The Effects of Procedural Justice on Cooperation and Compliance among Inmates in a Work Release Program

Abstract

Order is critical to the safe and efficient management of correctional institutions. Procedural justice theory suggests that the fair and rightful exercise of authority by correctional staff can promote order by stimulating within inmates a sense of obligation to obey authority. Triggering this sense of obligation is thought to encourage voluntary cooperation and compliance without relying on formal sanctions. Using data from a 2006 survey of 213 adult male inmates in a Chicago transition facility (a minimum security prison), we test the effects of procedural justice and other factors on cooperation and compliance. The results reveal that inmates’ perceptions of procedural justice have a mix of direct and indirect effects on their cooperation and compliance. Our findings clarify the role of procedural justice and other factors in maintaining order within correctional settings. Supplementary analyses clarify the effects of anger on cooperation and compliance and provide fruitful avenues for future research.

Keywords:

• Procedural justice
• prison
• inmates
• cooperation
• compliance

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 In much of the research, obligation to obey is treated as a component of institutional legitimacy (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006). However, recent scholarship has challenged the meaning and measurement of legitimacy (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2013; Gau, 2014; Johnson, Maguire, & Kuhns, 2014; Tankebe, 2013). In Tankebe’s (2013) model, obligation is conceptualized as a downstream consequence of legitimacy rather than a constituent component. Here, we do not take a position on this debate; we treat obligation to obey as a standalone concept, not as a proxy for institutional legitimacy.

2 Scholars disagree about whether it is appropriate to refer to some of these factors as “instrumental” considerations. According to Sunshine and Tyler (2003), the instrumental perspective suggests that authority figures gain acceptance when they are viewed by those who are subordinate to their authority as imposing a credible risk of punishment for rule violations (risk of sanctions), performing well at achieving their core goals (institutional performance), and allocating services fairly (distributive justice). In other studies, Tyler refers to distributive justice as normative (Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Tankebe (2013) conceptualizes distributive justice and institutional performance as normative rather than instrumental. When focusing on outcome favorability alone, distributive justice can be thought of as an instrumental consideration; however, when focusing on fairness in the allocation of outcomes, it can also be viewed as normative (Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001). Similarly, though institutional performance is typically conceptualized in instrumental terms, Tankebe (2013) notes that it emerges “from the idea of shared values” (p. 112), and therefore, it fulfills a normative condition for legitimacy.

3 CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; and WRMR = weighted root mean residual.

4 Many of the methods used in conventional confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) based on normal theory need to be adapted for use with ordinal indicators. Instead of using a covariance matrix as input, a polychoric correlation matrix is used for polytomous data (Brown, 2006). These correlations treat the observed categorical variable y as a crudely categorized approximation of an underlying continuous latent response variable, y*. According to Brown (2006): “The underlying y* variables are related to observed categorical variables by threshold parameters (τ). In the case of a binary indicator (y = 0 or 1), the threshold is the point on y* where y = 1 if the threshold is exceeded (and where y = 0 if the threshold is not exceeded). Polytomous items have more than one threshold parameter… the number of thresholds is equal to the number of categories minus one” (p. 390). Although thresholds are an important part of the factor models used in this study, we do not interpret these parameters for substantive purposes.

5 Our diagnostics revealed that the largest variance inflation factor was 1.75, which suggests that multicollinearity is not problematic in this model.

6 We also tested the effect of total incarceration length based on the most recent offense, including time spent in the current facility and any previous facilities. The effects of this variable were not significant in the Bayesian model (β = −.089, p = .094) but were significant in the WLS model (β = -.159, p = .017). Our findings suggest that incarceration length, whether overall or in the current facility, may have a negative influence on willingness to cooperate with prison authorities. However, due to the conflicting findings, any such inference must be considered tentative.

7 To measure anger, we rely on a single item that asks respondents about the extent to which they feel anger toward correctional officers. The response options for this item range from 1 (none) to 4 (a lot). The item has a mean of 2.4 and a median of 2, with nearly a quarter (23%) of respondents indicating that they feel a lot of anger toward correctional officers.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Edward R. Maguire

Edward Maguire is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. His research focuses primarily on policing and violence. He is also heavily involved in research on public opinion toward crime and justice, with a particular focus on perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy in policing and corrections.

Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk

Cassandra Atkin-Plunk is an Assistant Professor and Graduate Coordinator in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University. Her research interests span both institutional and community corrections with an emphasis on contemporary issues in corrections, including the reentry and reintegration of offenders and problem-solving courts.

William Wells

William Wells is Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. From 2011-2015, he was lead research partner on the Houston Unsubmitted Sexual Assault Kit project funded by NIJ. His research interests include police practices to prevent and reduce crime and police use of forensic evidence.