Extrapolating from Bottoms and Tankebe's framework for a social scientific understanding of "legitimacy," the current study theorized that differences in how correctional officers exercise "power" over prisoners can potentially impact their rightful claims to legitimate authority. Analyses of 1,740 officers from 45 state prisons in Ohio and Kentucky revealed significant differences in the use of coercive, reward, expert, referent, and positional power based on officer demographics, job training, and experiences, as well as several characteristics of the prisons themselves. In turn, analyses of 5,616 inmates of these same facilities revealed that greater reliance on expert and positional power at the facility level coincided with inmate perceptions of officers as more fair, equitable, and competent; and greater reliance on coercive power corresponded with perceptions of officers as less fair, less equitable, and less competent. Related foci are important for enlightening discussions of the feasibility of maintaining legitimate authority in a prison setting. How officers might maintain legitimate authority is discussed in light of the study's specific findings. (publisher abstract modified)
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Crack as Proxy: Aggressive Federal Drug Prosecutions and the Production of Black-White Racial Inequality
- A Low-Cost, Simplified Platform of Interchangeable, Ambient Ionization Sources for Rapid, Forensic Evidence Screening on Portable Mass Spectrometric Instrumentation
- The Application of Amplicon Length Heterogeneity PCR (LH-PCR) for Monitoring the Dynamics of Soil Microbial Communities Associated With cadaver decomposition