Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644 – 656

The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff

job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
Eric G. Lambert a,⁎, Nancy L. Hogan b , Marie L. Griffin c
a
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Toledo, Mail Stop 119, HH 3000, Toledo, OH 43606, United States
b
School of Criminal Justice, Ferris State University, 525 Bishop Hall, Big Rapids, MI 49307, United States
c
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 4701 West Thunderbird Road, Phoenix, AZ 85287-0403, United States

Abstract

Correctional staff are the heart and soul of any correctional facility. While there was a significant body of research on the impact
of the work environment on correctional staff, this study sought to expand that knowledge by examining the effects of distributive
and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Multivariate models were
estimated. Both forms of organizational justice had negative effects on job stress and organizational commitment; however, only
procedural justice, but not distributive justice, had a significant impact on job satisfaction.
© 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Officers “are charged with the central task of supervising

Correctional facilities are part of a multifaceted
industry that significantly influences society today. Over
thirty billion dollars are spent annually on correctional
organizations that employ over four hundred thousand
correctional staff (Pastore & Maguire, 2006). Camp and
Gaes (2002) estimated that about 70 to 80 percent of the
correctional budget was for staff-related expenditures.
Correctional officers currently are responsible for the
supervision and safety of more than 1.5 million adult
inmates (Pastore & Maguire, 2006), and clearly staff are
the lifeblood of correctional organizations. As a result, a
significant body of research examined how the work
environment impacts correctional workers.
The role of correctional officer is tough, demanding,
and highly stressful (Auerbach, Quick, & Pegg, 2003).
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 419 530 2231 (office); fax: +1 419
530 2153.
E-mail address: Eric.Lambert@Utoledo.edu (E.G. Lambert).
0047-2352/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.09.001
and securing unwilling and potentially violent popula-
tions” (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004, p. 577). Most of the
empirical research had focused on identifying and
understanding the antecedents of the three major job
attitudes of correctional employees: job stress, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Correc-
tional research had focused on these three job attitudes
because they have critical outcomes for most correc-
tional agencies. Studies on job stress found high levels of
stress linked to serious negative outcomes, such as death,
health problems, illness, mental health problems, social
problems, and decreased job performance (Cheek &
Miller, 1983; Woodruff, 1993). Cheek and Miller (1983)
reported that correctional officers have a higher than
expected likelihood of hypertension, heart attacks, and
other stress-related illnesses, and Woodruff (1993)
reported correctional officers die far sooner than average,
and that stress was the leading reason for this shortened
life expectancy. In the correctional literature, higher
levels of job satisfaction were linked to positive work
 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
outcomes, such as greater support for rehabilitation,
satisfaction with life, and compliance with organization-
al rules and goals (Fox, 1982; Kerce, Magnusson, &
Rudolph, 1994; Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Baker,
2005). Moreover, low levels of job satisfaction were
linked to negative work behaviors and intentions among
correctional staff, such as burnout, absenteeism, turnover
intent, and turnover (Byrd, Cochran, Silverman, &
Blount, 2000; Dennis, 1998; Jurik & Winn, 1987;
Lambert, Edwards, Camp, & Saylor, 2005; Whitehead &
Lindquist, 1986; T. Wright, 1993). Likewise, high levels
of organizational commitment among correctional work-
ers were linked to positive organizational outcomes, such
as pro-social organizational behaviors and higher levels
of job performance (Culliver, Sigler, & McNeely, 1991),
and low levels of commitment have been associated with
correctional staff absenteeism, turnover intent, and
actual turnover (Camp, 1994; Lambert, 2001; Stohr,
Self, & Lovrich, 1992).
Correctional organizations rely so heavily on
employees, thus, negative staff work behaviors are not
only problematic, but potentially devastating for these
facilities. Therefore, it is critical to explore, confirm, and
understand the salient antecedents of correctional staff
job attitudes. While there exists a considerable body of
research on the impact of the work environment on
correctional staff, not all areas have been fully studied.
One area that has received little, if any, attention is the
impact of organizational justice on correctional staff job
stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
Relatively unstressed, satisfied, and committed correc-
tional staff are the foundation of any successful
correctional facility. The knowledge of, and ability to
understand the antecedents of correctional employee
attitudes and behaviors is critical for all parties involved,
including correctional administrators, correctional
employees, academicians, and other criminal justice
practitioners. Therefore, this study examined the impact
of distributive and procedural justice, two forms of
organizational justice, on correctional staff at a mid-
western private prison.
Literature review
Organizational justice
The concept of fairness is an integral part of society.
It is found throughout most aspects of life and is a
common theme in movies, television shows, books,
magazine articles, and other forms of mass media.
Arguably, there is a generally held belief in this culture
that decisions and outcomes should be associated with
645
personal merit, or acquired characteristics, rather than
personal relationships or ascribed characteristics, and
equal opportunity laws and guidelines have been
developed as a result (Farmer, Beehr, & Love, 2003).
The concepts of justice and fairness also are found in
organizational settings and often are referred to as
organizational justice. The two major dimensions of
organizational justice are distributive and procedural
justice. Distributive justice is concerned with the
fairness of outcomes (Greenberg, 1987a, 1990a). People
weigh their situation and then make a decision whether
or not the outcome is fair based upon the particular
situation. “In a sense, distributive justice is based upon
the exchange principle. People look at what they have
done in exchange for what they receive” (Lambert,
2003, p. 157). People are aware of not only outcomes,
but also the process. Procedural justice focuses on the
methods or processes by which outcome decisions are
made (Farmer et al., 2003; Greenberg, 1990a). The
means of reaching an outcome are often just as
important as the outcome itself in terms of impacting
employees (Greenberg, 1987b). According to Leventhal
(1980), the process or method used for making ethical
outcome decisions must be consistent, based on accurate
information, and without personal bias. Not only do
people care about what is done, but they also care about
how it is done (Jones, 1998).
A growing body of literature explores the use of
distributive and procedural justice by criminal justice
agencies and the effect of such processes on individuals
within the community. According to Johnson (2004,
p. 496), “people care as much (or more) about the
fairness of government processes as they do about the
outcomes of those processes. As a result, citizens are
equally concerned with how they are treated by the
criminal justice system as they are with the outcomes of
the criminal justice process.” Simply put, outcomes and
the process of arriving at said outcomes help shape the
public's view of the legitimacy of criminal justice
agencies (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2001). Both
distributive and procedural justice have been used to
explain why people obey the law, the reactions of
offenders, the public's perceptions of the police, and
people's responses to judicial decisions (Rice & Piquero,
2005; Tyler, 1990, 2004; Tyler & Folger, 1980; Tyler &
Huo, 2002). Research indicates that perceived fairness
generally results in more positive perceptions of the
criminal justice system and more positive interactions
with criminal justice agents. In general, people tend to
react more favorably to events they perceive as being fair
(Wagner & Moriarty, 2002). For example, in a survey of
people in several communities, Tyler (1990) found that
646 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
police who felt that the criminal justice system treated
people with fairness were more likely to follow the law,
and Wagner and Moriarity (2002) found increased
support for drug testing of workers in those organizations
whose drug testing policy was perceived as fair.
Within the work context, studies have examined the
way in which perceptions of distributive and procedural
justice impact the individuals working within an
organization. Almost all employees desire fairness and
justice in the work place (Greenberg & Folger, 1983).
Greenberg (1990a) suggested that perceptions of
organizational justice are “a basic requirement for the
effective functioning of organizations and the personal
satisfaction of the individuals they employ” (p. 399). For
employees, distributive justice is the degree of perceived
fairness in distribution and allocation of outcomes
within an organization based upon inputs. Employees
evaluate the fairness of the rewards from the organiza-
tion in terms of their own relative input into the
organization (Price & Mueller, 1986). With distributive
justice, a worker weighs his/her input into the
organization against the outcome received and then
decides the fairness of that outcome (Farmer et al.,
2003). For example, employees may ask if their pay is
fair considering the amount of work they do for the
organization compared to other workers. Perceptions of
unfair outcomes can lead to frustration, anger, and even
resentment by an employee, which in turn can influence
job attitudes (Farmer et al., 2003; Gilliland, 1993).
For most employees, procedural justice reflects the
perceived fairness of the process by which distributive
outcomes are determined; such processes include the
manner by which pay, rewards, evaluations, and/or
promotions are decided within an organization (Green-
berg, 1987b; Martin & Bennett, 1996; Thibaut &
Walker, 1975). For example, employees may ask if the
procedures for promotions in the organization are fair,
regardless of who was promoted. Landy, Barnes-Farrell,
and Cleveland (1980) found that the perceived fairness
of the procedures for employee evaluation were very
important among employees, regardless of whether their
performance appraisals were negative or positive. Thus,
“distributive justice is concerned with the ‘ends’, while
procedural justice is concerned with the ‘means’”
(Lambert, 2003, p. 157).
While it appears that organizational justice is a
salient factor in shaping correctional staff job attitudes,
there has been very little research on the impact of
organizational justice on correctional staff. Only three
published studies were located which examined the
impact of distributive and/or procedural justice on
correctional staff. In a study of Arizona correctional
officers, it was found that distributive justice had no
significant effect on organizational commitment (Grif-
fin & Hepburn, 2005). Griffin and Hepburn (2005)
suggested that this finding was consistent with studies
from other organizations that found distributive justice
less important than procedural justice for understand-
ing reactions to the organizational system (Greenberg,
1990b; Lease, 1998; Martin & Bennett, 1996;
Welbourne, 1998). Lambert (2003) looked at the
impact of both distributive and procedural justice on
the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of
staff at a midwestern state prison. He found both
distributive and procedural justice to have significant
positive effects on job satisfaction and that procedural
justice, but not distributive justice, had a significant
positive impact on organizational commitment. In their
study of the impact of organizational structural
variables on job stress, Lambert, Hogan, and Allen
(2006) observed that procedural justice, but not
distributive justice, had a significant negative effect
on correctional staff job stress. Clearly, this limited
research suggests the need to examine further the im-
pact of distributive and procedural justice on the job
stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
among correctional employees.
Job stress
In the correctional literature, job stress generally has
been defined as the person's response to strain resulting
from a particular work environment (Armstrong &
Griffin, 2004; Dowden & Tellier, 2004). In their study
comparing levels of job stress between treatment and
custody personnel, Armstrong and Griffin (2004, p. 586)
concluded that “working in the correctional environment
was a stressful undertaking regardless of the position in
which one was employed.” Many work environment
factors have been linked to correctional staff job stress.
Dangerousness of the job, role conflict, role ambiguity,
and role overload all have been linked to increased stress
among correctional workers (Armstrong & Griffin,
2004; Auerbach et al., 2003; Cullen, Link, Wolfe, &
Frank, 1985; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Griffin, 2006a;
Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Clarke, 20051; Lambert &
Paoline, 2005; Shamir & Drory, 1982; Triplett, Mullings,
& Scarborough, 1996). Instrumental communication,
organizational support, intrinsic rewards (i.e., personal
growth opportunities), training, perceptions of equitable
treatment, co-worker support, organizational support for
employees, trust in supervisors, supervisor support, and
quality of supervision were linked inversely to job stress
(Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Cullen et al., 1985; Griffin,
 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
2006a; Griffin, Armstrong, & Hepburn, 2005; Lambert
& Paoline, 2005; Lambert, Hogan, et al., 2006; Van
Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). Lack of job
autonomy and input into decision-making generally led
to increased job stress for many correctional employees
(Lambert, Hogan, et al., 2006; Slate & Vogel, 1997;
Stohr, Lovrich, & Wilson, 1994; K. Wright, Saylor,
Gilman, & Camp, 1997). Work on family conflict was
associated with higher levels of job stress among
correctional employees (Griffin, 2006a; Triplett, Mul-
lings, & Scarborough, 1999). As previously indicated,
procedural justice, but not distributive justice, negatively
influenced job stress (Lambert, Hogan, et al., 2006).
While the impact of many dimensions of the work
environment on job stress have been studied and
identified, there remains the need for continued exam-
ination of the impact of perceptions of distributive and
procedural justice within the correctional organization.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction refers to an employee's affective or
emotional response to his or her particular job (Cranny,
Smith, & Stone, 1992). In essence, it is “the extent to
which people like their jobs” (Spector, 1996, p. 214).
Like job stress, many work environment factors were
linked to correctional staff job satisfaction. Role
conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, dangerousness,
and concerns over medical issues were associated with
lower levels of job satisfaction (Lambert, Hogan,
Paoline, & Clarke, 2005; Lambert & Paoline, 2005;
Lambert, Reynolds, Paoline, & Watkins, 2004). Input
into decision-making, job autonomy, integration, job
variety, satisfaction with pay, availability of incentive
program, training, perceptions of equitable treatment,
and quality of supervision, training, and formalization
were shown to lead to higher levels of job satisfaction
(Dennis, 1998; Griffin, 2001; Griffin et al., 2005;
Hepburn, 1987; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Lambert,
2004; Lambert, Barton, Hogan, & Clarke, 2002;
Lambert & Paoline, 2005; Lambert, Paoline, &
Hogan, 2006; Lambert et al., 2004; Stohr, Lovrich,
Monke, & Zupan, 1994; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986;
K. Wright et al., 1997). Work on family conflict was
linked to decreased levels of job satisfaction (Lambert,
Hogan, & Barton, 2003). Job stress has been found to be
inversely linked to correctional staff job satisfaction
(Grossi, Keil, & Vito, 1996; Lambert, 2004; Van
Voorhis et al., 1991). Finally, both distributive and
procedural justice were observed to have positive effects
on job satisfaction among correctional workers at a
midwestern prison (Lambert, 2003). A considerable
647
amount of research examined job satisfaction among
correctional officers, yet few studies had considered the
impact of organizational justice on this critical work
outcome variable.
Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment refers to an employee's
loyalty to the organization, identification with the
organization (i.e., pride in the organization and
internalization of organizational goals), and involve-
ment in the organization (i.e., personal effort made for
the sake of the organization) (Mowday, Porter, & Steers,
1982). “Organizational commitment is a bond to the
whole organization and not to the job, work group, or
belief in the importance of work itself” (Lambert,
Barton, & Hogan, 1999, p. 100). The importance of
organizational commitment lies in the complex rela-
tionship between the organization and the individual and
the extent to which commitment to an organization
promotes other positive work behaviors (e.g., citizen-
ship behaviors, in-role job performance) (see Meyer &
Allen, 1997). Griffin and Hepburn (2005, p. 612) argued
that “understanding and promoting commitment to the
organization is essential to the efficiency and effective-
ness of the organization.” With this in mind, it remains
surprising that so few studies have explored the
development and maintenance of organizational com-
mitment among correctional officers. Of the extant
literature, researchers have found that role conflict, role
ambiguity, and work on family conflict generally led to
decreased commitment (Griffin, 2006b; Hogan, Lam-
bert, Jenkins, & Wambold, 2006; Lambert, Hogan,
Paoline, & Clarke, 2005). Input into decision-making,
job autonomy, integration, instrumental communication,
formalization, perceptions of equitable treatment, trust
in management, quality of supervision, and organiza-
tional support were found to have a positive influence
on organizational commitment (Griffin et al., 2005;
Griffin & Hepburn, 2005; Kane, Saylor, & Nacci, n.d.;
Lambert, 2004; Lambert, Hogan, et al., 2006; Stohr
et al., 1994; K. Wright et al., 1997). Job satisfaction has
been found to be positively associated with correctional
staff organizational commitment (Kane et al., n.d.;
Lambert, 2004; Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd,
1997). In addition, procedural justice had a significant
and positive relationship effect on organizational
commitment (Lambert, 2003). Given the few studies
that assessed directly the influence of organizational
justice on correctional staff commitment to the organi-
zation, there remains a clear need to continue to explore
this relationship.
648 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
Research questions
This study sought to replicate and expand on prior
research regarding the influence of organizational justice
on several critical work outcomes in the correctional
environment. This study advanced the extant research on
correctional officer perceptions of organizational justice
in several ways. First, many previous studies failed to
incorporate measures of both components of organiza-
tional justice (e.g., Griffin & Hepburn, 2005), this study
utilized measures of both distributive and procedural
justice. In addition, this study made use of more
comprehensive measures of procedural and distributive
justice than found in prior studies (e.g., Lambert, 2003).
Moreover, this study incorporated salient work environ-
ment variables (e.g., role overload, dangerousness, and
work on family conflict) in addition to critical individual
level variables (e.g., gender, position, educational level,
race, supervisory status, age, and tenure) to control for
their effects and thus better assess the impact of
distributive and procedural justice on the job stress, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment of correc-
tional workers. Additionally, job stress was included as
an independent variable in the job satisfaction model
because past research indicated that it was a salient
predictor. Likewise, both job stress and job satisfaction
were included as independent variables in the organiza-
tional commitment model because they have been found
to have significant relationships with commitment in
past studies.
It was hypothesized that both distributive and
procedural justice would have an inverse relationship
with correctional staff job stress, even after controlling for
personal characteristics and known antecedents. Prior
research has suggested that perceptions of unfair out-
comes and procedures led to resentment and frustration by
workers, which in turn influenced stress levels (Lowe &
Vodanovich, 1995). Additionally, it was predicted both
forms of organizational justice would lead to increased
levels of job satisfaction among correctional staff. Job
satisfaction is an affective response to the job and reflects
whether a person's needs are met by a particular job
(Cranny et al., 1992). It is doubtful that employees' needs
are met if they feel they are being unfairly treated, and it
becomes more difficult for the person to feel that his or her
job is satisfying. Lastly, both distributive justice and
procedural justice were hypothesized to have a positive
effect on correctional staff organizational commitment.
Every organization requires a level of legitimacy for the
employees to maintain a level of commitment (Lincoln &
Kalleberg, 1990). Organizational justice is critical to the
building and maintenance of trust and legitimacy among
employees. People who perceive the organization as fair
will be more likely to bond with the organization than
those workers who feel the organization is unfair in its
worker outcomes and procedures (Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Methods
Respondents
In late 2002, all staff at a midwestern maximum
security private correctional facility housing approxi-
mately 450 adjudicated young adult inmates whose ages
ranged from fourteen to nineteen years of age were
provided a survey. A cover letter and the front page of
the survey explained that participation was voluntary
and the results would be anonymous. Two hundred
surveys were distributed, and 160 usable surveys were
returned (a response rate of 73 percent). To encourage
employees to participate, several cash awards ranging
from $50 to $150 were randomly chosen from those
who turned in completed surveys.
The respondents represented all areas of the correc-
tional facility except upper management and adminis-
tration, and included correctional officers, case
managers, medical staff, industry staff, and food service
workers. In terms of position, approximately 62 percent
were correctional officers, 3 percent were unit manage-
ment staff (i.e., counselors, case managers, and unit
managers), 4 percent worked in education, 3 percent
worked in the medical department, 6 percent worked in
the business office, 9 percent were custody supervisors,
and 13 percent worked in other areas. Twenty-one
percent of the respondents supervised other staff at the
prison. Forty-one percent of the respondents were female
and 59 percent were male. Age ranged from nineteen to
sixty-eight years, with a median age of thirty-three years,
and a mean age of 37.77 years. Tenure at the facility
ranged from less than a month to fifty-three months, and
the median tenure was seventeen months. The prison had
been opened for less than five years at the time of survey,
which probably contributed to the short tenure reported.
Regarding education level, 6 percent had a high school
degree or GED, 47 percent had some college but no
degree, 24 percent had an associate's degree, 16 percent
had a bachelor's degree, and 7 percent had a graduate or
professional degree. With regard to race/ethnicity,
approximately 79 percent of the respondents were
White, 11 percent were Black, 2 percent were Hispanic,
3 percent were Native American, and 4 percent were
other. Overall, the respondents were demographically
representative of the staff at the private prison. At the
time of the survey, the demographic composition of the
 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656 649

staff was 61 percent male and 39 percent female, 81
percent White, 9 percent Black, 4 percent Hispanic, 3
percent Native American, and 3 percent other. Records
indicated that the median age range was thirty-three. See
Table 1 for the coding, mean value, and standard
deviation of each variable, as well as scale information.
Dependent variables
The items for the dependent independent index
variables were measured using a five-point Likert res-
ponse scale of strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), uncer-
tain (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5).
The three dependent variables were job stress, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Job stress
was measured using five summed items (see Appendix A
for the specific items that were summed together to
measure indexed variables) and was adapted from Crank,
Regoli, Hewitt, and Culbertson (1995); this scale had a
Cronbach's alpha of .82. A measure of perceived job
stress was utilized rather than a physiological measure
(i.e., blood pressure, heart rate, etc.). The items tapped
into a person's feelings of job-related tension and anxiety,
and perceived measures of job stress that are frequently
used in correctional staff studies (Cullen et al., 1985; Van
Voorhis et al., 1991).
Job satisfaction was measured using five items from
Brayfield and Rothe (1951) (alpha = .92). A global, rather
than facet, measure of job satisfaction was used in this
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for variables used in study
Measure Description
Gender 0 = female, 1 = male
Position 0 = custody, 1 = non-custody
Education 0 = no college degree, 1 = college degree
Race 0 = non-White, 1 = White
Supervisory status Supervisor other staff no = 0, 1 = yes
study (Cranny et al., 1992). Faceted measures of job
satisfaction focus on dimensions of the job, such as pay,
co-workers, etc. (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), and
these facet items are summed together to form an overall
measure of job satisfaction. Global measures of job
satisfaction focus on the broader domain of an individual's
satisfaction with his or her overall job, rather than with
specific facets (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951; Cranny et al.,
1992). The person is asked his/her overall satisfaction with
his/her job. Thus, a global measure allows “respondents to
assess mentally what they feel are relevant dimensions in
formulating a response to the issue of job satisfaction”
(Camp, 1994, p. 286). A global measure was selected
since it measured a broader domain of a person's
satisfaction with his or her overall job, rather than specific
facets.
Finally, organizational commitment was measured
using six items from Mowday et al. (1982) (alpha = .88).
The two major forms of measurement of organizational
commitment are affective and continuance. Affective
commitment is a psychological/emotional bond with the
organization. According to Griffin and Hepburn (2005,
p. 612), “affective commitment stems from an emotional
attachment to the organization and is especially sensitive
to work experiences.” Conversely, continuance com-
mitment is concerned with the degree of investments
(e.g., a pension) an employee has with the organization
(Becker, 1960). The level and nature of investments
influence an employee's level of commitment (Griffin &
Breakdown of categories
41% were women and 59% were men
62% worked in custody and 38% worked non-custody
position
53% did not have a college degree and 47% had some type of
college degree
21% were non-White and 79% were White
79% were not supervisors and 21% were supervisors of other
staff

Min Max Median Mean St. Dev.

Age Continuous years 19 68 33 35.77 10.82
Tenure Months at the prison .5 53 17 20.64 13.84
Role overload Three-item index, α = .77 3 15 8 8.44 2.67
Dangerousness Five-item index, α = .78 6 25 16 16.01 4.32
Work-family conflict Eight-item index, α = .86 10 39 21 22.28 6.71
Procedural justice Seven-item index, α = .87 7 33 20 20.26 6.13
Distributive justice Five-item index, α = .95 5 25 15 13.42 5.21
Job stress Five-item index, α = .82 6 25 14 14.29 4.51
Job satisfaction Five-item index, α = .92 5 25 19 18.34 4.67
Organizational commitment Six-item index, α = .88 10 26 19 18.14 4.00
Note: Min = minimum value, max = maximum value, and St. Dev. = standard deviation.
α = Cronbach's alpha.
650 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
Hepburn, 2005). Affective commitment, the most
commonly measured form of organizational commit-
ment, has been shown to be a valid measure (Mathieu &
Zajac, 1990) and was used in this study.
Independent variables
The two independent variables were distributive and
procedural justice. Distributive justice was measured
using five items from Price and Mueller (1986), and the
summed index had an alpha of .95. Rather than focus on
particular areas, such as pay or evaluations, the items
measured a wide array of areas in terms of the person's
perceptions of being rewarded by the organization.
Seven items either from prior studies (Saylor &
Wright, 1992; Tang & Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996) or
created for this survey were used to form the index for
procedural justice (alpha = .87). Rather than focusing
on one particular area, the seven items measured a wide
array of areas concerned with employees' perceptions of
fairness of processes in the organization.
Measures for role overload, dangerousness, and work
on family conflict were included in the analysis to control
for the impact of other work environment factors on
correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organiza-
tional commitment. All have been found to be important
antecedents of correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction,
and/or organizational commitment. Role overload was
formed using three items taken from Ivancevich and
Matteson (1980) and Triplett et al. (1996); the summed
index had an alpha of .77. Perceived dangerousness of the
job was measured using five items from Cullen, Link,
Cullen, and Wolfe (1989), and the summed index had a
Cronbach's alpha of .78. Eight items adapted from prior
studies (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991; Bohen &
Viveros-Long, 1981; Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000;
Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Triplett et al., 1999) were
used to form an index of work on family conflict, and the
summed index had an alpha of .86. The items measured
both the dimensions of time and strain conflict of work on
family conflict.
The personal characteristics of gender, position,
educational level, race, supervisory status, age, and tenure
were used as control variables in the multivariate analysis.
Gender was measured as a dichotomous variable (0 =
female, 1 = male). Position was measured as a
dichotomous variable representing whether the respon-
dent worked in custody (1) or not (0). The responses for
race/ethnicity were collapsed into a dichotomous variable
representing whether the respondent was White (1) or
non-White (0). For supervisory status, a measure
representing whether the respondent was a supervisor of
other workers (1) or not (0) was created. Similarly, the
variable education reflected whether a respondent had (1)
or did not have (0) a college degree. Age was measured in
continuous years. Finally, tenure at the correctional
facility was measured in continuous months.
Results
Five separate multivariate analyses were conducted
using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression. The
results are reported in Table 2. The first two OLS
regression equations were with distributive justice and
procedural justice as the dependent variables and the
personal characteristics and work environment measures
as the independent variables. Supervisory status and all
three work environment variables had statistically
significant associations with distributive justice. Super-
visors were more likely to perceive their outcomes as
fair than non-supervisory correctional workers. The
other individual variables did not have a significant
association. Role overload, perceived dangerousness of
the job, and work on family conflict each had a negative
association with distributive justice.
In the second OLS regression model, supervisory
status, tenure, role overload, and work on family conflict
all had significant associations with procedural justice.
Again, supervisors were more likely than non-supervisors
to feel that the processes were fair. Those with greater
tenure were less likely to feel that the processes were fair.
The remaining five individual measures did not have a
significant association with procedural justice. Role
overload and work on family conflict both had inverse
relationships with the procedural justice index. Perceived
dangerousness had a nonsignificant association.
The third OLS regression equation examined the in-
fluence of gender, position, educational level, race, su-
pervisory status, age, tenure, role overload, perceived
dangerousness of the job, work on family conflict, dis-
tributive justice, and procedural justice on correctional
staff's reported level of stress. The R-squared for the job
stress model was .61. Only two of the individual level
variables, gender and race, exerted a significant effect on
job stress. Women and Whites were more likely to report
higher stress levels than their male or non-White
counterparts. All three of the work environment control
variables significantly influenced reported stress levels.
As role overload, perceived dangerousness of the job, and
work on family conflict increased, so too did the level of
self-reported job stress. Finally, distributive justice, but
not procedural justice, had a significant effect on stress.
Staff who perceived low levels of distributive justice
expressed higher levels of job stress. A review of the
 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656 651

Table 2
OLS regression results
Independent variables Distributive Procedural justice Job stress Job satisfaction Organizational
justice commitment
B β B β B β B β B β
Gender .37 .04 .12 .10 − 1.18 − .13⁎ .68 .07 .15 .02
Position − .60 − .06 − 1.61 − .13 − 1.24 − .13 −.98 − .10 .33 .04
Education − .82 − .08 .19 .02 .26 .03 1.15 .12⁎ − .27 − .03
Race .75 .06 .54 .04 1.28 .12⁎ −.08 − .01 − .36 − .04
Supervisory status 2.19 .17⁎ 3.05 .20⁎⁎ − .58 − .05 .94 .08 − .30 − .03
Age − .01 − .03 .01 .01 .05 .12 −.01 − .02 .01 .04
Tenure − .04 −.12 − .06 − .14⁎ .03 .09 −.02 − .06 .01 .04
Role overload − .45 − .23⁎⁎ − .49 − .22⁎⁎ .50 .29⁎⁎ −.18 − .11 − .20 − .02
Dangerousness − .23 − .19⁎ − .20 − .14 .18 .17⁎ .05 .05 .05 .05
Work on family conflict − .19 − .25⁎⁎ − .25 − .27⁎⁎ .16 .24⁎⁎ −.02 − .03 .05 .08
Distributive justice − .19 − .22⁎⁎ .10 .11 .11 .15⁎
Procedural justice − .10 − .14 .14 .18⁎⁎ .23 .36⁎⁎
Job stress −.45 − .45⁎⁎ .08 .09
Job satisfaction .50 .58⁎⁎
R-squared .37⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .61⁎⁎ .63⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎
Note: For description of the variables, see Table 1. B represents the unstandardized regression coefficient and β represents the standardized regression
coefficient.
⁎ p ≤ .05.
⁎⁎ p ≤ .01.

standardized coefficients in Table 2 indicates that role
overload had the largest effect on job stress, followed by
work on family conflict and distributive justice.
The fourth OLS regression model examined the effect
of individual level, work environment, organizational
justice, and job stress variables on job satisfaction (R2 =
.63). Unlike the previous model, only one individual level
variable (education) influenced the reported level of job
satisfaction. After controlling for the other eleven
variables, those with a college degree reported higher
levels of job satisfaction than staff without a college
degree. In addition, none of the work environment
variables directly influenced the level of job satisfaction.
Job stress did have a significant direct negative impact on
job satisfaction. Procedural justice, but not distributive
justice, exerted a significant direct positive influence on the
job satisfaction index. While distributive justice did have a
positive impact, it failed to reach statistical significance. It
was important to note that while distributive justice did not
have a significant direct impact on job satisfaction, it did
have a significant indirect effect on job satisfaction through
job stress. Among the variables with significant effects, job
stress had the greatest effect, followed by procedural
justice and then educational level.
The final model examined the combined effects of
individual, work environment, job stress, job satisfac-
tion, and organizational justice variables on organiza-
tional commitment (R2 = .66). Only the measures for job
satisfaction, distributive justice, and procedural justice
had statistically significant effects on correctional staff
organizational commitment. Increased perceptions of
job satisfaction had a significant positive impact on level
of commitment, as did distributive justice. Similarly,
increased perceptions of procedural justice had a
positive effect on organizational commitment among
the surveyed correctional staff. Interestingly, staff
perceptions of procedural justice exerted a relatively
larger effect than did distributive justice on organiza-
tional commitment (β = .36; β = .15, respectively).
Discussion and conclusion
This study examined the impact of perceptions of
organizational justice on correctional staff job attitudes. In
general, these findings supported the contention that
organizational justice remains a salient dimension of the
correctional work environment, shaping staff perceptions
of job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commit-
ment. At the same time, the influence of organizational
justice was not entirely consistent across the three work
outcome variables. Distributive, but not procedural, justice
had a significant effect on job stress, even after controlling
for personal characteristics, role overload, dangerousness,
and work-family conflict. Such findings suggest that
correctional employees experience increased job stress
when they feel outcomes are unfair. Staff may become
irritated when others receive similar outcomes regardless of
perceived differences in work inputs. This goes to the
652 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
notion of reciprocity wherein the actions of the organization
are perceived in terms of the potential benefit to an
employee, which then may promote a sense of obligation
on the part of the employee, yielding a desire to reciprocate
in kind. In a similar manner, when “employees make
comparisons of their work outcomes, given their inputs,
against certain referent others” and conclude that the
organization has not provided fair compensation or just
reward, the employees may very well experience increased
negative job-related attitudes (Robbins, Summers, Miller,
& Hendrix, 2000). For example, a correctional officer may
perceive his or her particular work load, compared to other
colleagues, as more difficult or demanding, yet all officers
receive similar pay, benefits, evaluations, and recognition
from the organization. This perceived lack of reciprocity, or
expected exchange of benefits and resources, on the part of
the organization adds significantly to an employee's level
of job-related anger and frustration.
Interestingly, unlike some prior research (e.g.,
Lambert, Hogan, et al., 2006), procedural justice failed
to influence the level of job stress among correctional
staff. Among this group of employees, it would appear
that perceptions of a fair and equitable process for
promotion and recognition by the organization does not
impact staff work related stress. Perhaps this reflects the
issue of proximity. Those types of stressors that staff
confront on a more immediate, often daily basis,
including dangerousness of the work environment,
increased workload, and conflict between work and
family responsibilities, have a more direct impact on
staff assessment of the level of frustration and anger
experienced on the job. Generally, staff do not
experience a formalized evaluation process every day,
and thus are more removed from these organizational
processes. To understand why this finding differs from
prior studies, it should be noted that procedural justice
was not operationalized in a similar manner in both
studies. Lambert, Hogan, et al. (2006) conceptualized
procedural justice in terms of staff perceptions of the
fairness of promotional procedures. In this study, a
broader measure was employed.
Procedural justice, but not distributive justice, had a
direct impact on job satisfaction. The finding that
procedural justice was important in helping shape job
satisfaction supports prior correctional research (Lambert,
2003). Increased perceptions of procedural justice pro-
moted favorable feelings among workers towards their
jobs. Procedural justice reflects staff perceptions of
legitimacy of what occurs at the facility. If there is only a
“veneer of fairness,” workers are less likely to feel satisfied
with their jobs (Greenberg, 1990b, p. 139). “When an
employee feels that he or she has been betrayed via an
unfair organizational processes or outcome, it is hard for
that employee to feel that his or her job is satisfying”
(Lambert, 2003, p. 157). On the other hand, distributive
justice did not have a direct impact. It appears that
outcomes are of less concern than processes in explaining
the job satisfaction of correctional staff. This is not to say
that distributive justice has no impact on job satisfaction.
In this study, it had an indirect effect through job stress.
Both distributive justice and procedural justice
significantly influenced staff organizational commit-
ment. Interestingly, the effect of procedural justice on
commitment was much larger than distributive justice.
Arguably, this finding reflects the nature and scope of
procedural justice. Procedural justice assesses the
manner by which an organization operates and high-
lights the core values displayed by the organization.
Procedural justice leads to perceptions of legitimacy and
trust in the organization. Without this sense of legitimacy
and trust, it is unlikely an individual will bond with the
organization. According to Farmer et al. (2003, p. 377),
“if employees view procedures as fair, they may view the
organization positively (commitment), even if they are
currently dissatisfied with such personal outcomes.”
Again, while significant, the magnitude of the effect of
distributive justice on commitment was smaller than that
of procedural justice. This may reflect the relative
importance of these two measures of organizational
justice. As Martin and Bennett (1996, p. 89) point out
“an individual may be dissatisfied with what was
received, yet remain committed to an organization if
the procedure or reason for un/obtained outcomes is
perceived as being fair.” Clearly, among this group of
correctional staff, while perceived fairness of compen-
sation increased commitment to an organization, what
remains more important is the just and equitable nature
of the process that produced such results.
The results with distributive and procedural justice as
the independent variables indicate that work environ-
ment stressors cause employees to develop more
negative impressions of distributive and procedural
justice within their organization or work unit. This in the
end probably leads to a more negative relationship
between the individual and the organization. Supervi-
sory status is probably linked to both forms of
organizational justice because supervisors generally
receive greater rewards than line employees and have
a greater say in the processes linked to procedural
justice. Interestingly, tenure was negatively linked with
perceptions of procedural justice. It could be that those
with greater tenure are upset that seniority carries less
weight in the decision-making process than they would
like. It is also possible that they have been part of the
 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
organization long enough to perceive that the means of
making salient decisions are not always fair.
It is important to note that these findings support some,
but not all, of the prior research on the relationship between
organizational justice and commitment (e.g, Griffin &
Hepburn, 2005; Lambert, 2003). In both instances, these
other studies made use of alternative operationalizations of
the variables distributive justice and/or incorporated
differently specified models. Such variation in findings
highlights the need for continued research on the function
and effect of organizational justice within the correctional
environment. Future studies should not only explore the
impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional
staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment, but also the impact of organizational justice
on other areas of correctional staff attitudes and behaviors,
such as life satisfaction, psychological and emotional
withdrawal from the job, intention to quit, turnover, and
absenteeism. Continued growth within the correctional
industry places increased demands on correctional man-
agement to fully staff facilities at all levels. In an industry
that is plagued by high rates of turnover and low pay, the
associated costs of hiring and training only exacerbate the
financial and administrative crisis faced by many correc-
tional agencies. With this in mind, it is imperative for
correctional administrators to recognize those character-
istics of the organization that contribute to a less stressed,
more satisfied and committed workforce.
Acknowledgements
All the authors contributed equally to the article. The
authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofread-
ing the article. The authors also thank the editor and the
anonymous reviewers for their comments and sugges-
tions which improved the article.
Appendix A
Except for distributive justice, the below items used in
this study were answered by a five-point Likert response
scale of strongly disagree (coded 1), disagree (2), uncertain
(3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). The items for
distributive justice were answered using a five-point scale
of very unfair (1), unfair (2), somewhat fair (3), fair (4), and
very fair (5).
Job stress
1. A lot of time my job makes me very frustrated or
angry.
2. I am usually under a lot of pressure when I am at work.
653
3. When I'm at work I often feel tense or uptight.
4. I am usually calm and at ease when I'm working
(reverse coded).
5. There are a lot of aspects of my job that make me
upset.
Job satisfaction
1. I definitely dislike my job (reverse coded).
2. I like my job better than the average worker does.
3. Most days I am enthusiastic about my job.
4. I find real enjoyment in my job.
5. I feel fairly well satisfied with my job.
Organizational commitment
1. I tell my friends that this is a great organization to
work for.
2. I feel very little loyalty to this prison (reverse coded).
3. I find that my values and the prison's values are very
similar.
4. I am proud to tell people that I work at this prison.
5. This prison really inspires the best in me in the way
of job performance.
6. I really care about the fate of this prison.
Distributive justice
1. How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when
you consider the amount of effort that you have put
forth?
2. How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when
you consider the responsibilities that you have at
work?
3. How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when
you take into account the stresses and strains of your
job?
4. How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when
you take into account the amount of education and
training you have?
5. How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when
you consider the work that you have done well?
Procedural justice
1. Promotions here are seldom related to employee
performance (reverse coded).
2. Promotions are more related to whom you know
rather than the quality of your work (reverse coded).
3. There is a fair opportunity to be promoted.
4. My own hard work will lead to recognition as a good
performer.
654 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
5. The standards used to evaluate my performance at
this prison have been fair and objective.
6. I have little trust in my supervisor's evaluation of my
work performance (reverse coded).
7. My supervisor is familiar enough with my job to
fairly evaluate me.
Role overload
1. I am responsible for almost an unmanageable number
of assignments and/or inmates.
2. The amount of work required in my job is unreasonable.
3. The amount of work I am required to do seems to be
increasing all the time.
Dangerousness of the job
1. Most of the time when I'm at work I don't feel that I
have much to worry about (reverse coded).
2. In my job, a person stands a good chance of getting
hurt.
3. I work at a dangerous job.
4. My job is a lot more dangerous than most other
jobs.
5. A lot of people I work with have been physically
injured on the job.
Work on family conflict
1. My job keeps me away from my family too much.
2. My time off from work does not really match
other family members' schedules and/or my social
needs.
3. Work makes me too tired or irritable to fully enjoy
my family social life.
4. I frequently argue with my spouse/family members
about my job.
5. When I get home from work, I am often too frazzled
to participate with family or friends.
6. The uncertainty of my work schedule interferes with
my family and/or social life.
7. I find that my job has negatively affected my home
life.
8. I often have to miss important family or social
activities/events because of my job.
Note
1. The data set used in this study was also used in a study that
examined the impact of role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload,
and dangerousness on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment.
References
Armstrong, G., & Griffin, M. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing
correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in
prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577−592.
Auerbach, S., Quick, B., & Pegg, P. (2003). General job stress and job-
specific stress in juvenile correctional officers. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 31, 25−36.
Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home
conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role
stress on burnout and satisfaction as work. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 12, 39−53.
Becker, H. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American
Journal of Sociology, 66, 32−42.
Bohen, H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family
life: Do flexible work schedules help? Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307−311.
Byrd, T., Cochran, J., Silverman, I., & Blount, W. (2000). Behind bars:
An assessment of the effects of job satisfaction, job-related stress,
and anxiety of jail employees inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime
and Criminal Justice, 23, 69−89.
Camp, S. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment
and job satisfaction on turnover: An event history approach. Pri-
son Journal, 74, 279−305.
Camp, S., & Gaes, G. (2002). Growth and quality of U.S. private
prisons: Evidence from a national survey. Criminology and Public
Policy, 1, 427−450.
Carlson, D., Kacmar, K., & Williams, L. (2000). Construction and
initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family
conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249−276.
Cheek, F., & Miller, M. (1983). The experience of stress for
correctional officers: A double-bind theory of correctional stress.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 105−120.
Crank, J., Regoli, R., Hewitt, J., & Culbertson, R. (1995). Institutional
and organizational antecedents of role stress, work alienation, and
anomie among police executives. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
22, 152−171.
Cranny, C., Smith, P., & Stone, E. (Eds.). (1992). Job satisfaction:
How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their
performance. New York: Lexington Books.
Cullen, F., Link, B., Cullen, J., & Wolfe, N. (1989). How satisfying is
prison work? A comparative occupational approach. Journal of
Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 14, 89−108.
Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions
of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 505−533.
Culliver, C., Sigler, R., & McNeely, B. (1991). Examining pro-
social organizational behavior among correctional officers. In-
ternational Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal
Justice, 15, 277−284.
Dennis, G. (1998). Here today, gone tomorrow: How management
style affects job satisfaction and, in turn, employee turnover.
Corrections Today, 60, 96−102.
Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in
correctional officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice,
32, 31−47.
Farmer, S., Beehr, T., & Love, K. (2003). Becoming an under-
cover police officer: A note on fairness perceptions, behavior, and
attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 373−387.
Fox, J. (1982). Organizational and racial conflict in maximum-
security prisons. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
Frone, M., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. (1992). Antecedents and
outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-
family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65−75.
Gilliland, S. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An
organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 18, 694−734.
Greenberg, J. (1987a). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 9−22.
Greenberg, J. (1987b). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment
distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 55−61.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and
tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399−432.
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing
impressions of organizational justice. In B. Shaw & L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior Vol. 12, pp. 111–157).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participa-
tion, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In
P. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235−256). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Griffin, M. (2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing
the relative contribution of organizational climate variables. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 29, 219−232.
Griffin, M. (2006a). Gender and stress: A comparative assessment of
sources of stress among correctional officers. Journal of Contempo-
rary Criminal Justice, 22, 4−25.
Griffin, M. (2006b). Women as breadwinners: The gendered nature of
side bet theory and its influence on female correctional officers'
commitment to the organization. Women and Criminal Justice, 17,
1−25.
Griffin, M., Armstrong, G., & Hepburn, J. (2005). Correctional
officers' perceptions of equitable treatment in the ‘masculinized'
prison environment. Criminal Justice Review, 30, 189−206.
Griffin, M., & Hepburn, J. (2005). Side-bets and reciprocity as
determinants of organizational commitment among correctional
officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 611−625.
Grossi, E., Keil, T., & Vito, G. (1996). Surviving ‘the joint’:
Mitigating factors of correctional officer stress. Journal of Crime
and Justice, 19, 103−120.
Hepburn, J. (1987). The prison control structure and its effects on
work attitudes: The perceptions and attitudes of prison guards.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 49−64.
Hepburn, J., & Knepper, P. (1993). Correctional officers as human
service workers: The effect of job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly,
10, 315−335.
Hogan, N., Lambert, E., Jenkins, M., & Wambold, S. (2006). The
impact of occupational stressors on correctional staff organiza-
tional commitment: A preliminary study. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 22, 44−62.
Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (1980). Stress and work: A
managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Johnson, R. (2004). Citizen expectations of police traffic stop
behavior. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
and Management, 27, 487−497.
Jones, F. (1998). Pay procedures and voluntary turnover: Does
procedural justice matter. Psychological Reports, 83, 475−482.
Jurik, N., & Winn, R. (1987). Describing correctional security
dropouts and rejects: An individual or organizational profile?
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 5−25.
Kane, T., Saylor, W., & Nacci, P., (n.d.). Management strate-
gies, morale, and staff turnover (NCJ No. 089613). Washing-
655
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Prisons.
Kerce, E., Magnusson, P., & Rudolph, A. (1994). The attitudes of
navy corrections staff members: What they think about confinees
and their jobs. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and
Development Center.
Lambert, E. (2001). Absent correctional staff: A discussion of the
issue and recommendations for future research. American Journal
of Criminal Justice, 25, 279−292.
Lambert, E. (2003). Justice in corrections: An exploratory study of the
impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 31, 155−168.
Lambert, E. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional
staff. Prison Journal, 84, 208−227.
Lambert, E., Barton, S., & Hogan, N. (1999). The missing link
between job satisfaction and correctional staff behavior: The issue
of organizational commitment. American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 24, 95−116.
Lambert, E., Barton, S., Hogan, N., & Clarke, A. (2002). The impact
of instrumental communication and integration on correctional
staff. Justice Professional, 15, 181−193.
Lambert, E., Edwards, C., Camp, S., & Saylor, W. (2005). Here
today, gone tomorrow, back again the next day: Absenteeism and
its antecedents among federal correctional staff. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 33, 165−175.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Allen, R. (2006). Correlates of
correctional officer job stress: The impact of organizational
structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 227−246.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2003). The impact of work-
family conflict on correctional staff job satisfaction. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 35−51.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Paoline, E., & Baker, D. (2005). The good
life: The impact of job satisfaction and occupational stressors on
correctional staff life satisfaction — An exploratory study. Journal
of Crime and Justice, 18, 1−26.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Paoline, E., & Clarke, A. (2005). The
impact of role stressors on job stress, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment among private prison staff. Security
Journal, 18, 33−50.
Lambert, E., & Paoline, E. (2005). The impact of jail medical issues
on the job stress and job satisfaction of jail staff: An exploratory
study. Punishment and Society: The International Journal of
Penology, 7, 259−275.
Lambert, E., Paoline, E., & Hogan, N. (2006). The impact of centra-
lization and formalization on correctional staff job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical
Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 19, 23−44.
Lambert, E., Reynolds, M., Paoline, E., & Watkins, C. (2004). The
effects of occupational stressors on jail staff job satisfaction.
Journal of Crime and Justice, 27, 1−32.
Landy, F., Barnes-Farrell, J., & Cleveland, J. (1980). Perceived
fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355−356.
Lease, S. (1998). Annual review, 1993–1997: Work attitudes and
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 154−183.
Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New
approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K.
Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 27−55). New York: Plenum.
Lincoln, J., & Kalleberg, A. (1990). Culture, control and commitment:
A study of work organization and work attitudes in the United States
and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
656 E.G. Lambert et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 644–656
Lind, E., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural
justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Lowe, R., & Vodanovich, S. (1995). A field study of distributive and
procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 99−114.
Martin, C., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in
explaining the relationship between job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment. Group and Organization Management, 21,
84−104.
Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational
commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171−194.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization
linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and
turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Pastore, A., & Maguire, K. (Eds.). (2006). Sourcebook of criminal
justice statistics. Retrieved on January 31, 2006, from http://www.
albany.edu/sourcebook
Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover among
hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rice, S., & Piquero, A. (2005). Perceptions of discrimination and
justice in New York City. Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies and Management, 28, 98−117.
Robbins, T., Summers, T., Miller, J., & Hendrix, W. (2000). Using
the group-value model to explain the role of noninstrumental
justice in distinguishing the effects of distributive and procedural
justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
73, 511−518.
Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1997). The influence of
educational attainment on the attitudes and job performance of
correctional officers. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 60−77.
Saylor, W., & Wright, K. (1992). A comparative study of the
relationship of status and longevity in determining perceptions of
work environment among federal employees. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 17, 133−160.
Shamir, B., & Drory, A. (1982). Some correlates of prison guards'
beliefs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8, 233−249.
Slate, R., & Vogel, R. (1997). Participative management and
correctional personnel: A study of the perceived atmosphere for
participation in correctional decision making and its impact on
employee stress and thoughts of quitting. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 25, 397−408.
Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Spector, P. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology:
Research and practice. New York: John Wiley.
Stohr, M., Lovrich, N., Monke, B., & Zupan, L. (1994). Staff
management in correctional institutions: Comparing DiIulio's
‘control model’ and ‘employee investment model’ outcomes in five
jails. Justice Quarterly, 11, 471−497.
Stohr, M., Lovrich, N., & Wilson, G. (1994). Staff stress in contemporary
jails: Assessing problem severity and type of progressive personnel
practices. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 313−327.
Stohr, M., Self, R., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Staff turnover in new
generation jails: An investigation of its causes and preventions.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455−478.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. (2003). The role of procedural justice and
legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society
Review, 37, 513−548.
Tang, T., & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. (1996, Summer). Distributive and
procedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment. SAM
Advanced Management Journal, 25−31.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological
analysis. New York: Erlbaum/Halstead.
Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1996). Work-related stress
and coping among correctional officers: Implications from organi-
zational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 291−308.
Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1999). Examining the
effect of work-home conflict on work-related stress among
correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 371−384.
Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Tyler, T. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities:
What do majority and minority group members want from the
law and legal institutions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19,
215−235.
Tyler, T. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 84−99.
Tyler, T., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects
of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 1, 281−292.
Tyler, T., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public
cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F., Link, B., & Wolfe, N. (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.
Wagner, K., & Moriarty, L. (2002). Perceived fairness of drug-testing
policies: An application of Leventhal's principles of procedural
justice. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 219−233.
Welbourne, T. (1998). Untangling procedural and distributive justice.
Group and Organization Management, 23, 325−346.
Whitehead, J., & Lindquist, C. (1986). Correctional officer burnout: A path
model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 23−42.
Woodruff, L. (1993). Occupational stress for correctional personnel.
American Jails, 7, 15−20.
Wright, K., Saylor, W., Gilman, E., & Camp, S. (1997). Job control
and occupational outcomes among prison workers. Justice
Quarterly, 14, 524−546.
Wright, T. (1993). Correctional employee turnover: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 131−142.