristics of gender, age, tenure, position, educational level, race, and supervisory status were
included in the study more as control than explanatory
variables. See Table 1 for how these personal characteristics
are coded.

2.2. Variables

The descriptive statistics for the variables in this study

are presented in Table 1. There appears to be signicant
variation in both the dependent and independent variables.
None of the variables are constants. The median and mean
are similar to one another for the variables, suggesting
that the variables were normally distributed. Cronbachs
alpha, a measure of internal reliability, was above .70 for all
the indexes, which indicates acceptable internal reliability
(Gronlund, 1981). The items used to measure job stress, job
involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment were entered into an exploratory factor analysis using
generalized least squares method with an equamax rotation. The items for each latent concept loaded upon same
factor with factor loading scores of .41 or higher, and mostly
.50 or higher. For example, the three job involvement items
loaded on a single factor with factor loading scores of .61,
.84, and .83. The four factors explained approximately 64%
of the variance of the items. Similarly the 14 social support items were entered into an exploratory factor analysis
using generalized least squares with an equamax rotation.
Four factors explained for about 55% of the variance. The
items for each latent concept load upon same factor with
factor loading scores of .41 or higher, and mostly .50 or
higher. For example, the two administrative support items
loaded on one factor, with .67 and .61 factor loading scores.
The Pearsons correlation coefcient results are presented in Table 2. Tenure, administrative support, supervisory support, and coworker support have statistically
signicant correlations with job stress. Increases in tenure
are associated with higher levels of stress from the job.
Conversely, increases in administrative, supervisory, and
coworker support are related to lower reported stress from
the job. Gender, age, position, educational level, race, and
family and friends support each have non-signicant correlations with job stress.
Position, supervisory status, administrative support,
supervisory support, and coworker support have signicant correlations with job involvement. Correctional
ofcers report, on average, lower levels of involvement
with the job as compared to non-custody staff. Supervisors,
in general, report higher job involvement than their nonsupervisory counterparts. Administrative, supervisory, and
coworker support have positive correlations, which means
an increase in each type of social support is linked with
a rise in job involvement. Gender, age, tenure, educational level, race, and family and friends support have
non-signicant correlations.

2.2.1. Dependent variables

The dependent variables are additive indexes measuring job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment. All the items were answered
using a ve-point Likert response scale ranging from
strongly disagree (coded 1) to strongly agree (coded 5).
The responses to the items were summed together to form
indexes, and Cronbachs alpha values were calculated and
are listed in Table 1. The job stress index comprises ve
items from Crank, Regoli, Hewitt, and Culbertson (1995).
For example, two job stress items are I am usually under a
lot of pressure when I am at work and When Im at work
I often feel tense or uptight. The job involvement index
comprises three items adapted from Kanungo (1982a,b).
For example, two job involvement items are I live, eat,
and breathe my job and The most important things that
happen to me in my life occur at work. Five items, adapted
from Brayeld and Rothe (1951), are used to measure job
satisfaction. For example, two job satisfaction items are I
like my job better than the average worker does and Most
days I am enthusiastic about my job. The affective organizational commitment index comprises six items from
Mowday et al. (1982). For example, two commitment items
are I feel very little loyalty to this prison (reverse coded)
and I nd that my values and the prisons values are very
similar.
2.2.2. Independent variables
Four types of support are measured: administrative support, supervisory support, coworker support, and family
and friends support. The support items were answered
using a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded
1) to strongly agree (coded 5), and the responses to the
items were summed together to form indexes. See Table 1
for Cronbachs alpha values. The administrative support
index comprises two items. For example, one item is For
the most part, management at this prison supports its
workers. The index for supervisory support comprises four
items. For example, three supervisory support items are
Supervisors at this prison are supportive of employees,
At this facility, supervisors often criticize employees over
minor things (reverse coded), and My supervisor looks
out for my personal welfare. The coworker support index
comprises six items. For example, three of the items are
I am able to discuss problems with my coworkers, My

3. Results

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

6
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for study variables.
Variable

Description

Gender

41% women (coded 0)

59% men (coded 1)

Md

Min

Max

Age

Mean
.59

SD
.49

Measured in continuous years

33

19

68

35.77

10.82

Tenure

Tenure at the prison in months

17

53

20.64

13.84

Position

38% non-CO (coded 0)

62% CO (coded 1)

.62

.49

Educ level

53% have no college degree (coded 0)

47% have a college degree (coded 1)

.47

.50

Race

21% Nonwhite (coded 0)

79% White (coded 1)

.79

.50

Supervisor

79% non-supervisors (coded 0)

21% supervisors (coded1)

.21

.41

Admin support

2 item additive index, = .84

10

5.31

2.21

Super support

4 item additive index, = .80

11

20

10.92

3.67

Cowrk support

6 item additive index, = .81

20

27

19.52

4.53

Family support

2 item additive index, = .70

10

7.12

1.72

Job stress

5 item additive index, = .82

14

25

14.29

4.51

Job involve

3 item additive index, = .81

15

5.90

2.51

Job sat

5 item additive index, = .92

19

25

18.34

4.67

Org commit

6 item additive index, = .88

19

10

26

18.14

4.00

Note. Md stands for median value, Min stands for minimum value, Max stands for maximum value, SD stands for standard deviation, CO stands for
correctional ofcer, Educ stands for educational, Supervisor for supervisory status, Admin stands for administrative, Super stands for supervisory, Cowrk
stands for coworker, Family stands for family and friends, involve stands for involvement, sat stands for satisfaction, Org commit stands for organizational
commitment, and stands for Cronbachs alpha, a measure of internal reliability. For Educ level, having a college degree includes those who had earned
an Associates/Vocational degree, a Bachelors degree, and Graduate/Professional degree. The data for this table are from a survey of 160 staff members at
private Midwestern prison for juvenile offenders tried as adults.

Table 2
Pearson correlation matrix for study variables.
Variables

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

1. Gender
2. Age
3. Tenure
4. Position
5. Educ lev
6. Race
7. Supervisor
8. Adm sup
9. Sup
10. Co sup
11. Fam sup
12. Job str
13. Job inv
14. Job sat
15. Org com

1.00
.17*
.00
.28**
.13
.08
.12
.02
.05
.06
.06
.12
.03
.07
.05

1.00
.07
.53**
.14
.05
.16*
.29**
.21**
.13
.05
.02
.01
.18*
.17*

1.00
.20**
.05
.06
.39**
.09
.05
.13
.04
.20*
.12
.07
.04

1.00
.29**
.02
.47**
.32**
.30**
.26**
.01
.07
.27**
.30**
.24**

1.00
.05
.16*
.09
.15
.05
.08
.01
.13
.18*
.12

1.00
.04
.11
.06
.11
.14
.04
.05
.01
.00

1.00
.29**
.27**
.02
.03
.10
.26**
.28**
.23**

1.00
.76**
.49**
.20*
.49**
.37**
.57**
.66**

1.00
.42**
.13
.51**
.43**
.57**
.68**

1.00
.35**
.31**
.21**
.40**
.46**

1.00
.11
.10
.09
.16*

1.00
.34**
.70**
.53**

1.00
.41**
.46**

1.00
.75**

Note. See Table 1 for a description of the variables and how they were coded. Educ lev stands for educational level, Supervisor for supervisory status, Adm
sup stands for administrative support, Sup for supervisory support, Co sup for coworker support, Fam sup for family and friends support, Job str for job
stress, Job inv for job involvement, Job sat for job satisfaction, and Org com for organizational commitment. The data for this table are from a survey of 160
staff members at private Midwestern prison for juvenile offenders tried as adults.
*
p .05.
**
p .01.

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 3
Multivariate ordinary least squares regression results.
Variables

Gender
Age
Tenure
Position
Educ level
Race
Supervisor
Admin support
Super support
Cowrk support
Family support
R-Squared

Job stress

Job involvement

Job satisfaction

1.00
0.05
0.04
0.14
0.57
1.13
0.11
0.48
0.41
0.07
0.11

0.11
0.11
0.14
0.02
0.06
0.1
0.01
.24*
.34**
0.07
0.04

0.41
0.06
0.02
1.24
0.08
0.37
0.07
0.17
0.21
0.04
0.31

0.08
.26**
0.12
.24*
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.15
.30**
0.07
.21**

.35**

.31**

.96
.01
.03
.86
.77
.87
1.09
.47
.37
.16
.17

Org commitment

.10
.03
.08
.09
.08
.08
.10
.22*
.29**
.16*
.06

.43
.01
.01
.00
.11
.89
.16
.52
.44
.16
.07

.05
.02
.02
.00
.01
.09
.02
.28**
.40**
.18*
.03

.42**

.54**

Note. See Table 1 for a description of the variables and how they were coded. B stands for the unstandardized regression coefcient, for the standardized
regression coefcient, Educ for educational, Supervisor for supervisory status, Admin for administrative, Super for supervisory, Cowrk for coworker, Family
for family and friends, and Org for organizational. The data for this table is from a survey of 160 staff members at private Midwestern prison for juvenile
offenders tried as adults.
*
p .05.
**
p .01.

Age, position, educational level, supervisory status,

administrative support, supervisory support, and coworker
support have signicant correlations with job satisfaction.
Older workers tend to report higher job satisfaction than
younger workers. Correctional ofcers tend to report lower
levels of job satisfaction compared to non-custody staff.
More highly educated and supervisory staff report higher
levels of job satisfaction compared to their less educated
and non-supervisory coworkers. Administrative support,
supervisory support, and coworker support have positive
correlations with job satisfaction, meaning an increase in
each type of social support is linked with a rise in job satisfaction. All the other variables, including family and friends
support, have non-signicant correlations with job satisfaction.
Age, position, supervisory status, administrative support, supervisory support, coworker support, and family
and friends support have positive correlations with
commitment. Correctional ofcers, in general, report
lower commitment than their non-custody counterparts.
Supervisors on average have higher levels of affective commitment than non-supervisory staff. Increases in age and
the four forms of support are associated with greater levels
of commitment to the organization.
Along with the personal characteristics, the social support variables were entered as independent variables into
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression equations with job
stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment as the dependent variables. The results for
the four OLS regression equations are presented in Table 3.
While not reported, the tolerance and variance ination
factor statistics indicate no problem of multicollinearity
among the independent variables. High multicollinearity
occurs when an independent variable shares a very large
part of its variance with the other independent variables in
the regression equation, and this impedes the estimation
of the effects of the affected independent variables on the
dependent variable (Berry, 1993).

For the job stress equation, the R-Squared statistic is

.35, which means that the independent variables explained
about 35% of the variance observed in the job stress variable. Administrative support and supervisory support have
signicant relationships with job stress, and direction of
the relationship is negative for both. In other words, an
increase in either form of support is associated with lower
reported stress from the job. The regression coefcients
in the columns in Table 3 estimates the magnitude of
the effect of an independent variable on the dependent
variable. For the job stress equation, supervisory support has the greatest effect, followed by administrative
support.
About 31% of the variance in the job involvement
variable is accounted for by the independent variables.
Age, position, supervisory support, and family and friends
support each have signicant relationships with job
involvement. Correctional ofcers generally report lower
job involvement. Increases in age and support from family and friends are linked to lower reported involvement
in the job, while greater supervisory support is linked
to higher involvement. Among the signicant variables,
supervisory support has the largest sized effect, followed
closely by age, position, and family and friends support.
Approximately 42% of the variance in the job satisfaction index is accounted for in the OLS regression
equation. Administrative support, supervisory support, and
coworker support have signicant associations with the
dependent variable, and the direction of the relationship for each is positive. Among the signicant variables,
supervisory support has the largest effect, followed by
administrative support and then coworker support.
Approximately 54% of the observed variance in the organizational commitment variable is accounted for in the
multivariate equation. Administrative support, supervisory
support, and coworker support have a signicant positive relationship with commitment to the organization.

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model
SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Similar to the job satisfaction results, supervisory support

has the largest sized effect, followed by administrative support, and then coworker support.
4. Discussion and conclusion
As suggested by limited past research (Keinan &
Maslach-Pines, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2009; Whitehead
& Lindquist, 1986), data from this study indicate that
perceived social support is an important antecedent of
such favorable outcomes among correctional staff; however, the extent to which different types of social support
are related to the outcomes of job stress, job involvement,
job satisfaction, and organizational commitmentvariables
known to be integral to agency operations and effectiveness in correctionswas unknown until this study (Lambert
et al., 2005a, 2008; Pfeffer, 1994; Wright, 1993). Correctional administrators seeking to improve these outcomes
among staff can exercise more direct control over some
forms of support, such as administrative and supervisory,
than other forms, such as coworkers and family/friends.
The existing literature is unclear about how administrative, coworker, and family/friends support relates to job
outcomes; most past research has concentrated on supervisory support. Finally, previous research on social support
has been fragmentary, in that no single study has examined
the construct in relationship to job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. In
short, knowledge is very limited about which types of social
support inuence which job outcomes among correctional
staff.
Findings from the present study shed light on these
issues. First, social support is far more important in shaping the four job outcomes than the personal characteristics.
This is consistent with what research on correctional
staff has generally established about the importance of
work environment factors relative to personal factors with
regards to job attitudes and behaviors (Matz, Wells, Minor,
& Angel, 2013; Minor, Wells, Lambert, & Keller, 2014). Only
two of the personal variables studied here are signicantly
related to a single job outcome, job involvement. Older
employees and those in correctional ofcer positions displayed lower job involvement. A plausible interpretation
of the age effect is that older correctional staff may be
more likely than younger ones to have developed capacity to keep work in perspective relative to other priorities,
to have devised routines and strategies for getting work
done efciently, and also to have developed alternative
interests and avenues of psychological identication and
for deriving life satisfaction, such as activities of their children, hobbies, and so forth. By contrast, younger staff who
are newer to the world of full-time work may experience
their jobs, at least initially, as more engulng. They may
also be relatively more dependent than their older counterparts on their jobs for money due to having had less time
to establish savings, and some might see engrossment in
work as a pathway to loftier career ambitions. Compared
with other jobs in prison, correctional ofcer work is usually more regimented with clearly demarcated times for
starting and ending shifts; thus, correctional ofcers could
be more likely to see their work as an occupation instead

of a profession, and this could help account for the lower

job involvement among correctional ofcers found in this
study. These, of course, are an untested postulations.
Job involvements other two signicant correlates are
supervisory support and family support. Staff members
who feel their supervisor supports them are likely to identify more closely with their jobs and are less likely to feel
alienated than those who feel unsupported; these staff are
probably more likely to experience motivation to become
immersed in their work. Research indicates that a motivating work climate, which is something that a supportive
supervisor can inspire, promotes job involvement (Brown
& Leigh, 1996).
By contrast, the data from this study show an inverse
relationship between support from family/friends and job
involvement. People who experience less support from
their family and friends may gravitate more closely toward
identifying with their jobs. Additionally, Lambert (2008)
indicates that greater levels of job involvement are linked
to a greater probability of work-induced family conict
among correctional staff. That is, staff who feel overloaded
by the job role experience greater work-on-family conict
(Lambert, Minor, Wells, Lambert, & Hogan, 2015). Social
support from family and friends could function as a doubleedged sword with respect to job involvement. On the one
hand, such support could help the employee maintain a
proper perspective on work, causing the employee to balance work with other life domains and refrain from an
unhealthy obsession with his/her job. On the other hand,
relations with family and friends could lead the employee
to become overly distracted from work responsibilities by
outside interests and commitments (Hogan et al., 2013).
Further research is needed to improve understanding of
the relationship between family/friends support and job
involvement.
Consistent with past research (Brough & Williams,
2007; Cheek & Miller, 1983; Cullen et al., 1985; Grifn,
2006; Keinan & Maslach-Pines, 2007), correctional staff
in the present study who feel more supported by their
administration and supervisors report lower job stress than
those who perceive less support from these sources. As line
staff members bureaucratic superiors, administrators and
supervisors wield considerable power and inuence, and
feeling that these persons are unsupportive can make the
job more stressful for staff. A lack of support from administrators and supervisors is likely to make staff feel devalued
and vulnerable, to exacerbate workplace stressors, and to
deprive staff of a valuable resource for coping with stressors
(Ileffe & Steed, 2000; Lambert et al., 2010; Neveu, 2007).
Similarly, this studys ndings show that higher levels of social support from administrators, supervisors, and
coworkers were signicant antecedents of both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. These results are
consistent with exchange theory principles (Colquitt et al.,
2013) as well as with ndings from past studies (Lambert &
Hogan, 2009; Paoline et al., 2006). Feeling supported on the
job by bureaucratic superiors and peers can lead employees
to reciprocate by liking their jobs and developing loyalty
and solidarity with the organization. By contrast, perceiving these groups as non-supportive probably renders the
job unsatisfying and impairs bonding to the organization.

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model
SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

The ndings of the present study are consistent with the

conclusion that administrative, supervisory, and coworker
support operate in tandem, with supervisory support
exerting the strongest and most consistent effects across
the four outcomes studied, followed by administrative
support, which is related to all outcomes except job
involvement, and nally support of coworkers, which is
related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment
only. As an extra-organizational source of social support
(Lambert et al., 2010; Ray & Miller, 1994), family/friends
support is not signicantly related with the outcomes of
job stress, job satisfaction, or organizational commitment;
it is only related to job involvement. This pattern of ndings underscores the importance of differentiating forms of
social support and examining these forms simultaneously,
as not all types relate to the same job outcomes.
Moreover, it seems that intra-organizational sources
of support can be differentiated according to the position of the parties providing, or not providing, support
to a staff member. Such differentiation can be conceptualized as having vertical and lateral dimensions. On the
vertical dimension is support coming from those in the
organization positioned above the staff member, including supervisors and higher level administrators, as well
as those positioned below the staff member. The lateral
dimension involves support from peer workers. Because
parties positioned above a staff member can be a pressing
source of job demands, such as daily expectations, monitoring and evaluation of performance, and so forth, and
also a resource for coping with job strains, it makes sense
that low levels of perceived support from administrators
and supervisors might promote more job stress than a lack
of lateral support from coworkers. Similarly, support coming from immediately above an employee in the vertical
chain in terms of supervisory support would logically have
a greater likelihood of leading to high job involvement
than support coming from higher, further removed levels
in terms of administrative support, or support from lateral
levels in terms of coworker support. Also, the present ndings suggest that both the vertical and lateral dimensions
of intra-organizational support are important for fostering
a liking for the job and commitment to the organization
among correctional staff. Although the supervisor variable
is not signicantly related to the outcomes examined in this
study is indicated in Table 3, future research should attend
to how perceived support from subordinates is related to
these and other job outcomes.
The current study has limitations. This was a single
study of staff at a private prison. The vast majority of prisons in the U.S. are public facilities (Lambert & Hogan, 2009).
Results could differ among staff at a public prison. Moreover, the private prison held juveniles sentenced as adults,
which is a unique inmate population not found at many private or even public prisons. Dealing with juvenile offenders
is a different focus than dealing with adult offenders. Treatment was a major focus at this private prison as state law
requires educational services be provided to all inmates
under 18 years of age. The unique inmate population
and treatment efforts could have affected the associations
between the different forms of social support and the outcome areas of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment. Research at other prisons

and types of correctional facilities, such as jails, public prisons, adult facilities, and so forth, is needed to determine
whether the ndings can be replicated. With replication,
the effects of different forms of social support on prison
staff can be understood more fully. Additionally, it remains
to be determined if effects are contextual and situational,
varying across different types of correctional facilities. The
current study uses a cross-sectional design of collecting the
data at one point in time, which precludes demonstrating causal relationships. Longitudinal designs are needed
to demonstrate the casual process of the effects of different forms of social support on prison staff job stress,
job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Future researchers should consider using more
in-depth measures of job involvement, administrative support, and family support, which were measured in this
study with either 2 or 3 items. Future research should
examine the effects of other forms of social support, such as
subordinate support as mentioned above. Another type of
social support not examined here was community support
(Gerstein, Topp, & Correll, 1987).
Research is needed to determine the best ways to
build social support among staff. For example, future
studies could examine whether teamwork and integration help build social support, or whether social support
plays a role in other outcome areas, such as work performance or turnover/turnover intent. Additional studies
are needed to generate a more complete understanding of
the antecedents and effects of social support among prison
staff.
Two decades ago, Cullen (1994) urged that the concept
of social support be construed as an organizing concept
for the eld of criminology. He saw social support as a
theme common to various theories of criminal behavior
and viewed it as a means of helping unify the eld. Cullens
argument is that a lack of social support is criminogenic.
The present study builds on a limited body of past research
to demonstrate that social support in its various forms is
integral to understanding not only criminal action, but also
pertinent job outcomes among people working in prisons.
The ndings presented here suggest that low levels of support are also associated with undesirable outcomes among
correctional staff. There is a kind of vicious cycle here,
in that staff who feel unsupported and experience high
job stress, low job involvement, low job satisfaction, and
low organizational commitment seem unlikely to provide
much support to the offenders in their charge. In this manner, low support could beget low support, which, following
Cullens logic, might decrease the chances of successful
reentry of ex-offenders into the community.
The results of this study imply that correctional policymakers and leaders can promote better job outcomes
among their staff and improved effectiveness of their organizations by directly providing administrative and supervisory support to staff and also by making efforts to encourage peer coworkers to support one another. Such support
can be instrumental/goal oriented or expressive/affective
in nature, delivered by individuals or groups, and delivered
through either formal or informal channels (Cullen, 1994).
Likewise, the ndings of this study imply giving the

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model
SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

10

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

concept of social support due consideration in future

research on correctional staff attitudes and behaviors.
Researchers need to work toward determining whether
correctional work environments characterized by higher
levels of various kinds of social support also have better
staff outcomes and greater organizational effectiveness.
Research of this kind can guide efforts to make correctional
environments better places for staff and offenders alike.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the paper. The authors also thank the editor and
anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions,
which improved the paper.
References
Adams, G., King, L., & King, D. (1996). Relationships of job family involvement, family social support and work-family conict with job and life
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411420.
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63, 118.
Armstrong, G., & Grifn, M. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577592.
Auerbach, S., Quick, B., & Pegg, P. (2003). General job stress and job-specic
stress in juvenile correctional ofcers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31,
2536.
Bakker, A., & Demerouti Schaufeli, W. (2005). The crossover of burnout
and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 58,
661689.
Berry, W. (1993). Understanding regression assumptions. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Brayeld, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 35, 307311.
Brough, P., & Williams, J. (2007). Managing occupational stress in a highrisk industry: Measuring the job demands of correctional ofcers.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 555567.
Brown, S., & Leigh, T. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its
relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 358368.
Byrd, T., Cochran, J., Silverman, I., & Blount, W. (2000). Behind bars: An
assessment of the effects of job satisfaction, job-related stress, and
anxiety on jail employees inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime and
Justice, 23, 6989.
Camp, S. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and
job satisfaction on turnover: An event history approach. The Prison
Journal, 74, 279305.
Camp, S., & Lambert, E. (2005). The inuence of organizational incentives
on absenteeism: Sick leave use among correctional workers. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 17, 144172.
Cheek, F. (1984). Stress management for correctional ofcers and their families. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.
Cheek, F., & Miller, M. (1983). The experience of stress for correctional
ofcers: A double-bind theory of correctional stress. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 11, 105120.
Chen, C-C., & Chiu, S-F. (2009). The mediating role of job involvement in
the relationship between job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 474494.
Cherniss, C. (1980). Staff burnout: Job stress in the human services. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Cohen, S., Underwood, L., & Gottlieb, B. (2000). Social support measurement
and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Colquitt, J., Scott, B., Rodell, J., Long, D., Zapata, C., Conlon, D., et al. (2013).
Justice at a millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social
exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology,
98(2), 9819998236.
Cordes, C., & Dougherty, T. (1993). A review and integration of research
on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621656.

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, 152171.
Cullen, F. (1994). Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.
Justice Quarterly, 11, 527559.
Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of
correctional ofcer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 505533.
Culliver, C., Sigler, R., & McNeely, B. (1991). Examining prosocial organizational behavior among correctional ofcers. International Journal of
Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15, 277284.
DeCarufel, A., & Schaan, J-L. (1990). The impact of compressed work weeks
on police job involvement. Canadian Police College, 14, 8197.
Dollard, M., & Wineeld, A. (1998). A test of the demand-control/support
model of work stress in correctional ofcers. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3, 243264.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507.
Elloy, D., Everett, J., & Flynn, W. (1992). An examination of the correlates
of job involvement. Group and Organizational Studies, 16, 160177.
Fox, J. (1982). Organizational and racial conict in maximum-security prisons. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Garland, B., Hogan, N., Kelley, T., Kim, B., & Lambert, E. (2013). To be or
not to be committed: The effects of continuance and affective commitment on absenteeism and turnover intent among private prison
personnel. Journal of Applied Security Research, 8, 123.
Garland, B., & McCarty, W. (2006). Explaining perceptions of administrative support among prison treatment staff: A spotlight on deputy
wardens in charge of treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44,
81115.
Gerstein, L., Topp, C., & Correll, G. (1987). The role of the environment
and person when predicting burnout among correctional personnel.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 352369.
Grifn, M. (2006). Gender and stress: A comparative assessment of sources
of stress among correctional ofcers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 22, 425.
Gronlund, N. (1981). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York,
NY: MacMillian.
Grossi, E., Keil, T., & Vito, G. (1996). Surviving the joint: Mitigating factors
of correctional ofcer stress. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 103120.
Harvey, J. (2014). Perceived physical health, psychological distress, and
social support among prison ofcers. The Prison Journal, 94, 242259.
Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012). The price of prisons: What incarceration
costs taxpayers. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
Hogan, N., Lambert, E., & Grifn, M. (2013). Loyalty, love, and investments:
The impact of job outcomes on the organizational commitment of
correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 355375.
Ileffe, G., & Steed, L. (2000). Exploring the counselors experience of working with perpetrators and survivors of domestic violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 15, 393412.
Kanungo, R. (1982a). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67, 341349.
Kanungo, R. (1982b). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York,
NY: Praeger.
Keinan, G., & Maslach-Pines, A. (2007). Stress and burnout among prison
personnel: Sources, outcomes, and intervention strategies. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 34, 380398.
Kurtz, D. (2008). Controlled burn: The gendering of stress and burnout in
modern policing. Feminist Criminology, 3, 216238.
Kwok, S., Cheng, L., & Wong, D. (2014). Family emotional support,
positive psychological capital, and job satisfaction among Chinese
white-collar workers. Journal of Happiness Studies,. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10902-014-9522-7
Lambert, E. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff.
Prison Journal, 84, 208227.
Lambert, E. (2008). The effect of job involvement on correctional staff.
Professional Issues in Criminal Justice, 3, 119.
Lambert, E., Altheimer, I., & Hogan, N. (2010). Exploring the relationship
between social support and job burnout among correctional staff: An
exploratory study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 12171236.
Lambert, E., Kim, B., Kelley, T., & Hogan, N. (2013). The association of
affective and continuance commitment with correctional staff life
satisfaction. Social Science Journal, 50, 195203.
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, 165175.
Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009). Creating a positive workplace experience:
The issue of support from supervisors and management in shaping the

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001

G Model
SOCSCI-1290; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Lambert et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2015) xxxxxx

job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of private

correctional staff. Journal of Applied Security Research, 4, 462482.
Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2010). Wanting change: The relationship
of perceptions of innovation with correctional staff job stress, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 21, 160184.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Elechi, O., Jiang, S., Laux, J., Dupuy, P., et al. (2009).
A further examination of antecedents of correctional staff life satisfaction. Social Science Journal, 46, 689706.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Grifn, M. (2008). Being the good soldier: Organizational citizenship behavior and commitment among correctional
staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 5668.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Paoline, E., & Baker, D. (2005). The good life: The
impact of job satisfaction and occupational stressors on correctional
staff life satisfactionAn exploratory study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 126.
Lambert, E., Minor, K., Wells, J., Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2015). Leave your
job at work: The possible antecedents of work-family conict among
correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 95, 114134.
Lambert, E., & Paoline, E. (2010). Take this job and shove it: Turnover intent
among jail staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 139148.
Lee, R., & Ashford, B. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates
of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 123133.
Liaw, Y., Chi, N., & Chuang, A. (2010). Examining the mechanisms
linking transformational leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance: The mediating roles of perceived
supervisor and coworker support. Journal of Business Psychology, 25,
477492.
Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
12971349). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Matteson, M., & Ivancevich, J. (1987). Controlling work stress: Effective
human resource and management strategies. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Matz, A. K., Wells, J. B., Minor, K. I., & Angel, E. (2013). Predictors of turnover
intention among staff in juvenile correctional facilities: The relevance
of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 11, 115131.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1,
6189.
Minor, K., Wells, J., Lambert, E., & Keller, P. (2014). Increasing morale:
Personal and work environment antecedents of job morale among
staff in juvenile corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41,
13081326.

11

Misis, M., Kim, B., Cheeseman, K., Hogan, N., & Lambert, E. (2013). The
impact of correctional ofcer perceptions of inmates on job stress.
Sage Open, 3, 113.
Mitchell, O., MacKenzie, D., Styve, G., & Gover, A. (2000). The impact of
individual, organizational, and voluntary turnover among juvenile
correctional staff members. Justice Quarterly, 17, 333357.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization linkages:
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Neveu, J. (2007). Jailed resources: Conservation of resources theory as
applied to burnout among prison guards. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28, 2142.
Paoline, E., Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2006). A calm and happy keeper of the
keys: The impact of ACA views, relations with coworkers, and policy
views on the job stress and job satisfaction of jail staff. The Prison
Journal, 86, 182205.
Paullay, I., Alliger, G., & Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validation
of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work
centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224228.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston, MA: Harvard Business.
Ray, E., & Miller, K. (1994). Social support, home/work stress, and burnout:
Who can help? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 357373.
Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1992). Staff commitment in the
Correctional Service of Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Canada Correctional
Service.
Slate, R., & Vogel, R. (1997). Participative management and correctional
personnel: A study of the perceived atmosphere for participation in
correctional decision making and its impact on employee stress and
thoughts of quitting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 397408.
Spector, P. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and
practice. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F., Link, B., & Wolfe, N. (1991). The impact of race
and gender on correctional ofcers orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 472500.
Weiss, H. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs, and affective experiences. Human Resource Management
Review, 12, 173194.
Whitehead, J. (1989). Burnout in probation and corrections. New York, NY:
Praeger.
Whitehead, J., & Lindquist, C. (1986). Correctional ofcer job burnout: A
path model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 2342.
Woodruff, L. (1993). Occupational stress for correctional personnel. American Jails, 7, 1520.
Wright, T. (1993). Correctional employee turnover: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 131142.

Please cite this article in press as: Lambert, E. G., et al. Social supports relationship to correctional staff
job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001