Levels of Custody and Attitude Differences Among Prison Officers: A Comparative Study
| Date | 01 June 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486588401700204 |
| Author | Geoffrey N Soutar,Trevor A Williams |
| Published date | 01 June 1984 |
AUST
&NZ
JOURNAL
OF CRIMINOLOGY (June 1984) 17 (87-94)
LEVELS OF CUSTODY AND ATTITUDE DIFFERENCES
AMONG PRISON OFFICERS: ACOMPARATIVE STUDY
Trevor A Williams and Geoffrey NSoutar"
87
Abstract
Research reported in a previous paper (Williams, 1983) suggests
that
the extent
of prison officers' role in maintaining custodial control may be an important
variable affecting their attitudes towards disciplinary authority, inmates, and
non-custodial staff. This implies that officers working in institutions with different
levels of custodial confinement may also vary in their attitudes towards these
dimensions. An analysis of responses from officers in prison institutions suggests
that attitudes between institutional types do vary significantly.
The
analysis
identified differences between the maximum security prison and non-maximum
security prisons, while "treatment institutions" did not appear to be significantly
different. However, officers in the female institution appear to hold quite distinctive
role orientations and attitudes.
Introduction
In a previous article (Williams, 1983), it was suggested that prison officers' roles
in maintaining custodial control within the prison significantly affected their
reliance on disciplinary authority, their beliefs about inmates, and their attitudes
towards non-custodial staff. An analysis of correlations between
the
attitudes of
prison officers in the Western Australian Prisons Department suggested
that
the
more officers were involved in maintaining custodial control:
(1) the more conflict they were likely to perceive between themselves and
the
inmates;
(2) the greater would be their reliance on disciplinary authority;
(3) the more likely they were to hold negative stereotypes of inmates;
(4) the more antagonistic they were likely to be towards non-custodial staff,
perceiving the latter as undermining their control and challenging their
beliefs about inmates;
(5) the greater was their antagonism towards psychiatrists and psychologists,
but attitudes towards social workers and parole officers were fairly neutral
and welfare officers were valued positively.
Reliance on disciplinary authority as a means of control, negative beliefs
about
inmates, and attitudes towards non-custodial staff were directly related to
the
custodial task and the conflict with inmates which officers perceived in performing
that task. This raised aquestion as to whether or not officers working in institutions
which impose different levels of custodial control on inmates differed significantly
in their attitudes. All prisons are legally responsible for the custody of prisoners,
but
levels of custodial control vary. A further, and perhaps more direct, test of
the
*Senior Lecturers, Department of Management, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA.
To continue reading
Request your trial