AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INMATE LIAISON ROLE IN THE INFORMAL v COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE IN A’ , MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC Thesis for the Degree of Pb. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JOHN WALTER RRELESNIK 1972 ; ...... this” .uO This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INMATE LIAISON ROLE IN THE INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE IN A MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC presented by John Halter Prelesnik has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Social Science PhoDo demein 9% /v’. W79I/émm unto: professor “3:79: Date 1}?th ‘ 7' 75 (W V ¢-'?J§‘ 0-7639 E’MDING av » I. lllllll :- “Aunt II. n“ ... .... :PQQT‘ T... , . Honmsm {'RCOV &NBER¥IN3 ’-:‘ :GLIBRARY Blhj; as N AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INMATE LIAISON ROLE IN THE INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE IN A MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC BY John Walter Prelesnik The communications structure between inmates of a maximum security prison determines, in part, the values and beliefs that will be held by these inmates. The in- mate informal organization exists to relieve the "pains of imprisonment" suffered by the inmates subjected to im- prisonment. The relationships between inmates are based on reciprocated agreements, exchanging goods and services for prestige, to relieve the pains of imprisonment. This model is in contrast to a model based on dominance and submission. Access to information and goods, and the relaying of the same become very important functions in the prison informal organization. Knowledge of this function and the relationships that exist between this role, the liaison role, and the prison clique or primary groups can be useful in system analysis and planning. The liaison role person can facilitate or hinder the orderly passing of information within the inmate informal system. John Walter Prelesnik This study investigated the communications struc- ture of a prison psychiatric clinic located in a maximum security institution. The psychiatric clinic functions as a residential treatment program for those convicted for sex crimes, drug abuse (opiate), and youthful offend- ers. Data were obtained by: (l) a Communication Ques- tionnaire requesting the respondent to provide demographic and self-perception data on a number of communication— related issues as well as data that link this study with the traditional roles; (2) a Personal Contact Checklist, in which the respondent indicated the five inmates who resided on the clinic with whom he communicated; and (3) a Personal Contact Questionnaire, in which a respond- ent indicated his perceptions of the named individual's communications function, or the extent that he controls the passage of information to various clique groups in the organization. The communications functions that were tested were: the number of communications contacts the individual possessed, the amount of task-related informa- tion he had access to, the control he could exercise in passing or hindering the passage of information to others in the prison, the amount of influence he had in the organ- ization, the importance of his secondary contacts, his specific leadership functions, whether his contacts with John Walter Prelesnik the named individual are accidental or deliberate, and whether or not the individual serves as a first source of task—related information in the organization. Analyses were conducted on the basis of a con- structed sociogram utilizing reported reciprocated com- munications contacts. Considering only reciprocated con- tacts linkages, communications networks were constructed identifying two communication function roles. Liaison, defined as analogous to articulation points of graph theory, constituted the role of interest in this study. In graph theory the articulation points are positions that serve as linkages between a select group of points and the main body of graph points. The articulation point if removed will result in isolation of the select group from the main body of the graph. The articulation point serves as the select group's only channel of contact to the main body of points. This places the articulation point in a "gatekeeper role" where the articulation point has the ability to pass on information to the select group from the main body partially, wholly, or not at all. Non- liaisons, who conduct most of their communications in small groups, were compared with liaisons on their com- munications functioning. Both samples were compared on several demographic variables to assist in describing the two samples. The samples were compared for differences in their mean values John Walter Prelesnik using the "T" test for independent means with samples with unequal numbers on the following demoqraphic variables: (1) Span of reciprocated contacts; (2) crimes of violence; (3) aspects of sentence, minimum, maximum, and span, the difference between the maximum and minimum sentence; (4) number of times seen parole board; (5) time remaining to see parole board; and (6) traditional roles found in prison research: politician, square John, outlaw, right guy, and ding roles. The only demographic variable that was signifi- cantly different at the 0.05 level of significance using the "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers in each sample, was span of contact. Span of con- tact was defined as the number of inmates in the clinic that the individual had reciprocated contacts with, i.e., had established a regular mappable communications channel. The liaison sample had a greater span of reciprocated con- tacts than did the non-liaison sample. This is the defi- nition of the liaison role, according to theory. This finding provided empirical evidence that the roles analyzed were in reality liaison persons. No other aspects of the demographic data were significantly different at the 0.05 level. It was noted that the study population, liaisons and non-liaisons when compared to the average prison pOpu- lation, had longer minimum, maximum, and spans of sen- tences, were convicted of more crimes of violence, and John Walter Prelesnik tended to agree with the values of the politician and right guy roles while rejecting or remaining neutral on the square John, outlaw, and ding roles. It was postulated that liaisons would be per— ceived by their reciprocated non-liaison contacts, and would perceive themselves to have: (1) a greater number of contacts in the organization, (2) more task-related information, (3) more control over message flow in the organization, and (4) more influence in the organization. Other hypotheses predicted liaison: (l) are per- ceived to have more influence over personal opinions than non-liaisons, (2) are perceived to have more important secondary contacts than non-liaisons, (3) perceive the communications system as more open than do non-liaisons, (4) perceive the communications system to be more satis- fying than do non-liaisons, (5) liaison-non—liaison dyads more frequently participate in deliberate message trans- action than non-liaison-non-liaison dyads, (6) liaison- non-liaison dyads amount of deliberate message transaction is more disproportionate than in non-liaison-non-liaison dyads, (7) are perceived to be first sources of informa- tion, and (8) are more likely to hold high status inmate positions and are more likely to manipulate themselves into these positions than non-liaisons. John Walter Prelesnik A "T" test for samples with independent means with samples with unequal numbers was used to test for significant differences at the 0.05 level in the sample means. It was found that the liaison persons are per- ceived to have a significant effect on the personal Opin- ions of non-liaison individuals. No other hypotheses reached the 0.05 level of significance. The findings suggest that knowledge of the liaison location in a prison organization should be important to the prison administrator. These roles could enhance communications and opinions to assist or hinder the ad- ministration and management of a penal institution among the population confined there, through their manipulation of the attitudes and opinions of the inmates they are in contact with. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INMATE LIAISON ROLE IN THE INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE IN A MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC BY John Walter Prelesnik A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1972 .- ,_ W (2 ‘7 9 ’7" J ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is expressed to the members of my guidance committee for their assistance in the pursuing of my educational goals. The members of the committee were Dr. John H. McNamara who served as chairman, Dr. Robert C. Trojanowicz who represented the School of Criminal Justice, Dr. Robert A. Zucker who represented the Department of Psychology, and Dr. ChristOpher Sower who represented the Department of Sociology. A Special degree of indebtedness is owed to Dr. John McNamara who widened my perspective of the criminal justice system and process. Appreciation is also expressed to the members of the Michigan Corrections Department, especially Dr. Fred Pesetsky for allowing me access to the prison psychiatric clinic and providing me with numerous valuable suggestions for my research. I would also like to thank the inmates who participated in my research for their c00peration and honesty. ii Appreciation, more than can be expressed here, is also extended to my chief typist, editor, and moral supporter, my wife, Judith Ann Prelesnik, whose many years of support assisted me in the pursuit of my academic goals. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .- . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . Prison as a Community . . . . . II. III. RESEARCH CONTEXT: Degradations of the Prison Community and Primary Groups . . . . Postulated Primary Group Conformity Using Small Group Theory . . . Inmate Roles . . . . . . . Inmate- -Staff Interactions . . . Inmate Code . . . . . . . . Prisonization . . . . . . . Adaptation to Prisonization . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . SYSTEM, THE LIAISON ROLE CONCEPT . Research Content: Hypotheses . . Sociometric Analysis . . . . Hypotheses Testing . . . . . . RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . Operationalizing Variables . . . Contact with Original Research Operationalized, Self-Perception Scale . . . . . . . . . Operationalizing of the Sociometric Design, The Personal Contact Checklist . . . . . . . . iv THE COMMUNICATION ROLE LINK BETWEEN THE FORMAL AND INFORMAL Page vi xii 11 15 23 32 36 39 43 49 99 102 107 121 124 126 128 130 149 152 Chapter Pretest Procedures . . . . Pretest Scale . . . . . . IV. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . Administrative Arrangement . Administering the Instrument . Scale Analysis . . . . . Sociometric Analysis . . . Characteristics of the ReSpondents . . . . . Sociometric Description of the Study Population . . . Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population . . Aspects of Sentence and Parole Data Sources for Hypotheses Tests . Tests of Hypotheses . . . . V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . Contributions of the Study . Suggestions for Future Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Questionnaire Packet (Cover Letter, B. Personal Data Questionnaire, Contact Checklist, Personal Contact Questionnaire) . . . . . Administrative Agreement Letter Page 154 156 161 161 164 173 179 188 189 191 191 208 208 249 249 261 281 284 287 302 316 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Number of Contacts, Scale 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Number of Contacts, Scale 2 . . . . . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Task-Related Information, Scale 3 . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Task-Related Information, Scale 4 . . . . . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Control of Message Flow, Scale 5 . . . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Control of Message Flow, Scale 6 . . . . . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Influence over Per- sonal Opinions, Scale 7 . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Importance of Secondary Contacts, Scale 8 . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Influence in the Organiza- tion, Scale 9 . . . . . . . . . vi Page 156 157 157 157 158 158 158 159 159 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Influence in the Organization, Scale 10 . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self— Perceived, Openness of Communications System, Scale 11 . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Satisfaction with Communica- tions System, Scale 12 . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, First Sources of Information, Scale 15 . . . . . . . Administration of Research Instrument . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Number of Contacts, Scale 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Task-Related Information, scale 4 O C O C O O O O O O O Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Control of Message Flow, Scale 6 . . . . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Influence in the Organ— ization, Scale 9 . . . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Openness of Communications System, Scale 11 . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self- Perceived, Satisfaction with Communica- tions System, Scale 12 . . . . . . Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Number of Communica— tions Contacts, Scale 2 . . . . . . vii Page 159 160 160 160 172 175 175 175 176 176 176 177 Table Page 22. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Task-Related Information, Scale 3 . . . . . . . . 177 23. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Control of Message Flow, Scale 5 . . . . . . . . . . 177 24. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Influence over Personal Opinions, Scale 7 . . . . . . 178 25. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Importance of Secondary Contacts, Scale 8 . . . . . . 178 26. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Influence in the Organization, Scale 10 . . . . . . . 178 27. Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, First Source of Information, Scale 15 . . . . 179 28. Self-Reported Crimes Currently Serving Sentence for by Study Population Type O O I O O O O O O O O O O 1 9 2 29. Self-Reported Length of Sentence and Have Seen Parole Board, Liaison Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . 194 30. Self-Reported Length of Sentence and Have Seen Parole Board, Non-Liaison Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . 195 31. Time Left in Sentence in Months Before Sample Groups are Eligible to Come Before Parole Board . . . . . . . . 199 32a. Politician Role Scale Score of Liaison . . . 202 32b. Square John Role Scale Score of Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals . . . . . . 203 32c. Outlaw Role Scale Score of Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals . . . . . . . 204 viii Table 32d. 32c. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Right Guy Role Scale Score of Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals . . . . Ding Role Scale Score of Liaisons and Non-Liaison Individuals . . . . . Summary of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self-Perception for Hypothesis 1 . . Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads, and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads, to Test Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non- Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads and Non- Liaison-Liaison Dyads, to Test Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Average Summed Values from Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self-Perceptions, for Hypothesis 4 . . Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads and Non- Liaison-Liaison Dyads, to Test Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Average Summed Values for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self-Perceptions, for Hypothesis 6 . . Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non- Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads and Non- Liaison-Liaison Dyads, to Test Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non- Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads and Non- Liaison-Liaison Dyads, to Test Hypothesis 8 . . . . . . . . . ix Page 205 206 210 212 215 217 220 222 224 227 Table Page 41. Summary of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self-Perceptions for Hypothesis 9 . . . 229 42. Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads to Test Hypothesis 10 . . . . '. . . . . . 232 43. Summary of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self-Perceptions for Hypothesis ll . . . 234 44. Summary of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self-Perceptions for Hypothesis 12 . . . 236 45. Summarizes out of 100 Contacts, the Number of Contacts of Non-Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads that were on a Chance Basis, as Per- ceived by Non-Liaison Individuals, Test for Hypothesis 13 . . . . . . . 239 46. Summarizes out of 100 Contacts, the Fre- quency of Times the Contacts in the Non-Liaison-Non-Liaison and Non-Liaison- Liaison Dyads were not on a Chance Basis, Test for Hypothesis l4 . . . . 241 47. Summary of the Average Summed Value from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non- Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads and Non—Liaison- Liaison Dyads to Test Hypothesis 15 . . 243 48. Formal Job Classification of the Liaison and Non-Liaison Persons . . . . . . 246 49. Score Weights of Job Assignment, by Sample Population, Routine Selection=3, Request=2, Asked For=l . . . . . . . 248 Table Page 50. Summary of the Results of the Demographic Data, Between the Liaison and Non- Liaison Samples . . . . . . . . . 262 51. Summary of the Results of Tests of Hypotheses Between Mean Value Differ- ences of the Liaison and Non-Liaison Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Communication Patterns . . . . . . . 92 2. Graph Theory Concepts . . . . . . . 105 3. Matrix of Reported Communications Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . 183 4. Sociogram of the Communication Structure of the Inmate Informal Organization Lines Connecting Individuals Repre- sent Reciprocated Contacts . . . . . 187 5. Frequency Polygon for the Reciprocated Choices Received by Liaisons and Non-Liaisons . . . . . . . . . . 190 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The fact that there are 230 state and federal maximum security penal institutions for adults, which had a total average inmate pOpulation of 214,000 at the beginning of 1969 justifies research that will enhance the general level of knowledge about these institutions.1 The practice of placing men in custody is as old as society itself, but only within the last 300 years has custody emerged as a major weapon of the State for deal- ing with the "criminal." In an historical sense, the development of imprisonment as a form of penalty for the violation of society‘s laws is rather new. The new philosophy of imprisonment is designed to impose a sen- tence or judgment of penance on an individual which im- plies a term of imprisonment or its equivalent in terms of restricted freedom, with the exception of those few cases where the death penalty is prescribed. While serving 1"Manpower and Training in Correctional Insti- tutions," Staff Report of Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training (College Park, Md.: American Cor- rectional Association, December, 1969), p. 15. his sentence the individual is either to be punished or reformed. Like universities and mental health hospitals, correctional institutions have multiple goals. These goals can be characterized in terms of the relative im- portance of custody or treatment purposes.2 The debate between the two polar Opposites rages even to date. There is one point that both sides do agree upon, that is, while imprisoned the offender who was judged to be dangerous to society cannot harm the general public. The prisons are given the task of controlling these people who society has judged unable to control their own lives.3 It is for this reason if no other that society will retain prisons whether or not they reform or punish the individuals sentenced to them. It is the duty of the social sciences to investigate the effects of custody upon the individual, that the society will demand in the foreseeable future. It is only through such scientific research that the full effects of reformation or punishment as takes place in penal institutions can be understood, myth separated from fact. Historically larger society has no direct stake in the prison system, other than its perceived protection. 2Mayer N. Zald, ed., Social Welfare Institutions (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965), p. 451. 3Samuel E. Wallace, Total Institutions (New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1971), p. 3. The remoteness Of the prison and the lack of communications with knowledgeable authorities makes it hard for the public to judge the institutions' effectiveness, assuming the goals of the institution are clear to the public. Unless there is a dramatic escape, or a bloody riot the general public is apathetic to the Operations of the society's prisons or the men held in custody within them.4 In the light of the public uproar which follows close on the heels of an escape from prison or a riot, it is not surprising that prison officials have chosen the course of treating all inmates as if they were equally serious threats to the task of custody.5 Stringent security measures are imposed on the entire inmate population with the full realization that much of the effort may be unnecessary. Unlike most other organizations in American society, a prison's policies are always determined by various outside groups having direct interests in the institution's Oper- ations. The prison system is given a general legal man- date to Operate by the taxpayers, which like most mandates, sets a floor below which achievement cannot fall, but does not require the achievement of even higher aims. 4Norman 8. Hayner and Ellis Ash, "The Prison as a Community," American Sociological Review, V (1940), 577. SGresham Sykes, The Society Of Captives (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1958), p. 20. The significant public, or the group Of individuals who judge the effectiveness Of the institution however are not the same as the general mandate granters. The signi- ficant public of custodial institutions are made up of police, judges, prosecuting attorneys, and others having custodial goals.6 The Official policies directed from these outside interest groups have definite implications for the criterion that is used in officially measuring the institutions' success and those who administrate them. The individuals who administrate the custodial institutions are aware that the majority of inmates do not fit the full extent of the dangerous definition that society has placed on them, but the overreaction of the general public to an escape or riot, the significant public's expectations, and the failure of the social sciences to study inmates as a group has the effect of inflating the number of prisoners who are handled as though they were dangerous.7 There is certainly no convincing proof that the majority of inmates are bent on flight. The warden being human, is strongly inclined to follow the path Of least resistance in his administering of the institution in his charge. The path of least resistance, in the light of the ordinary understanding of a prison warden and the reactions of the 6Ibid., p. 46. 7Elmer H. Johnson, Crime, Correction, and Society (Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press, 1968), p. 497: general and significant publics' is to make inmate escapes and disturbances as difficult as possible, by making the individual inmate helpless.8 The inmate population is handled in a very efficient routing manner. This handling of the ordinary human needs for physical survival by a large bureaucratic organization is a key factor that makes up what Erving Goffman has called a "total institution."9 A total institution is defined by Goffman as a place of residence and work where a huge number of like—situated individuals, cut Off from wider society for an appreciable period of time, lead an enclosed, formally administered life. In a maximum security institution this bureaucratic administration not only provides for the basic physical needs of the men in its charge, but also serves the func- tion Of minimizing Opportunities for inmate escape or rebellion, though discouraging inmate interaction. The penal administrator's efforts to minimize interaction among the men in his charge is doomed to fail- ure. The very act Of custody where many individuals are bound together for long intervals of time must eventually give rise to a social system. This social system is not simply the social order decreed by the custodians, but the social order which grows up more informally as men interact 8Frank Tannebaum, Wall Shadows (New York: Knicker- bocker Press, 1922), p. 13. 9Erving Goffman, Asylums (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1961), p. 6. in meeting the problems posed by their imprisonment.lo When any type of social institution--religious, educa- tional, legal or medical--begins to exercise total con- trol over its population, that institution begins to dis- play certain characteristics, communication between inside and outside is rigidly controlled or prohibited altogether, those inside the institution are frequently referred to as inmates, subjects whose every movement is controlled by the institution's staff, an entirely separate social world comes into existence within the institution, which defines the inmates' social status, his relationship to all others, his very identity as a person.11 In the research literature it is customary for both sociologist and correctional workers to adapt the viewpoint of society, rather than the prisoner, when dis- cussing the goals Of prisons and other correctional insti- tutions. Prisons are seen as performing an integrative function for society and at the same time is a means of safeguarding the other institutions of society from attack. The means to carry out this task is varied, and is represented by several philosophies of imprisonment. These are isolation through ostracism, punishment, loSykes, 1958, 22. cit., p. xii. 11Wallace, op, cit., p. 7. deterrence, and rehabilitation.12 The most prevalent philosophy of imprisonment, which ignores the inmate social system, is that the inmate is to serve out his sentence in complete isolation from the general public and the prison administration at best was to be on hand to see that it occurs as humanely and quietly as possible. The restriction in individual freedom is felt to serve as a deterrence to others who might otherwise contemplate com- mitting a crime or recommitting a crime, for which he would be punished in like manner. A new philosophy that seems to be challenging the concept of isolation sees imprisonment as protecting society by the prevention of crime, through the rehabilita- tion of individuals who commit them. The advocates of re- habilitation point out that effective deterrence rests upon the assumption Of unbroken operation of deterrent instruments. As soon as they cease to Operate or make default, deterrence ceases. Deterrence is thus a limited method of controlling human behavior and checking human urges, since some individuals may be chronically or temporarily fearless of the penal sanctions for a crime.13 12Hans Mettick, "Some Latent Functions of Imprison- ment," Journal Of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, L (1959), 238. 13Hans Von Hentig, "The Limits of Penal Treatment," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXII, No. 4 (November-December, I941), 403. They urge a system whereby the individual internalizes the checks upon his own behavior and does not rely on society's sanctions or fear Of them as a substitute for self control. Even with the recent rise Of the popularity of the ideal of rehabilitation and the increasing interest of suofessional treatment workers challenging the old signi- ficant public of penal institutions, the rehabilitation ideal is still not prevalent within prison walls. Many WelL—meaning prison administrators are trapped by the' Cummoded structure that was built to support the punitive model, The buildings were designed without reference to the lasers wants and needs, except as individuals conform— ing ‘to the institution's stereotype Of them. The prisons were designed for the security of the guards and citizens Of‘tlne society without consideration for even the personal security Of the inmates who must live within them.14 To Preserve the security of the inmates the warden is forced to 1become a jailer first, a reformer, a guardian, a disCliplinarian or anything else second. Within the total institution of the prison, the essential task, namely preservation from chaos, permeates all the tasks which 15 the institution may have as its declared aim. This \ l4 . . p Johnson, E., Op. c1t., p. 495; Wallace, Op. c1t., . 4. — —- — — P 15Paul De Becker, "The Sociology of Change in .enal Institutions, in Changing Concepts of Crime and its Treatment, ed. by Hugh J. Klare (New York: Pergamon Pram, 1 , p. 139. emphasis is not altogether unjustified, for institutional ‘ chaos would represent a grave danger not only to the staff and general public, but also to the inmates who live within the institution. The assurance of order is regarded as worth the price paid in terms of subjecting the inmates to detailed routine, with secondary emphasis on treatment. Men in prison are always counted day and night. The heart of the maximum security institution lies in the daily regimentation, routines, and rituals of domination which bend the subjects into customary posture of silent awe and unthinking acceptance.16 The regularity of prison routing means predictability, and predictability has two sides to it. It leaves out after an initial learning period, the possibility that situations filled with ambiguity, uncertainty, and threat may arise, but it also leaves out the possibility of new challenges, and unknown and un- exPlored possibilities will arise. The issue becomes which is Worse: perfect predictability or perfect chance? Probably the latter, yet we do not know what degree of ur“zertainty is equivalent to perfect certainty in negative Value, and what degree of uncertainty is optimal for the Welfare of the prisoners. \ 16Richard McCleery, "The Governmental Process and InfCnrmal Social Control," in The Prison: Studies in mxsgg’ttutional Organization and Change, ed. by Donald CreSsey (New Yofic: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961), p. 140; Tannenbaum, op. cit., p. 12. 10 The dilemma is clear enough: justice and efficiency both point in the direction of perfect certainty, but this may be contrary to the basic needs of prisoners. Inmates in custodial institutions want a change in the monotony cm daily prison routine. Ironically, disruptions in rou- tine even if endangering life may be welcome as a break in the routine of prison life which serve to make the system less predictable and hence less unbearable for the inmate 17 The inmate in prison has two principle systems involved. for manipulating time and routine Of prison life. The first and one already mentioned would be to change the $1'-91'lposts already there by conscious interference with Prismnn routines, by infractions of the rules. Secondly, the :inmates can try to introduce new and private signposts bYir‘lteraction with officials and peers. The first type ofreeaction gets immediate effects, but the second, al- though not so dramatic, has longer lasting benefits to the inmate involved. Conditions Of imprisonment which lead the inmate to Seek relief can be summarized as a breakdown of the barliiers ordinarily separating the spheres of life: (1) all aspects of life are conducted in the same place and under a single authority, (2) each phase Of the inmates' \ t . 17Patrick Driscoll, "Factors Related to the Insti- uI-'-1C>na1 Adjustment of Prison Inmates," Journal of A$1131 and Social Psychology, XLVII (July, 1952), 135. 11 daily activity is carried on in the immediate company of a large number of others, all of whom are treated alike and required to do the same thing together; (3) all phases of the day's life activities are tightly scheduled, with one activity leading at a prearranged time to the next, and the whole sequence of activities being imposed from above through a system of explicit rulings and by a body ofcofficials; (4) finally, the contents of the various inferred activities are brought together as parts Of a $hugle overall purportedly rational plan designed to ful- fill.the aims of the institution. Prison as a Community Imprisonment, once hailed as the great revolution- ar)’ reform, is being doubted and contested as a solution 18 The bleak fact is that, just to today's crime problem. as Inonstrous punishments of the eighteenth century failed 'uD (:urb crime, so the more human total institutions of thEB twentieth century seems also to be failing.19 Pro— feSsional workers in penology have an overriding Obliga- ticun to acknowledge this failure and to seek its causes. ThEE traditional protective functions Of confinement are not: as true today as in the past. The man adjudicated and \ 18Joseph Eaton, Stone Walls not a Prison Make (Springfield, 111.: ChaT—r es Thomas, BRIT. p. 401. , 19Lloyd McCorkle and Richard Korn, "Resocializa- t-1<'>r1 Within Prison Walls," Annals of the American Academy 9f Political and Social Science, CCXCIII (May, 19515: 530- 12 sentenced to prisons to serve a sentence is in most cases serving only his minimum sentence and even this is cut down by rules of good time. Today we must reCOgnize that, ex- cept for certain types of offenses which require an imposi- tion of a mandatory term without privilege of parole, prac- tically all sentences in the United States are in effect, indefinite sentences with the possibility of parole or nandatory release after reduction of maximum good-conduct 20 Not only is the protective function of pri- allowances. sons becoming outmoded by reduced sentences, but the re- formators are failing to reform the men in their charge. Nothing in them seems to be conducive to reform, they are excezllent schools of crime, and the majority of inmates leave them as confirmed criminals rather than reformed men.21 It is not necessary to belabor the point that in- mates flocking out of American penal and correctional in- Stitnations go forth in tragic numbers to engage in crime again. One of the basic reforms taking place in recent yeelis is to keep people out Of prisons, to keep them from baing educated in criminal ways. One result of this is the practical neglect by present day reformers, to reform \ 0 20James V. Bennett, "The Sentence and Treatment of ffenders," The Annals of the American Academy of Political aJ‘d\80cial SEIence, CCCXXXIX (January, 1962), 144. J 21Benjamin Karpman, "Sex Life in Prison," The Fournal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXVIII (January- 9 ruary, 1948), 475. 13 the prisons as a penal and correctional device. As in the cmher fields of social science, scientific progress in the field of corrections depends on reducing the infinite var- iety of problems through conceptualization. If the action of incarceration is to be understood the effects of the interactions of the people who make up the immediate reality for any given inmate must also be understood. The prison must be understood as a community. It is well recognized that control is carried out in a custodial institution by the obvious means of walls around the institution, the constant surveillance and segregation of the prisoners, the counting and recounting, and the para-military discipline. Another type of control and less Obvious Operates within the covertly coercive controls, since even they demand some degree of prisoner cooperation for their continuance, the inmate social system.22 Greshem Sykes stated this view in his statement "333' effort to reform the prison--and--thus reform the cri“linal--which ignores the social system of the prison "23 is 618 futile as the labors of Sisyphus. The warden cenruot hope to keep his institution's inmates in total lsoliation. If inmates are to work, which is purported to be rNecessary for effective rehabilitation of the inmate \ 22DeBecker, <33. cit., p. 140. 23Sykes, 1958, op. cit., p. 34. 14' and functioning Of the institution, they must have some freedom Of movement and this provides opportunity for interaction. The failure of criminological research to account for the interpersonal relations among inmates is a serious theoretical and methodological omission. The objective description and analysis of the prison experience has remained somewhat neglected in the literature, which has focused on recidivism and performance on parole.24 Asta social system and an organization, the prison is a Subject for study by the social scientist that could assist the administrator determine and develop the proper func- tioris and qualities of future correctional institutions. Research in penology is only of recent origin. PriCDr to 1940, no systematic sociological analysis of Prisson life had ever been done. The first work was done by [Donald Clemmer in his now classic work, The Prison C£\__y_"'"l‘unit. This classic remained the only comprehensive worag until Gresham Sykes published his Society of Captives in 31958. Although articles in American journals appear sporadically in the intervening years, most of them were conClerned with the exploration of the ideals which Clemmer had expounded in a context which leaned heavily upon theoretical sociology of the 1920's. The explosive clash of llraditional inmate cultures with the wave of riots in \ 24Clarence Schrag, "Leadership among Prison In- matesn" American Sociological Review, XIX (February, 1954), 7TlMcCorkle and Korn, op. cit., p. 536. 15 the 1950's, 60's, and 1970's show a need to look at the system Of power within the inmate society. The riots that rocked the institutions of the 1950's were blamed on the historical causes of riots: (1) poor and insufficient food, (2) inadequate or unsanitary housing, (3) sadistic brutality of prison Officials, (4) aggressiveness of dif- ferent types of inmates, and (5) restriction of the semi— official informal inmate self government by a new adminis- tration.25 With the new emphasis on treatment in the custodial institution the quality official has improved, housing has improved, the brutality Of prison officials is restricted, yet we witnessed bloody riots in prisons in recent years. This indirect evidence seems to point out the :need for research into the power relationship of the imnérte society and its relationship to the formal system. This; is by no means an easy task, but a task Of grave importance. Degradations of the Prison Community and Primary Groups Specialists in corrections are becoming increas- ingly convinced that experiences which prisoners have in priSon life turn out to be considerably more important the?! various formal schemes for rehabilitation set up by \ P 25Frank Hartung and Maurice Flock, "A Social— JSYchological Analysis of Prison Riots an Hypothesis," fig§flgal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, II (May-June,‘1956), 52. 16 the prison administration.26 It is becoming increasingly clear that techniques Of inducing change in human behavior can be no better than the quality of the interpersonal content within which they exist. Yet, very little is known, even by prison workers, Of the kinds of social interaction which take place among prisoners or the make- up Of the prison social system. Incarceration imposes what could be considered a group problem on all the inmates. All inmates are cast in a huge melting pot with an un- successful attempt at individualization and isolation, and are expected to live in harmony. The inmates all have suf- fered the degradations that are suffered with the criminal justice adjudication process.27 This process has had the effect of reducing their social status and withdrawing them physically from the normal stream of society. Upon entrance to the correctional institution the stripping Of the remaining elements of the individual's former identity 28 continues. The individual begins his stay at the insti- tution by learning "the way we do things around here" from 26Vernon Fox, ”Prison Disciplinary Problems," in The Sociology of Punishment and Correction, ed. by Johnston, Savitz and Wolfgang (New York: J6hn Wiley and Sons, 1970), p. 383. 27Rosser Smith, "A Probation Officer Looks at Discrepancies in Sentences," Federal Probation, XXVI (December, 1962), 28. 28Wallace, op, cit., p. 4. 17 the prison guards and inmates. He soon learns that the prison routine leaves no room for individuality. The in- mate feels that prisons lack concern for the individual's personal dignity and safety as individuals.29 When he be- comes a prisoner, the Offender becomes a number, a unit to be processed by the prison employees. The physical isola- tion takes on the symbols of psychological isolation from the world Of "respectable" and "decent" people. The inmate is being told by society he is not only a bad man in moral evaluation, but he is also a bad man socially.3o He is not to associate with other people better than himself. The various types of offenders the inmates is forced to live with may be repugnant to him personally.31 Being told he is as evil as the men he is being forced to live with may be an ego—shattering experience for the new inmate. The new inmate may soon suffer another blow to his self-conception. It has been reported that a society com— posed exclusively of men tends to generate anxieties in 32 its members concerning their masculinity. This anxiety 29E. Johnson, op, cit., p. 499. 3°Tannenbaum, op, cit., p. 9. 31Mattick, op, cit., p. 241. 32Sykes, 1958, op, cit., p. 71. 18 over masculinity may take on a physical sexual nature. Affect-hunger is not provided for while in prison. The inmate is unable to meet his need for love from the author- ity figures Of the prison staff. He may become preoccupied with his domestic reSponsibilities and feel disgrace and guilt for those he left behind. The inmate may become fearful of the infidelity of loved ones whether true or imaginary, cutting Off his last ties with the "free" community.33 In the free community there are outlets for a man to sublimate his sexual drives so that he may con— trol them, but in prison such sublimation becomes prac- tically impossible for some inmates.34 For some of these inmates masturbation becomes a suitable outlet for their physical sexual drives, but for others it only approximates the goal of sexual satisfaction. For approximately 24 per cent of the prison pOpulation homosexual liaisons provide a sexual outlet.35 This arrangement is at least partly a sexual role fulfillment rather than simply a form Of physical gratification. The recruitment of new inmates 33George Train, "Unrest in the Penitentiary," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, XLIV, No. 3 (September-October, l9 3), 283. 34Karpman, op, cit., p. 478. 35Charles Tittle, "Inmate Organization: Sex Differentiation and the Influence of Criminal Subcultures," American Sociological Review, XXXIV (August, 1969), 498. 19 into the liaisons is Often done by risk of life threats. The young good-looking "boy" may find himself a prize "catch" and status symbol by older inmates in this strange new world. This may be the final blow to the young man's dignity and sense of self worth. All the factors of im- prisonment; the loss of liberty, loss of material goods, loss of heterosexual contact, loss of personal autonomy and the Symbolic affirmation of his low value to society as an individual all threaten the inmate's sense of self worth. No matter how the inmate reacts to the stress of imprisonment, there is a common sharing of a common status as inmates among all the offenders assembled in the insti- tution.36 The inmate may react to the stress of imprison- ment by rejecting the "respectables" who placed him in this strange environment. This rejecting and the coping with the deprivations of imprisonment are reported to be the chief reason for 37 The what has been called the inmate social system. banding together with other inmates of like status gives the individual inmate the mechanism for controlling the environment and permitting the maintenance of a sense of masculinity and self-dignity. The very forces which strip the individual Of his masculinity and self-dignity at the 36Smith, op. cit., p. 29. 37Tittle, op, cit., p. 492. 20 same time create a sense of identity among the faceless mass.38 Upon entering the institution the new inmate be— comes aware very early in his period of commitment that there exists a very rigid social hierarchy in the new society he finds himself forced to live.39 The prison pOpulation is broken up into clique or primary groups governed by an overall phiIOSOphy. The task of the new inmate member of the prison society is to determine his own status within the institutional environment. The new member feels that he is an anonymous figure in a sub- ordinate group. He Observes that each man in the prison community acquires status and the privileges that accompany that status by his reaction to the prison situation.4o Inmates who held the highest esteem are the ones who belong to clique groups. Also on the practical level the new inmates soon discover that individuals who get into trouble with the prison administrators are usually the 41 inexperienced non-clique inmates. The clique groups in prison are organized to give the individual inmate 38Torence Morris and Pauline Morris, Pentonville (London: Routledge and Kegan, 1963), p. 222. 39Joseph Eaton, Stone Walls not a Prison Make (Springfield, Ill.: Charles Thomas, 1962), p. 404; Wallace, op, cit., p. 43. 40 Wallace, op, cit., p. 46. 41Donald Clemmer, The Prison Community (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1940), p. 145. 21 support in the performance of a task or to provide relief from the rigors of imprisonment.42 Donald Clemmer in his research found five degrees of group attachments possible within a prison society. Clemmer's classification is based on the strength of co- hesiveness the individual displays toward a primary group. Clemmer defined a primary or clique group, the terms will be used interchangeably in this paper, as a collectivity of prisoners who possess a common body of knowledge and interests sufficient to produce an understanding and soli- darity which is characterized by a we-feeling, senti- mental attachment, and unanimity among its members. Clemmer classified 18 per cent of his study population as total clique men. They shared everything with the group and were subject to complete control by the group. Clemmer classified as group men these individuals who referred their Opinions to a primary group yet interacted with other inmates in the prison population, 39 per cent of his sample fell into this category. The 41 per cent of his population that had no primary group affiliation yet interacted with other inmates were called by Clemmer semi-solitary men. The remaining population who talked to no one and wanted to be alone were called complete solitary men. Up until the appearance of Clemmer's work penologists were not 42Morris Caldwell, "Group Dynamics in the Prison Community," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, XLVI (1956), 650. 22 aware Of the extent of individual inmate participation in the prison community. Given the aims of penal adminis- tration which encouraged individuality and anomie among the inmate population this finding was shocking. The ques- tion arose how and why does such interaction take place. Clemmer suggested that perhaps a man's initial contact when he entered prison was important.43 From this initial contact the inmate learns about the prison or- ganization and enters into friendships with men he can “trust." This initial contact is related to the original cell assignment made by the administration. It would seem ironically that the prison administration through its re- striction on communications and by cell assignments created prison primary groups, it was bent on discouraging. As Stanton Wheeler said, "the restrictions upon social inter- course restrict the range appreciably, but more important the character Of prison life makes it dangerous for a man to be intimate with more than the small handful of men "44 whom he feels he can trust. The relationship between residence and friendship formation has been well—documented 45 by the work of Festenger, Schachter and Back. Their 43Clemmer, 1940, op, cit., p. 100. 44Stanton Wheeler, "Socialization in Correctional Communities," American Sociological Review, XXVI (October, 1961), 224. 4SLeon Festenger, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back, Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 8. 23 experiments show that individuals tend to form friendships with individuals whose homes are in close proximity to each other. Erving Goffman found that in total insti— tutions in addition tO fraternization among inmates, there is likely to be found formation of a more differentiating kind between select groups of inmates. These solidarities tend to exist throughout physically close regions, such as a ward or cottage, where inhabitants perceive they are being administered as a single unit and hence have a com- mon fate.46 It seems as if formal policy and building construction may effect the inmate social system that the formal administrative policies discourage. Postulated Primary Group Conformity *UsingpSmalIIGroup Theory The process Of "buddy-formation" whereby a pair of inmates, or a small number Of them come to be recognized as "buddies" or "mates" and come to rely on each other for a wide range of assistance is not simply the effect of cell assignments. The buddy formation process is an inti- mate face-to-face contact between two peOple that is nat- ural and spontaneous as contrasted with the prescribed rules for group behavior that the formal structure seeks 46Erving Goffman, "On the Characteristics of Total Institutions; Staff Inmate Relations," in The PrisonLIStudies in Institutional Organization and Change, ed,9by Donald Cressey (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 56. 24 to influence.47 This relationship provides the only area where warm and socially-rewarding human relations remain possible for the majority of inmates. Clique groups pro- vide the inmates with the continuance of emotional con- tacts and mutual support and understanding.48 This sup- port extends tO the inmate community, for each individual inmate's status within a primary group depends on his relationship with the other members of a given group, 49 The fact which depend on his reactions to imprisonment. that the primary group exists implies that thereby an active channel of communication between the clique mem- bers. This communication makes the social relations of the group possible, and provides the process that mediates the interpersonal activities of the inmates, which affects not only their self-conceptions of the inmate community, 50 The extent of in- but also their personal attitudes. fluence a given inmate group has upon its members depends on (1) the extent which a given inmate is attracted to or values membership in the group, and (2) the extent he 47Caldwell, 9p. cit., p. 649. 48Smith, op, cit., p. 27. 49Peter Blau and Richard Scott, Formal Organiza- tions (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962), p. 3. 50Donald Gibbons, Changing the Lawbreaker (Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HaIl, 1965), p. 15. \‘l '1 25 feels that the other members of the group value him.51 The effect on an inmate belonging to a primary group tends to produce changes in his Opinions and attitudes about the inmate community and himself, in the direction of establish- ing conformity within the group. The extent or degree of conformity that the primary group can demand of the indi— vidual inmate is a direct function of how attractive the group is to the inmate. High attraction groups attempt more influence upon its members and change their opinions and attitudes more Often than low attraction groups.52 The inmate involved is also more likely to refer an opinion to an attractive group than he is to one that is less at- tractive, the net result is for the attractive groups to have a great influence on its individual member's opinions. Group attractiveness or cohesion is defined as the summa- tion of forces acting upon its members to remain in the group.53 Members who do not conform to a given highly cohesive group norm may risk rejection from the group un- less they are Of great value to the group, as in the case 51James Dittes and Harold Kelley, "Effects of Different Conditions of Acceptance on Conformity to Group Norms," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIII (1956), I00. 52Harold Gerard, "The Anchorage of Opinions in Face-to-Face Groups," Human Relations, VII (1954), 314. 53Richard Emerson, "Deviation and Rejection on Experiment Duplication," American Sociological Review, XIX, No. 6 (December, 1954), 688. I 26 of a leader, where they are given more freedom of indi- vidual expression.54 The inmate clique leader, assuming clique groups act as other small groups do, is allowed some freedom to deviate from the group norm, as long as he is doing it for the good of the group. The average inmate follower in the group is not granted this freedom. If he wants to return group support which means social approval and the avoidance of disapproval he must follow the dic- tates of the primary group. The approval or disapproval Of one's only affective contacts is a very powerful force for social contact in the remote island of the penal insti- tution. The individual inmate lacks even the choice of where he wants to live in the institution. The primary group usually does not have to take the extreme action of total rejection of a deviant member. When the primary group sees a member's Opinions or attitudes deviating from the acceptable norm they start to communicate their dis- approval to that member.55 This increased pressure by the primary group is usually sufficient to change the de- viant's Opinions. If the deviant should fail to reSpond to the group's pressure, the group may reject him as a member and feel no more pressure to communicate with him 54Leon Festenger and John Thibaut, "Interpersonal Communication in Small Groups," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVI (1951), 92? 551bid., p. 99. 27 and extend him the rights of membership. In the rare case that the deviant is a highly valued group member, the group also may change its norms in the direction of his Opinion to once more establish consensus within the group.56 In a maximum security institution where the stimuli are very ambiguous to the recipients, the pressures that emerge through the communicative process that establishes and maintains conformity within the group provides the major support for personal correctness for the individual. The individual inmate is confused and deprived of all knowledge of the normative order when incarcerated in a maximum security institution. The individual will seek to come to terms with the new environment in which he is forced to live. The opinions of his peers become the only contact available for the majority of inmates. They be— come, to use Stanley Schachter terms, the individuals "Social Reality." Schachter described Social Reality as an issue for which there is no empirical reference, the "reality" of an Opinion is established by the fact that other people hold similar Opinions.S7 It is the clique groups who provide clarification and definition that deter- mines the "social reality" of the inmate community. It is the clique's clarification and definition that determines the social reality of a new piece of information for its 56 57 Emerson, op, cit., p. 688. Ibid. 28 individual member. It would seem since there may be a number of clique groups with separate memberships within the same prison community there may be a number of "social realities" existing simultaneously on any given piece of information or attitude. Clique group formation with its resulting pres- sures have been researched in a number of penal institu- tions. George H. Grosser in his research in a juvenile institution found that clique group formation was very real.58 Grosser found that there existed cliques of juve- niles that recruited and screened new members and passed on institutional lore to the newcomer. Within these cliques develOped group social norms, social sanctions, loyalty, and group ties and that group beliefs were rein- forced by constant reinforcement of referring beliefs to the group for clarification and definition. Morris Cald- well reported that within a prison community "membership in informal groups may range from a minimum of three per— sons to as many as twenty-five or more depending on the needs and interests of the persons concerned. "The members generally display similar types of attitudinal behavior 59 and adhere to the same set of social values." Donald L. Garrity reports, 58George Grosser, “The Role of Informal Inmate Groups in Change of Values," Children, V (January, 1958), 25-29. 59Caldwell, op, cit., p. 649. 29 We have shown that inmate populations are arranged into a number of separate social worlds which ef- fectively become membership groups. A member of one of these groups may or may not come to use it as a reference group, but it is always a potential reference group. Norman Hayner in his study of a Washington State correc- tional institution reported "Group pressures are very strong against anybody who violates certain types of accepted behavior."61 Peter Blair reported the relation- ship between group cohesion and values directly, "the enforcement of social norms requires an effective network of communications in a group, hence, a group with strong communications network will be more effective in enforcing the prevailing anti-administration norms than one with a weak network."62 The preceding discussion on primary group forma- tion suggests that the function of the primary group within the maximum security institution is to form and maintain a social reality for Opinions and beliefs among men who live in close proximity to one another. The formulation of a 60Donald Garrity, "The Prison as a Rehabilitative Agency," in The Prison, Studies in Institutional Organiza- tion and Change, edl by Donald Cressey (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 375. 61Norman Hayner, "Washington State Correctional Institutions as Communities," Social Forces, XXI (April, 1943), 319. 62Peter Blair, "Structural Efforts," American Sociological Review, XXV, NO. 2 (1960), 190. 30 social reality for a group can be thought of as task performance. Kurt Back has done research on group co- hesion and suggests that group cohesion cannot only be based upon task performance, but also in terms Of group 63 prestige. Back concludes that, When cohesiveness is based on group prestige group members try to risk as little as possible to en- danger their status; they act courteously, concen- trated on their own actions, and adjusted to their partner's social environment. One partner would easily assume a dominant role, and the submissive member was influenced more without trying to establish this relationship.54 This view of dominance and submission being the only re- lationships possible in some forms of clique groups finds support from research done in the penal environments. Penal research points out that the number of roles an individual can play in a prison community are severely limited, and once assigned a role, this role is usually maintained throughout the individual's stay in the insti- tution, no matter to what extent his attitudes or Opinions 65 The researchers feel that a situation of might change. equality is a situation Of threat which must be resolved into a relationship of subordinate and subordinate rules, within the prison community. The individual inmate a acquires attitudes toward himself in relation to other 63Kurt Back, "Influence through Social Communica— tion," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVI (1951),—9423. 64Ibid., p. 23. 65McCorkle and Korn, op, cit., p. 521. 31 inmates in the organization which makes it possible for him to interact with others in the prison community. "The basic inter-personal relationship in inmate society was dominance and subordination."66 This system Of domi- nance and submission presents difficulties within the prison community. Prestige or dominance must be acquired from peers. This creates a situation of competition among a greater number of prestige seekers than the inmate community can accommodate.67 This forces competition for esteem. This creates a condition where those granting the esteem can make demands upon the leadership that they normally would not make. To grant esteem for a low status person is of little relative cost to him. To be looked upon as inferior all along implies that social parity is not an issue for the low prestige individual. Some parity is not of great concern for those who must grant 68 prestige, esteem can be exchanged readily for services. This creates the unique situation in the prison community 66Clarence Schrag, "Some Foundation for a Theory Of Correction," in The Prison Studies in Institutional Opggnization and Change, ed.byDonald Cressey (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 163. 67Richard Cloward, "Social Control in the Prison," Theoretical Studies in Social Opganization of the Prison, Social Science Research Council PamphIét 15 (New York, 1965), P. 21 8Eugene Weinstein, William DeVaughan, and Mary Wiley, "Obligation and the Flow of Deference in Exchange," Sociometry, XXXII (1960), ll. 32 where leadership and goods do not necessarily follow as in the "free" community. In the prison community the symbols of social status have been largely stripped away. Status becomes equated with power. The demonstration of power in the prison community is based on the amount of goods and services a leader can deliver to his followers.69 These goods and services serve the function of making the rigors of imprisonment more tolerable. Inmate Roles In attempting to understand the meaning Of im- prisonment, the researcher must view prison life as some- thing more than a matter of walls, bars, cells, and locks, and clique groups. We must see the prison as a society or social community. The community should be examined to determine if social roles exist outside of the primary clique groups that would effect a prisoner's self-image and other social-psychological traits. In the literature on complex organizations one of the approaches for study- ing complex organizations stems from the common observa- tions that people in organizations tend to have relatively uniform expectations about the behavior of persons in various positions, and that the behavior of these persons 69Norman Hayner and Ellis Ash, "The Prison Community as a Social Group," American Sociological Review, IV (1939), 364. 33 is interpreted in terms of these expectations.70 These expectations which others share of the individual as an occupant Of a position, a status category is called a role. The general term role can be further broken down into Social roles and Personal roles. Social roles are a set of expectations associated with a position without reSpect of the characteristics of the persons who occupies the position. A Personal role is a set of expectations which others share of an individual's behavior in a position, without respect to the social role.71 The value of a definition of the roles based on shared expectations is that it emphasizes the social consequences of a given behavior. The system of shared expectations can be looked upon as the basis for the behavior of a given individual and for their interpretations of the behavior of others. It would be Of value to separate the Social roles from the Personal roles in the inmate community. Social roles could be looked at as the rules represented by jobs in the social division of labor involving a set of normative expectations that the occupant is expected to follow in the pursuit of some international end or objective. Social roles would represent the group solidarity or uniting 7oEugene Jacobson, W. W. Charters and Seymour Lieberman, "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations," Journal of Social Issues, XI, No. 3 (1951), 18. 711bid., p. 19. 34 bonds and collective strengths derived from the unity of the various clique groups with their networks of personal roles within them. Charles Tittle suggested that ”primary group affiliation and symbiotic organization exist side by side in a prison for both males and females."72 Per- sonal roles by their very definition would be based in the clique groups, while social roles would be free of the in— fluence of any one clique group. This distinction may have very important implications for leadership styles in the prison community. Social roles can be thought of as traits exhibited by an individual, because of the organizational climate he finds himself in. Social role behavior is not to be thought of as a psychological characteristic "owned" by an individual alone, but exists, because there is an organ- 73 The social milieu to izational place for them to occur. a large extent determines the characteristics that the various role inhabitants will exhibit, but the role will remain the same. Clarence Schrag comments, "The role of a convict among his fellows is determined not so much by psychological traits or social background as by the re— lationships between the groups to which he belongs.”4 72Tittle, op, cit., p. 503. 73Sethard Fisher, "Social Organization in a Correctional Residence," Pacific Sociological Review, IV, NO. 2 (Fall, 1961), p. 9. 74 Hayner, op, oip., p. 32. 35 Greshem Sykes commented "Prisons appear to form a group of social systems differing in detail, but alike in funda— mental processes."75 Sheldon Messenger noted in his studies of correctional institutions "It is noted that inmate culture and social relations are notably similar from prison to prison."76 The literature recognizes the existence of inmate roles that appear to be consistent between institutions, but there have been few attempts to identify their sources, to assess their social functions, or to analyze their interrelationships. "There is far too little knowledge of the variety of roles played by criminals in prison and even less knowledge of how these roles were related to one another."77 Furthermore, there has been a pronounced tendency to discuss these roles as if they were independent Of the Official system or clique groups. The total com- plex which is called a prison with its complex of social roles which control the behavior of the individuals within them has been largely ignored. "Both small groups and 75$ykes, 1958, op, cit., p. xii. 76Sheldon Messinger, "Issues in the Study of the Social System of Prison Inmates," Issues in Criminology, IV, NO. 2 (1960/1969), 135. 77Sykes, 1958, pp, 93;., p. xvii. 36 complete societies can be viewed as types Of interaction "78 systems. "The interrelationships between the various role sets comprise what is known as the inmate social system."79 Inmate-Staff Interactions In any study Of the prison community whether focusing on social or personal roles the concept of social control is very important in the study of the prison com- munity. The focus of the perceptual problem is the rela- tion of the social order and the individual being, the relation of the unit and the whole. Prisons are often conceptualized as being autocratic in form with the custo- dial Officials giving the orders and the inmates blindly obeying them. Prisoners are seen as totally managed, as persons whose opportunities for self-direction and indi- vidual action are almost completely circumscribed. Prisons are thought to be islands of social isolation where prison administrators use what approximates absolute control of inmates in order to accomplish functions given it by society. This view of prison life ignores the 78Robert Bales, "A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction," American Sociological Review, XV (April, 1950), 257. 79Peter Garabedian, "Social Roles and Processes of Socialization in the Prison Community,” in The Sociology Of Punishment and Correction, ed. by Johnston, Savitz andOWOIfgang (New York: JOhn Wiley and Sons, 1970), p. 487. 37 effects of the inmate social system which has been found to exist across custodial institutions separated by time and place. All custodial prisons are apt to show a com- mon social structure. Perhaps this is due to a diffusion Of ideas, customs, and laws; perhaps it is a matter Of similar social structures arising independently from attempts to solve much the same problems. In recent years the literature reports studies that have paid in- creasing attention to aspects of prison life of a socio- lOgical nature commonly identified as the "inmate culture," the "prison community" or the "inmate social system." It is becoming increasingly clear that a chart of the prison's administrative hierocracies, showing lines of authority, does not begin to describe how the prison is organized, who is responsible to whom, or who influences whom. DeSpite the formal policy of complete control of inmates, a social system exists within the walls of the institution. The prison inmates do not degenerate into a chaotic mass Of social relations which have nO order and make no sense. The prison community is a rational system in which a number of inmates and staff interact overtly or covertly with one another according to Specially prescribed rules of be- 80 havior. Donald Cressey stated this relationship when he said, "Personnel of the prison and inmates are bound 80Caldwell, op, cit., p. 649. 38 together enough so that most conflicts and misunderstand— ings are not critical."81 If viewed in this light inmate- staff relations can be viewed as analogous to other types of social organizations that is, as a number Of interacting human groups that exercise power and control over each other. At times the two strata are in conflict, but in general they Operate as a going concern. The prison community is unique in the sense that the two strata of inmates and custodial personnel are easily identifiable. Each strata views the other with mixed feelings of distrust and suSpicion. There is a re- inforcement of these mutually hostile attitudes through 82 The term caste can be used to describe stereotyping. the two general social systems. The term caste is used since there is no possibility of movement across caste lines in the prison. This tends to create a social dis— tance between the inmates and the prison personnel which enables inmate leaders to exercise tremendous control over all the Spheres Of the individual inmates lives. The appearance of the two separate societies seems to be an inevitable reaction to the pressures Of custodial care in 81Donald Cressey, The Prison Studies in Institu- tional Opganization and Change (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 2. 82Lewis Yablonsky, "Correction and the 'Doing- Time' Society," Federal Probation, XXIV (March, 1960), 56. 39 83 The Observations that inmates who penal institutions. normally would hate each other in the outside world "tend to suspend their intra-mural conflict when confronting the enemy-~the prison Officials--suggests an underlying belief structure held by all the members of the inmate commun- ity."84 NO matter what role or clique group the individual inmate belongs to, he holds overt allegiance to a belief structure commonly called the inmate code. Inmate Code Research in the prison community has pointed out the fact that the prison has a distinctive culture of its own, which is transmitted to each newcomer and handed down from one generation of inmates to the next. Prison culture consists of habit systems, behavior patterns, prison customs and folkways, the "prisoners code" and attitudes and opinions toward the prison system.85 The ”prison code" determines the type and extent Of legitimate interaction between the guards and the inmates' social systems. The code prohibits fraternization with guards or other prison personnel. The inmate social system has been said to be built around this solidarity of Opinion 83McCleery, op, cit., p. 153. 84Greshem Sykes, "Men, Merchants, and Toughs: A Study of Reactions to Imprisonment," Social Problems (Fall, 1956), 137. 85Caldwell, op, cit., p. 655. 40 that is anti-administration.86 Yet, it must be recognized that a prison does not run by threat Of force from the administration alone, but largely by virtue Of the accept- ance on the part of inmates and their adherence to rules. Adherence to prison rules does not mean law-abiding be- havior necessarily. It means that breaks of regulations take place in such a way that they do not disrupt the smooth order of the custodial institution.87 The inmate culture can administer a type of self-government that can reduce the number Of discipline problems brought to the administration's attention. This form of control or obedience to official and inmate rules, revolves around the concept the individual inmate has of himself as a member of the inmate community. "It concerns his view of his role in the clique group, and how these fit into the pattern of control for the total inmate community, 88 and how adherence to them is reinforced." Compliance to the inmate code also involves the relationship between the different means of influencing behavior and the kind 89 and amount of affect generated by these means. The 86David Street, "The Inmate Group in Custodial and Treatment Settings," American Sociological Review, XXX (February, 1965), 40. 87 88 DeBecker, op, cit., p. 143. Ibid., p. 140. 89Clemmer, 1940, op, cit., p. 383. 41 compliance to rules enable role relationships or percep- tions and the kind and amount of rewards and punishments that can be delivered by the enforcers. The inmate role is also said to exist to lessen the pains of imprisonment. Upon entering the custodial insti- tution the individual inmate is subjected to a series of role-stripping processes. As the new inmate when he first enters the institution begins a series of abusements, de- gradation, humiliations and profanities of the self.90 The stripping of the individual's identity starts upon first arrival from court. The inmate is stripped of his former clothing and possessions and name. The prison ad— ministration appears to the new inmate to be an omnipotent force which he imperfectly understands. Most prisoners report they are afraid, bewildered and lost when first entering the institution, the only friendly face is that 91 The prisoner feels that outside of another prisoner. society has rejected him. This may arouse in him feelings of guilt, remorse, resentment, or hostility. The conse- quences of his segregation forces the individual to take on the sociological definition of himself as a “bad person" or he can reject this conception by contriving rationaliza— tions which exonerate him from blame for his deviant 90Donald Cressey, "Contradicting Theories in Cor- rectional Group Therapy PrOgrams," Federal Probation, XVIII (June, 1954), 14. 91 DeBecker, op, cit., p. 141. 42 conduct.92 Greshem Sykes stated this process in his statement, "Somehow the rejection or degradation by the free community must be walled off-~somehow the imprisoned criminal must find a device for rejecting his rejectors, if he is to endure psychOlOgically."93 The acute sense of status degradation that the prisoner experiences gen- erates powerful pressures to envoke a means of restoring his status. Principal among these mechanisms that emerge is an inmate culture. In other words, prisoners are forced to seek from within their own numbers what the outside world withholds. The culture gives the individual inmate some self-reSpect, it encourages mutual aid among the inmates. "As a population of prisoners moves toward a state Of solidarity, as demanded by the inmate code, the 94 "It permits "95 pains of imprisonment become less severe." the inmate to reject his rejectors rather than himself. With the modification of rejection feelings, the inmate begins to become aware of the formal and informal privilege 92Gibbons, 1965, op, cit., p. l. 93Sykes, 1958, pp. cit., p. 67. 94Greshem Sykes and Sheldon Messenger, "The Inmate Social System," in Theoretical Studies in Social Organ- ization of the Prison, Social Science Research Criminal Pamphlet Number 15 (March, 1960), p. 16. 95McCorkle and Korn, op, cit., p. 89. 43 system. The privilege system provides the framework for personal reorganization within the new society. The in- mate becomes aware Of the Official and unofficial rules Of the institution. Prisonization Penology in the past has been the providence of the moralizer and the social reformer and the major ques- tion they researched has been related to how current pat- terns of adjustment in the prison may effect readjustment to the free community. The nature of the inmate social system tended to remain a given, something accepted with— out exploration. The process Of prisonization or the taking on in greater or lesser degrees the folkways, mores, customs and general culture of the penitentiary has tended to be accepted without question as being harm- ful to future adjustment. It has been equated with insti- tutionalization. Torrence and Pauline Morris define prisonization as "the continuous and systematic destruc- tion of the psyche in consequence of the experience of imprisonment, and the adOption of new attitudes and ways of behaving which are not only unsuited to life in the outside world, but which may frequently make it impossible for the individual to act successfully in any normal social role."96 96Morris and Morris, op, cit., p. 169. 44 Prisonization in recent years has come under in- vestigation by social scientists not bent on reform. This body of literature feels it would be incorrect to equate prisonization with the more general concept of institu- 97 Prisonization tionalization, as the reformers suggest. differs from institutionalization in that it embraces a form of behavior which does not require the individual to retreat into an apathetic state of anomie. It is positive in that it gives rise to a type of behavior forms, the inmate code, that enable the individual to survive and function in prison. Two interpretations for the origin of the inmate code have developed in the literature, which can be termed the functionalist and diffusion schools of thought. In the functionalist view, the prison normative system is alleged to be functional in solving certain ad- justment problems of inmates, whereas in the diffusion view, the code is seen as a set of norms which certain convicts import into the institution from the outside world. The functionalist school of thought is represented by the works of Sykes, McCorkle, Korn, Gibbons, Tannenbaum, Schrag, Goffman, Garabedian, and Ohlin. These researchers feel that the Special nature Of the institutional environ- ment of the prison gives rise to Special problems that must be faced by the inmate. The inmate is forced to 97Charles Welford, "Factors Associated with Adop- tion of the Inmate Code: A Study of Normative Social- ization," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, LVIII, No. 2 (1967), 197. 45 learn new modes of behavior in order to meet the require- ments of prison life. The emotional shock of loss of freedom and compulsory separation from friends and rela- tives turns the inmate toward introspection and self- 98 preoccupation. The inmate feels swallowed up upon entering the prison. The acute sense of status degrada- tion accompanied by self-preoccupatiOn and deprivation of liberty makes the inmate ready to accept a belief that will fill his emotional and physical needs. The prison culture Provides him with the answers in how "to do time" and at the same time gain the greatest amount of physical and PsycholOgical satisfactions. The inmate code helps the individual cope with his new environment, it helps him sInrvive in prison. The diffusion school of thought is represented by researchers like Irwin, Cressey, Cline, Tittle, Wheeler, and Clemmer. These researchers discuss prison culture and inmate culture in terms that suggest that the behavior Systems of various types of inmates stem not from the conditions Of the prison environment, but are part Of a 1-arger "criminal subculture" from which the inmates come. The individual inmates bring their culture with them when they enter the institution. These researchers agree it V"Duld be a mistake to assume that all newcomers to the Prison are uniformally dismayed, and suffer equal status ¥ 98Johnson, E., op. cit., p. 500. 46 deprivations. Perceptions of the prison environment would depend to a great extent upon the individual's capacity tO adjust to it with a minimum of difficulty. They also point out that deprivation of liberty is meaningful only to the extent to which a man is emotionally involved in the out- side world. For some prison may be comforting and provide temporary security. The issue Of the origins Of the prison culture remains unsettled in the literature. Both schools of thought agree that prisonization exists in all maximum security prisons, but its origins remain in question. Despite the number and diversity of prison populations studied they all seem to have one normative system which serve as guides for the behavior of the inmates in his re- lations with his peers and the institutional staff.99 The inmate code serves as a set of conduct norms that define proper behavior for the inmates. The inmate code can be viewed as a group of positive and negative sanctions which apply to the behavior of an inmate population in a prison, it defines and limits the actions of the inmate as an individual and as a member of an inmate society. The inmate themselves create the prison code which Operates outside of, and usually in disregard of, the regular 99Sykes and Messenger, 1970, op. cit., p. 5. 47 institutional rules.100 These social norms help the in- mate select a safe pattern of action that will maximize rewards and minimize risks involved for the individual in his quest to make his term of imprisonment as pleasurable as possible. There are two ways Of viewing why members of the inmate society follow the social norms and values of the inmate code: (1) each member internalizes the norms of the society into his super ego, to use psychoanalytic terms, and (2) the second method not unrelated to the first is an individual's adherence to social norms is determined not only by his internalization of the values, but also by his interaction with other individuals with the same values. Blame, ridicule, and holding up to shame are controls if they express commonly-accepted values and correSpond to the promptings of the super—ego.101 Even with the weapons of ridicule there is no claim that the values of the inmate community are held with equal inten- sity by every member of a prison population. All that is being claimed is that the interaction between inmates tends to produce a collective definition Of proper inter- action among the members Of the inmate community, that serves as a common mechanism Of defense and insurance 100Paul Miller, "The Prison Code," American Journal of Psychiatry, CXIV (June, 1958), 583. 1018. F. Nadel, "Social Control and Self-Regula— tion," Social Forces, XXXI (1953), 270; Grosser, 1958, op, cit., p. 25. i v i“ “Us v i ‘A 48 against the hostile prison environment. The premium for the individual inmate lies in the smooth functioning of the normal course of events the individual encounters in the prison.102 The blatant non-accepting offender is re- jected from the sub-society he is forced to live, and as an outcast is not given to the benefits that membership would provide. The task of the inmate upon entering a correctional institution lies somewhere between the ex- tremes of complete rejection or acceptance of the inmate culture. Complete acceptance of the culture would run the inmate afoul with the prison personnel, complete re- jection Of the culture afoul with the inmates. The inmate code has been summarized in the works 103 The code of Sykes and Messinger, and of Elmer Johnson. covers four basic areas of concern to the inmate society, that emphasizes noninterference with another inmate's interests. These values stress serving the least possible time in prison and to enjoy the greatest pleasures and privileges while in prison, by being loyal to the inmate social system. In prison jargon, (1) never rat on a con, don't be nosey, don't have a loose lip, don't put a guy on the Spot--in brief be loyal to your class--the cons--and 102Nadel, op, cit., p. 268. 103Sykes and Messinger, 1970, op, cit., p. 401; Sykes and Messinger, 1960, op, cit., p. 6; Johnson, E., op, cit., p. 507. 49 present a united front to the screws, the custodial staff; (2) refrain from quarrels and arguments with other in- mates, don't lose your head, play it cool, do you own time; (3) don't take advantage of another inmate by means of force, fraud or chicanery, don't exploit a con, don't break your word, don't steal from cons, don't sell favors, don't be a racketeer, don't welsh on bets, don't sell scarce goods, be right; (4) maintain your self-respect, don't weaken, don't whine, don't cop out, don't suck around, be tough, be a man; and (5) forbid respect to the custodians, don't be a sucker, guards are hacks or screws, don't be influenced by values of screws, be sharp. Adaptation to Prisonization The degree of adaptation each individual inmate displays to the inmate code has been the subject of much research in the field of penology. Wilson, Galtung, Cressey, Clemmer, and Morris have all attempted to inves- tigate the different degrees of acceptance of the prison code and environment possible by an inmate.104 Four basic reSponse patterns have emerged upon examination of their works: (1) a cooperative adaptation pattern where 104Thomas Wilson, "Patterns of Management and Adaptations to Organizational Rules, a Study Of Prison Inmates," The American Journal of Sociology, LXXIV (September791969), I46-51; Morris and Morris, op, cit., pp. 1, 71; Cressey, op, cit., pp. 2-26; Johan Galtfifig, "Social Functions of a PEISOn," Social Problems, VI (Fall, 1958), 127-40. 50 the inmate completely accepts the inmate code; (2) where the inmate verbally purports to accept the code, but fol- lows it only to the extent it serves his own ends; (3) re- ject the code and identify with the goals of the prison administration; (4) escape into one's own world, into a state of anomie. The cultural assimulation or prison- ization can be total, partial, or not take place at all. The inmate, in his interactions with his peers, has only three choices he can make overtly, he can expound the virtues of the inmate society, or reject those virtues, and side with the administration or become an isolate, in which case he would not be required to expound any pattern Of belief. Sykes and Messinger in their summarization of penology literature in prisonization concluded that in- mates give strong verbal support to a system of values that has group cohesion as a basic theme, but actual be— havior ranges from full adherence of the norms to complete deviance.105 The overt agreement by most inmates no matter what their acceptance pattern creates a difficulty for the re— searchers in determining which inmates are socialized into the society and which inmates are only following a pat- tern Of adaption to avoid negative sanctions. This could be rephrased into which inmates take on the inmate society as a point Of reference and which inmates use the "free" 105Sykes and Messinger, 1970, op. cit., p. 405. 51 community as a reference group. Donald Clemmer who origi— nated the works on prisonization suggested than an inmate's degree of prisonization would be related to the length of time he was away from the normal community, or the length of the inmate's sentence, as well as selected personality variables that he did not Specify and chance placement next to men who believed in the code.106 This hypothesis between length of imprisonment would weaken the inmate's attachments with the values of the free community as the years passed by seemed tO make logical sense to many re- searchers. It was argued that imprisonment is likely to have a disintegrating effect on marriages and other close relationships with inmate's friends and families. It seemed logical that men would turn to their peers for support in the absence of support from the outside com- munity. When put to empirical test by Charles Tittle and Marvin Wolfgang the relationship between length of sen- tence and degree Of prisonization was not found to be 107 related. In addition, Wolfgang's work showed no relationship to race, intelligence, or any other personality 106Donald Clemmer, "Imprisonment as a Criminality Science," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, XLI, NO. 3 (September-October, 1950), 318. 107Tittle, Op. cit., p. 202; Marvin Wolfgang, "Quantitative Analysis of Adjustment to the Prison Com- munity," The Journal Of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, LI, No. 6 (March-April, 1961), p. 614. 52 variable. Charles Wellford concluded at the end of his research that "the relationship between length of time served and degree of adaption of the inmate role was found to be low and not significant."108 Rodney M. Coe concluded at the end of his extensive research on prison- ization that prison adjustment was not related to: citi- zenship, religion, education, military record, intelli— gence, number of children in family, sibling rank of inmate, marital status, number Of own children, area of residence, amount of mobility, drinking habits, emotional stability, type of sentence, number of previous arrests, number Of previous convictions, number Of commitments to juvenile institutions, time served in prison, times paroled and number of parole violations or number of as- sociates involved in the commitment of the most current 109 Charles Tittle and Pauline Tittle in their offense. study of an 800-bed narcotics hOSpital found a relation- ship between prisonization and the length of stay in the hOSpital for these inmates who had previous jail 108Charles Wellford, "Factors Associated with Adaption Of the Inmate Code: A Study of Normative Social— ization," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology,and Police Science, LVIII (1967), 200T’ 109Rodney Coe, "Characteristics of Well AdjuSted and Poorly Adjusted Inmates," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, LIIVTJuly, 196T), 182. 53 records.110 It Should be pointed out that their results could have reflected the differences between a penal and correctional environment. Further research should be done before considering the Tittles' findings as contradictory to the research of Coe. One of the best-known studies that sought to test the relationship between prisonization and length of sentence was done by Stanton Wheeler.111 Wheeler did not find the straight linear relationship that Clemmer had suggested and Coe and the Tittles failed to find. Wheeler found a curvilinear distribution of high conformity to conventional standards by the inmates near the beginning and end Of their stay at the institution and uniformity to the inmate code at the middle phase of their internment, when the inmate is furthest removed from contacts with the outside world. Wheeler suggested that his findings showed that the point where community contacts are last the inmate turns to his peers to lessen the "pains of imprisonment," as he comes closer to joining the free community he no longer uses the prison culture for support and begins to look to the wider community for support and guidance. 110Charles Tittle and Pauline Tittle, "Social Organization of Prisons: An Empirical Test," Social Focus, XLIII (December, 1964), 219. 111Stanton Wheeler, "Socialization in Correctional Communities," American Sociological Review, XXVI (October, 1961), 165-74. 54 Clarence Schrag tested Wheeler's findings that leength Of sentence and prisonization is a curvilinear re— lationship.112 Schrag found this relationship to be true for only what he called pro-social and anti-social inmates, but not for the a-social or pseudo-social inmates who failed tO Show any systematic shift in normative orienta- tion. In Schrag's terminology a pro-social inmate would be one who never thought of himself as a criminal type, yet finds himself in prison--a white-collar criminal would be an example Of this type of individual. The anti-social type would be represented by the inmate who is a "true believer" of the inmate code, a professional thief would be representative of this group. The a—social inmate would be an isolate who shuns all contact with other inmates in the prison, an isolate would be representative of this group. The pro-social inmate would be the inmate who is friendly with his peers, but does not form any close associations with them. Peter Garabedian replicated Clarence Schrag's study to test for the relationship between length of sentence for the four forms or categories of inmates pro- 113 posed by Schrag. Garabedian found as did Schrag that 112Clarence Schrag, "A Preliminary Criminal Typology," The Pacific Sociological Review, IV, NO. 1 (Spring, 1961), 11-16. 113Peter Garabedian, "Social Roles and Process of Socialization in the Prison Community," in The Sociology of Punishment and Correction, ed. by Johnston, Savitz, and WolfgangOINew York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970), pp. 484-96. 55 the anti-social and pro-social inmates displayed the curvi- linear relationship between length Of sentence and prison- ization as Wheeler had found in his research. Garabedian further defined the relationship between prisonization and length of sentence served for the pseudo-social and a- social inmates who did not display the curvilinear rela- tionship in Schrag's study. Garabedian found the linear relationship that Clemmer hypothesized for these two groups, the longer the time served for the two categories of inmates, the greater the degree Of prisonization. The research of Wheeler, Schrag and Garabedian seemed to point out that the degree of involvement in the inmate community as well as length of time in that com- munity can have an effect on the acceptance of the com- munity's norms. The inmate categories that totally accept the culture or totally reject it both ironically show the same curvilinear relationship between length of sentence and degree of prisonization, while the categories of in- mates that display withdrawal patterns both become prison- ized to a greater extent as they Spend a greater amount of time in the community. The most recent study reported in the literature on prison socialization cast some ques- tion on the uniformity Of the relationship shown in the research of Wheeler, Schrag, and Garabedian. Robert Alchley and Patric McCabe's research in a maximum security institution failed to find the linear relationships of 56 sitive sanctions and negative sanctions to be effective must depend upon rationality and consistency. Yet, in prison, rewards cannot be given entirely in terms of merit, but are limited by objective factors beyond the individual's control, such as length of his sentence, the Period served, and the offense for which the person is c-‘-<>nvicted, further limiting the powers of the custodial S‘taff in enforcing order upon the inmate population. The custodial staff must begin to rely upon voluntary com- p1 iance from the inmates in exchange for additional free- doms not formally prescribed to the inmate population. 152Hayner and Ash, 1939, op. cit., p. 364. 153Morris and Morris, op. cit., p. 135. 77 This observation seems incongruent with the exis- t:ence of the inmate code and the sanctions placed upon zany member of the inmate body who communicates with the <2ustodial staff. The most observable and consistent 15inding on prison research is the presence of a sharp éiistinction between the inmate population and their lceepers in a penal institution. Intracast contacts and :influence are minimized and strictly defined and con- 1:rolled by both the inmate and custodial power struc- 1:ures. Yet, the fact that inmates and custodial staff mnembers are members of the same formal organization, vvhich by its very nature is a system of action, should Ixave some definable areas of overlap or c00peration that should be identifiable. Both the official and unofficial contact points should, when established have a definable and mappable history that assists in closing the gaps between the two organizational strata in an acceptable manner to both groups.154 There has been little exploration in the litera- tl‘are of the relationships between the formal and informal <>1I:ganization of the prison. There has been little explor- a~‘l:ion into how deviations from the formally prescribed 1?\Jles of the prison institution become institutionalized Eind controlled. Philip Selznick gave some direction for \— 154Bernard Beck, "Organizational Goals and Inmate c311’ganization," American Journal of SOCiOlOgy, LXXI (bdarch, 1965), 530. 78 exploration in this area when he wrote, In large organizations, deviations from the formal system tend to become institutionalized. The informal patterns arise Spontaneously, are based on personal relationships, and are usually directed to the con- trol of some specific situation.155 Selznick suggests that deviations can be looked at as interpersonal patterns of information exchange, that develop into permanent predictable patterns of interactions. In her study of women's penal institutions Ida Harper noted that, "Each faction [clique group] in a prison established Channels of communication through which rumors, fears, and other information about prison life traveled up and down, 156 Harper is suggesting keeping its members informed." tliuat cliques delegate the function of information seeking and dissemination to select members of the groups whose 1Elilmction is to keep the members of the cliques informed of r‘EE‘w developments in the prison environment. The implica- t35L<3ns of Selznick and Harper's observations could serve as a basis for further research to explain how the clique groups exist as entities in themselves yet are coordinated into an overall inmate system. 0 155Philip Selznick, "Foundations of the Theory of ITQJanization," in Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader, ed. by Amitai Etzioni (New York: Holt, Rinehart aha—Winston, 1961), p. 522. 156Ida Harper, "The Role of the 'Finger' in a State Prison for Women," Social Forces, XXXI (1952) , 54. 79 Communications in the Prison Communfty The importance of and concern over communications it) a prison organization should never be minimized. Donald szessey reported that, "An important aspect of the position from which the inmate fears staff exclusion is from knowl- edge of the decisions taken regarding his fate.u.157 Joseph Julian wrote, "Restriction of information and com- munications is related to the effectiveness of organiza— tions that utilize coercive sanctions and generally exer- cise high degrees of control to attain their objectives."158 COmmunications between the staff and inmates is a shared C3C>ncern. Both strata recognize the importance and implica— t3-‘7Lons of the content and ease of communications that takes place within the prison community. Traditional prison thieory views the role of the inmate as one of accepting the c=<>mmunications that the officials communicate to them with- out question. The communications to the inmates are said to be channeled and controlled by the lower staff with the c<>nsent and knowledge of the higher administrative per- s<>nnel.l59 The inmates are thought of as passive reciP‘ iexits in this model. \ 157Cressey, 1961, op. cit., p. 19. 158Joseph Julian, "Compliance Patterns and Communi- c'"atzion Blocks in Complex Organizations," American Socio- lfiasgical Review, xxx: (June, 1966), 389. 159Cressey, 1961, op. cit., p. 19; Wallace, 92. c ci-\t¢r p. 10; Goffman, op. 1 ., p. 8. 80 The work that has been done in the exploration of the areas of overlap between the formal and informal systems concern the relationship between the inmate and the staff member. It is becoming recognized in the liter— ature that the deep chasm which is supposed to separate the captives from the captors actually is bridged at in- numerable points. The correctional officer who is- in close intimate association with his charges throughout the course of a working day, can remain aloof only with great C123.ff.‘i.culty.l6o He may sympathize with the captives he is Supposed to be guarding, and he may even develop close friendships with the men in his charge.161 It is felt that thiese unofficial contacts would be the most logical point at which accommodations between the two systems would be I"lace. The understaffed and underfinanced prison adminis- t-J:"ation is forced into cooperation with the inmate system to maintain at least an overt image of order and discipline in the institution.162 Complete isolation between low \ 16oLloyd McCorkle, "Guard-Inmate Relations," in Elle Sociology of Punishment and Correction, ed. by John- s‘ton, Savitz, and Wolfgang (New York: John Wiley and Sons, J~970). p. 420. 161Gresham Sykes, "The Corruption of Authority and Rehabilitation," in Com lex Organizations: A Sociological Reader, ed. by Amitai Etzfoni (New York: Hat, Rinehart aha Winston, 1961), p. 194. 162Yablonsky, <33. cit., p. 57. 81 :Level custodial personnel and inmates is impossible when g>risoners outnumber employees. Inmate leaders must be used tx: get work tasks done and to maintain a quiet secure institution.163 To gain a quiet cell block the guard may .ajllow inmate leaders certain privileges in exchange for his efforts in keeping the noise in the block at an accept- aitale level. The guard also may wish to make friends with :irifluential inmates who in times of institutional insur- rection could save the guard's life.164 The failure of 1:}1e formal reward and sanctioning system forces the guard 1:<> rely upon informal means of control. The guard can (Dialigate inmates to himself by providing them illegiti- nfliate access to desired goods and services in exchange for <=<3mpliance to certain institutional rules for which the Sriaard has the responsibility of enforcing. Richard ‘31&:Cleery found, "Order is maintained in a custodial prison tllarough the use of arbitrary power, combined with alloca- tljlon of valid information to a select elite of inmates in Eimtchange for their support of order in prison."165 Czlarence Schrag found in his work at Ohalu State Prison, \ 163Donald Cressey and Withold Krassowski, "Inmate cDIE-ganization and Anomie in American Prisons and Soviet Il-Embor Camps," Social Problems, V (Winter, 1957-58), 218. 164Nadel, op, cit., p. 195. 165McCleery, op, cit., p. 388. 82 Inmate leaders were exponents of adjustment within an order which guaranteed their own position. They gave expression and interpretations to adaggive norms shared by guards and inmates alike.1 Iflnis accommodation implies reciprocal expectation and ob- ];igations. If either party to the arrangement fails to fiilfill his part of the bargain, the relationship is likely ‘t(> deteriorate and break down. Each exercises a degree of power over the other. The guard may punish the inmate elite by withdrawing his privileges, the inmate the guard by mobilizing other inmates to embarrass him, if not to <=éist doubts on his abilities to perform his assigned task. "ZIn.effect, the guard buys compliance or obedience in cer- tliain areas at the cost of tolerating disobedience else- w'l'aere."167 In theory the staff has almost absolute con- tlltol over the inmates but in reality inmates can exercise <2(:nsiderable influence on their own living conditions. This process of accommodation has been viewed as "<:orrupt" by many prison reformers, but from a structural E3‘lzandpoint it solves a profound control problem. The E>J=ocess of accommodation makes inmate elites' positions E>c>ssible that circumvent the traditional separation of the tWO caste systems. The process of accommodation has the \ 166Clarence Schrag, "Some Foundation for a Theory of Corrections," in The Prison: Studies in Institutional 5235§%anization and Change, ed. by Donald'Cressey47New York: <3 t, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 163. 167Sykes, 1958, 93. cit., p. 57. 83 (affect of developing a conservative ideology in the prison eelite, who develOp a stake in the operations of a smooth- running institution.168 The elite become just as anxious tx) suppress any form of disruptive behavior as the custody sstaff. If there should be a change in the customary pat- terns of accommodations between the elites and the custo- dians, a collapse of authority in both the official and :irxmate societies could be the result.169 Frank Hartung Eirld Maurice Floch in their hypotheses on prison riots con- eluded, The sudden elimination of the informal self-government changed the status of the informal inmate leader's position. They lost all their power of control over the other prisoners. This turned these subjects into a destructive force. TIPhe disruption of the traditional communications patterns ‘Elnd accommodations upset the power relationship between ‘tzhe formal and informal social structure. The result of this breakdown could be disorder and Elnarchy until new inmate elites arise to take command of tzhe informal structure or the old patterns reestablish tzhemselves. Under stable conditions the inmate elites Erupport a culture that assists in the functioning of the ‘idnstitution. But, during a period of disorganization or ¥ 168Cloward, op: cit., p. 105. 169Clemmer, 1940, oo. cit., p. 35. 170Hartung and Floch, op; cit., p. 55. 84 challenge to inmate government, aggressiveness becomes ‘the assertion of moral independence and contempt for (afficials plays a special, self-justifying role. The .ability to take punishment becomes the equivalent of the nnanipulation of power. The challenge to the complex in- rnate system of authority by the policy change of the formal structure, left former inmate relations of domi— rrance and submission in exchange for goods and services meaningless. Relationships between inmates reverted back 1:0 resolution by force at all levels.171 This reversion 1:0 force by the inmate society plus the active anti- Eadministration leadership of former elites can compound eeach other into a distructive force to be reckoned with. I?rancis Scott stated the problem in very clear language. We can see why a change from custodial to thera- peutic structures can result in prison riots. If the administration permits the allocation and integrative decisions necessary to implement re- socialization, this means a change in the established relationship between the guards' system and the in- mate system and a breakdown of the inmate system as an effective means of coercing inmates and guards.172 flDhe equilibrium in the interrelationships among the vari- c>us inmate groups and types of inmates is no longer in ‘ 171Richard McCleery, "Correctional Administration and Political Change," in Prison Within Society, ed. by II.. Hazebrigg (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1968), p. 129. 172Francis Gillespie Scott, "Action Theory and gesearch in Social Organization," in Prison Within Iu and why, so that he can keep his position of leadership 11.13 the organization and insure c00peration from his peers ‘nrzith a minimum of disturbance from them. The inmate leader who has contacts with the formal ‘Eaxiministration may not be in a position of clique leader- sslnip. Leadership in a clique implies a social acceptance :iJn a group and the reSpect for his opinions and commands. This interaction is carried out on a face-to-face exchange (of interactions between the participants.176 It is this (communication that takes place within the peer group, that lfias a profound influence on an inmate's responses to sit- ‘laations that arise in the prison community. It is in the iEDeer group that a social reality exists for opinions, (Gettitudes and beliefs that assists an inmate to survive ‘tzhe rigors of imprisonment. It becomes easier to communi— C=ate within one's own peer group, where one has established 17SHartung and Floch, o2. cit., p. 56. 176Everett Rogers and David Cartano, "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVI (Fall, 1962), 436. 87 Patterns of communication in the past than to other groups . . 177 . . . or: prison inmates. The reoccurring communications be- tWeen inmates takes on a pattern of regularity and con- sistency. Through membership in an inmate peer group the individual inmate gains access to the ”grapevine," but is also at the same time excluded from others.178 The indi- viduals within the individual peer groups tend to become isolated from other inmates not in their particular group. The community-wide inmate code reflects this tendency in its diction "do your own time." Analysis of inmate rela- tions by Clemmer, Schrag, Hayner, and others consistently point out the phenomena of isolated clusters of inmates, Who despite their isolation hold allegiance to the commu- nity wide inmate code. What is needed in the literature is an explanation (of the relationships between the formal structure of the Eadministration, and the informal structure of the inmate (:ommunity which is made up of independent clusters of highly cohesive peer groups who hold a coordinative sym- bolic allegiance to the prison community. The inmate com- munity and the prison community must interact so they can Share and work towards common objectives and goals. ‘ They 177Leon Festinger, Kurt Back, Stanley Schachter, {161-old Kelley, and John Thibaut, Theory and Experiment 111 Social Communications (Ann Arbor, MiEh.: Edwards, Inc., ), p. 14. 178Johnson, E., op. cit., p. 506. 88 must somehow communicate their shared expectations to each other. The concept of authority as a standard pat- ‘tzcern of interaction, as a system of communication, would Eseerve to explain two paradoxical characteristics of the ];rrison community. (1) custodial forces and senior inmates 1:>oth resist changes in routine, and (2) a shared definition <:>f the situation works to "filter out” inconsistent orders (sand to "authorize" those orders which are consistent with 179 ;i_t. Yet, this explanation fails to explain how the independent clique groups come to share in these defini— 1:ions. It is possible that individual clique group leaders are given "permission" to violate the inmate code .and to interact with the prison administration to work towards common objectives and goals without being labeled a 'rat."180 Stanton Wheeler found some support for this jpossibility when he found that the norms perceived to be Jheld among the prison inmates by the prison staff were (close to the norms actually maintained by inmates highly involved in the informal life of the inmate community.181 Sethard Fisher also reported that the staff recognized the luigh prestige inmates and that institutional rewards and ‘ 1795chrag, 1961, 9_p_. cit., p. 154. 180Eaton, op, cit., p. 117. 181 Wheeler, 1959, op. cit., p. 191. 89 IFIIJnishments were differentially available to them.182 '1311is could assure the clique leader of his continued ac- ‘Czeeptance as a leader, with his endless supply of goods éixnd services. It is also widely recognized in the small group literature that leaders are given a greater amount «caf independent action that violates groups' norms than filess prestigious group members. A second explanation for inmate self-government Jrevolves around the observation that within the prison <:ommunity the advantages of one type of work assignment 183 Over the years by <>ver another may be considerable. (default and disuse, some of the routine responsibilities (of prison administration at different levels have come to be performed routinely by selected inmate clerks. In- mate assistants and inmate clerks of key officials dis- charge many of the major custodial and administrative duties of a prison. These jobs with their access to in- formation and mobility within the institution, and close contact with the privilege dispensing officials are very powerful and sought after. The effect of assigning in- mates to administrative positions has the effect of lraising the informal inmate structure to a semi-official ‘ 182Sethard Fisher, "Informal Organization in a Chorrectional Setting," Social Problems, XIII (Fall, 1965) , 91. 183Morris and Morris, op. cit., p. 137. 90 :fic>rm.of self-government. What is being suggested is that <==3Lique leadership would be a personal role, dependent on ‘1zlne personality of the occupant of the role whereas the Ii<3b assignment could represent a social role. Regardless 'c3f who occupies the role, is in it certain rights and <3uties would be associated with it. These two types of Ileadership could compliment each other, the personal role lproviding clique leadership and getting needed informa- 1tion from the social role leader, who has his position of Ipower in his job assignment. This would not require the (clique leader to violate the ban upon communications by .associating with the custodial staff, they could get their needed information and influence through contacts with inmate employees. These employees would gain their in- fluence and power through the functions of their assigned duties. The symbolic structure and the clique groups could thus compliment each other. The inmate community is enmeshed in a system of interdependent units, based on prestige from two sources, inmates and staff.184 To become an effective leader an inmate must get high evaluations from both the inmate jpopulation and the staff. Status comes primarily from 184Erving Goffman, "On the Characteristics of flDotal Institutions: Staff Inmate Relations,“ in The Eirison, Studies in Institutional Organization and (Zhan e, ed. by Donald Cressey (New York: HOlt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 93. 91 185 Personal contacts and political influence. This in- 1521.12ence is related to centrality of communications within the organization. Alex Bavelas writes, "The person occupy- ing the most central position in a pattern was most likely 186 ‘t:<:> be recognized as the leader." Robert Bales expands t his concept , There are empirical uniformities in the way activities are distributed between persons. If people are rank ordered according to the number of acts they originate they will also stand in rank order as to (1) number of acts they originate in the whole group, (2) the number of acts they originate to specific members of the group, (3) the number of acts they receive from all other members of the group, and (4) in addition each person in the rank order series addresses a slightly larger amount of activity to the person just above him in the series than the person above ad- dresses him, with the top person addressing the group as a whole to a disproportionate degree.18 The relationship between centrality and recognized JLeadership has been investigated by Sidney Smith and 188 IEiarold Leavitt (Figure 1). Smith confirmed that in 1::ircular communications patterns all members received e 185Fisher, 1965, op, cit., p. 218. 186Alex Bavelas, "Communication Patterns in Task- CDriented Groups," in Group Dynamics, ed. by Darwin Cart- ‘Vrright and Alvin Zander (New York: Harper and Row E’ublishers, 1968), p. 508. 187Robert Bales, "A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction," American Sociological Review, xv (April, 1950), 261. ¥ 188Bavelas, op, cit., p. 508. 92 .mcuouumm coaumoflssesoouu.a musmwh .msoum mnu mo Hmomma on» ma 033 sowummsv ou mouo> ucmmmummu mumnfisz cumuumm M Mmum 0 mafia unmflmuum 5a A o masofio 93 approximately equal votes as to who was the leader, while in a straight line pattern of organization the individual occupying the central position was recognized as the leader. Harold Leavitt also found that in the line pattern that the central position was associated with leadership, while the circular pattern failed to produce a recognized leader. Leavitt also tested the star pattern, and found a more dramatic phenomenon of the man in the center being named as the leader to a greater degree than any other position. Leavitt also tested the Y-pattern. Here he once more found that the individual in the center of a communications net- work was named as the leader. The individual in the center of the communications network gains control over the flow of information to a greater degree than any other position in the group. This control over communications gives the individual power in the inmate community. In the inmate community the higher the control of information, the higher 189 an inmate's status. Richard McCleery stated, ”The system of communication is closely related to status, low status men are ignored, or bypassed by the system."190 A job as secretary to the captain or warden could provide the individual inmate with much information and consequent 189James Hickey, "The Effects of Information Con- trol on Perceptions of Centrality," Journalism Quarterly (Spring, 1968), 50. 190McCleery, 1961, op, cit., p. 284. 94 191 Richard Cloward noted power in the inmate community. that, The prison politicians, sometimes known as front office men or big shots, are generally located in jobs that provide intimate access to files, officials, and other sources of information and services. Thgy may be typists, file clerks, or even janitors. The prison represents an ideal setting for studying the relationship between position in the communications net- work and power in the community for the customary differ- ence in status symbols has been equalized among the in- mates, and every inmate, even the isolates, have a stake in the governing structure. The tOpic of inmate leadership has been of keen interest to penal researchers since Donald Clemmer's early work. Researchers sought to identify individual traits that constituted the reasons why men become leaders, and who they lead. Clarence Schrag concluded in his research on leadership that inmate leaders or those who are recog- nized as such, do not differ with respect to age, former occupation, ethnic status, education, marital status, or scores on intelligence tests, from those who they lead.193 191John Irwin and Donald Cressey, "Thieves, Con- victs and the Inmate Culture,” Social Problems, X (Fall, 1962), 149. lngloward, 92. cit., p. 97. 193Clarence Schrag, "Leadership Among Prison In- mates," American SociolOgical Review, XIX (February, 1954), 37L42. 95 The leaders were found to have longer sentences and a longer time remaining in the institution than their follow- ers. Schrag concluded that inmate leadership was associated with a man's prior criminal career and also a man's insti- tutional career, or adjustment. Individuals tended to select as their leaders men who have committed similar offenses, and who have been in the institution for a long period of time and have a lengthy sentence left to be served. This requirement that the inmate leadership is to have long experience in the prison is felt by Richard McCleery to serve the function of keeping the young overtly aggressive inmates from assuming a position of leadership within the inmate community.194 The findings of Schrag were in opposition to the 195 Clemmer found inmate earlier work by Donald Clemmer. leadership to be made up of men who were above average in intelligence and who are younger inmates. Clemmer found no relationship with offense categories or length of sen- tence served and remaining to be served. George Grosser commented on the relationship be— tween time in prison and leadership in a pragmatic tone when he stated that "Long term inmates get a position of leadership because a good part of the inmate population 194McCleery, 1961, op, cit., p. 166. 195Clemmer, 1940, op. cit., p. 136. 96 changes more rapidly and thus cannot entrench itself or challenge the existing power structure."196 Morris Caldwell also found that leadership in the prison community is held by those who have long prison sentences served and re- maining.197 These findings led Lloyd McCorkle and Richard Korn to warn the prison administrators that the inmate com- munity is centered around the least improvable offenders that destroy any therapeutic function of the prison.198 Richard McCleery did not find that the leaders of the inmate community were the "bull of the block," but that these men were the lieutenants of the true leaders.199 Frank Hartung and Maurice Floch also found that in their studies of prison riots that "The real leaders . . . are rarely visible to the naked eye. In the case of a riot they are never found, the open leaders get the blame."200 These studies suggest that perhaps more than one type of leadership can exist in the prison community. There might exist a "power behind the throne model" of leadership that remains hidden from the researcher who is not looking for it. 196Grosser, op, cit., p. 14. 197Caldwell, op, cit., p. 654. 198McCorkle and Korn, op, cit., p. 527. 199McCleery, 1961, op, cit., p. 282. 200Hartung and Floch, op, cit., p. 55. 97 If leadership is thought of as an organizational phenomena perhaps the individual's position in the inmate group and symbolic organization could shed some light on the governmental structure of the inmate community. Perhaps clique leadership with its emphasis on personal attributes, and symbolic organizational leadership with its emphasis on formal job assignment are two complimentary but sepa- rate forms of leadership in the inmate community. Multiple leadership means the distribution of power and authority to many more peOple than is traditionally recognized within the prison community. The two types of leadership suggested here might differ in their personal involvement in the inmate com- munity. The leader of the symbolic system may tend to be less sympathetic and less integrated into primary groups 201 They may serve an instru- than clique group leaders. mental function, to use Bales' terminology, while the primary group leader may serve an expressive function. The system's leader may be skilled at accomplishing goals for the individual clique groups, the primary group leaders at maintaining social relationships within the individual groups. "Robert Bales has data to support his generaliza- tion that all informal leadership structures are uniformly 201Oscar Grusky, "Organizational Goals and the Behavior of Informal Leaders," American Journal of Sociology, LXV (1959), 61. 98 differentiated along the instrumental-expressive axis."202 Donald Clemmer in his classic work, The Prison Community, also recognized the two levels of leadership. He used the term leader, for the inmate who was the center of rapport in primary and semi-primary groups and the term popular inmate to describe leadership that extended across a number of clique groups.203 F. E. Haynes found The prison population is largely controlled by two groups of leaders. The "Politicians" who hold key jobs in the administration offices, who can distribute special privileges and make possible the acquisition of special foods and other supplies. The other group is made up of the right guys who can always be trusted, do not abuse or take advantage of other in- mates, and are always loyal to the interests of the convicts. Leadership is being defined as the ability to solve complex problems which commands reSpect and allegiance from those who are assisted. "Inmate leaders were the men able to explain, predict, or control to some degree a situation in 205 The leaders which others were helpless and confused.” provide the prison population with some security and satisfactory explanation for organizational experiences. 202Ibid., p. 62. 203C1emmer, 1940, 93. cit., p. 134. 204F. E. Haynes, ”Sociological Study of the Prison Community," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXIV, No. 1 (November-December, 1948), 437. 205McCleery, 1962, op. cit., p. 18. 99 The general inmate pOpulation deprived of access to infor- mation to explain their environment allocate this function to a select few who turn their source of information into 206 a basis of reward and control. This reward and control can be along the instrumental or expressive areas, giving rise to the two forms of leadership.207 Summary The literature suggests that society neglects its prisons leaving their administration to a select group of persons who hold custody goals. This results in all in- mates being treated as if they are equal security risks, with the full realization that this degree of security is unnecessary for the majority of inmates. Even with the stringent security measures of the maximum security insti- tution, the inmates held within them will interact, and form their own informal society. This society has a norma- tive order that seeks to break down the prison routine and provide them with material and psychological rewards that the formal system denies them. The very act of incarceration with its dehumanizing aspects provides the common basis that makes the inmate society possible. The very act of incarceration presents all the inmates with a group problem, how to survive in 206Julian, 93. cit., p. 388. 207Haynes, op. cit., p. 437. 100 prison. To endure psychologically the individual inmate must reject the society that has deemed him not worthy of living among them. The informal society that arises in the institu- tions is made up of small primary or clique groups united by an overall philosophy that sets forth the rules of contacts between the inmates and staff. From the clique group, the individual inmate gains perceptions about the institution and society in general. The clique group provides the inmate with the only basis to test the reality of an Opinion or attitude. A given perception becomes fact if it is defined as such by the inmate's clique group. Because of the formal institutional policy of iso- lation and the inmate norm that prohibits communications with staff members, it is possible for a number of clique groups to exist and have differing definitions of a given phenomena. What develOps are small clusters of like Opinionated individuals that may differ on definitions of a given phenomena, who never interact, so the attitudes remain unchallenged. Leadership becomes equated with the ability to explain an otherwise ambiguous situation and provide access to information from which the clique group forms a reality. To gain this access to sources of knowl- edge the clique groups allow select members of the inmate society to communicate with the official system and other 101 clique groups, to provide them with this needed knowledge. This research project seeks to define the attributes of this liaison person and to define his function in the in- mate society and the perceptions of his role held by the members of the inmate society. CHAPTER II RESEARCH CONTEXT: THE COMMUNICATION ROLE LINK BETWEEN THE FORMAL AND INFORMAL SYSTEM, THE LIAISON ROLE CONCEPT The work of Jacobson, Seashore, and Weiss presents a conceptual framework and methodology for testing this conceptualization of the inmates' informal community structure.208 Jacobson, Seashore, and Weiss' studies presented structural concepts which can be applied to a sociometric matrix in order to classify topological data of the matrix for analyses of their functional processes. The formal definition of these concepts is presented by Weiss and Jacobson. (A) Work group: a set of individuals whose relation- ships are with each other and not with members of 208E. Jacobson, and S. Seashore, "Communication Practices in Complex Organizations," Journal of Social Issues, VII (1951), 28-40; Weiss and Jacobson, "A Method for the Analysis of the Structure of Complex Organiza- tions," American_§ociological Review, XX (1955), 661-68; also in Etzioni, Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader (New York: HoItT—Rinehart and Winston, 1964)) pp. 453-64; R. S. Weiss, "Processes of Organization," (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1956). 102 103 the other work groups (except for contacts with liaison persons or between groups.) (B) Liaison Person: an individual who worked with at least two individuals who were members of work groups other than his own. (C) Contact between groups: a single working relation- ship between members or sets of individuals who would otherwise be classified as separate work groups.209 The definition of work groups was not based upon the organization's formal prescriptions of task units. They are based upon sociometric data on the extent of patterning of communications contacts. The conceptualiza- tion of the work group in terms of contact between groups parallels the concept of clique group developed in the review of the literature in Chapter I. The prison clique group is defined as a small group of inmates who have contacts with each other, refer all environmental stimuli and attitudes to the group for interpretation and gain a sense of belonging and reality from it. These clique groups are not formally prescribed by the prison adminis- tration, but arise out of individual interaction between individuals. In this analysis the separation of the work groups into independent entities was accomplished by Jacobson op 31, by removing of the liaison persons and contacts between groups from the sociometric matrix. The liaison person was a communications link between multiple work groups. The special criterion for the liaison person was 209Weiss and Jacobson, op, cit., p. 458. 104 that he must have contacts with at least two persons in work groups other than his own. A single contact between two members of separate work groups was not defined as a liaison, but a contact between groups or bridge person. In graph theory the liaison person is an analogue to the articulation point and the contact between groups is an analogue to the bridge person as illustrated in Figure 2. The bridge and liaison person concepts as pre- sented by Jacobson and Seashore seem to parallel the leadership structures hypothesized to exist in the inmate community earlier in this paper. The social role with its source of influence existing outside of the clique group is similar to the liaison concept, and the personal role with its bases of influence existing within a clique group is similar to the bridge role concept. In the Jacobson, Seashore, and Weiss studies it became clear that the liaison persons may or may not have membership in one of the separate work groups. Weiss and Jacobson found one—third of the identified liaison persons could not be characterized as members of any separate work group, but 210 This had many contacts with other liaison members. finding is similar to the research in penology that points out the observable phenomenon that the "front office" politicians have contacts with other inmate big shots 210Weiss and Jacobson, op, cit., p. 37. 105 msouu msgflau cmzn mmnwum \ mumossom msou0\\. / / .mummocou xuowne ammumuu.m musmwm usom - ucflom ./ coflumasofluum so / c0mumm somHMflq \ / \ '\ 106 in the organization. With these contacts favors and in— formation can be exchanged among the inmate elites. The special functional significance of the liaison person's position in an organization's structure is under- lined by Jacobson and Seashore: These liaison persons appear to be of critical importance to the conceptualization of organization in communications terms as they are in a position to influence significantly or to control the com- munications to and from certain groups. Through them, it is expected, it will be possible to trace differential influences through . . . (organization) as they are reflected in differences in attitudes among the subgroups. In other words, the liaison person functions at least in a "gatekeeper" role for the various subgroups to which he is connected. "A 'gatekeeper' is defined as controlling a strategic portion of a channel . . . so to have the power of decision over whether, whatever is flowing through the channel will enter the group or not."212 The liaison person may selectively relay in- formation about the prison to various clique groups or he may selectively hold up information to various groups. The relaying of information, as discussed in Chapter I, is equated with power in a prison environment. An analy- sis based upon this topological differentiation of com- munication structure may provide the researcher with the importance of various roles in the prison community. 211Jacobson and Seashore, op, cit., p. 37. 212Schwartz, op. cit., p. 25. 107 Research Content: Hypotheses The present study has two main purposes. One is to extend the description of the inmate informal community using the concepts of liaison roles as set forth in the work of Jacobson, Seashore, and Weiss. The other is to compare the perceptions of the prison organization held by the occupants of the different communications' defined roles. The research will investigate the extent that the communications' defined roles effect perceptions of the formal prison structure. That is, liaison persons might hold one view of the prison organization, and the loci of influence in the organization, while non-liaisons persons may hold a divergent view. The focus of the study will be upon the comparison of the two sets of individuals, liaison versus non-liaison persons, as to certain aspects of the phenomenology of their roles in the informal inmate organ- ization, their communication behavior and their inter- personal and influence potential. Justification for the study of liaison roles can be based on two factors: 1. differentials between liaisons and non-liaisons in regard to actual communication behavior and influence; and/or 2. differentials between liaisons and non-liaisons in regard to perceived communications roles and influence potential in the organization.213 213Schwartz, op, cit., p. 31. 108 Within this broad context, a large number of research questions might be asked. The questions selected for this study are directed primarily toward Specifying certain differentials based on perceptions reported by non-liaison persons in direct contact with liaison per- sons, and selected non-liaisons as well as self-perceptions of liaisons and the selected non-liaisons about their re- spective roles in the inmate community. The sampling unit will be liaisons and selected non-liaisons, but the source of the data will be non-liaisons persons directly linked to liaisons in order to define the meaning of the liaison role, as well as the self-perceptions of the liaisons to ascertain the perceived role held by the role incumbent. "The focal point of the information vectors will be defined in terms of perceptions by persons immediately adjacent to "214 These immediate others will be referred that point. to as dyadic contacts. The two members of the dyadic con- tact if acting as informants about one another must be in agreement that they are in direct contact with each other, reciprocated contact. Where, however, a person reports his self-perceptions of his role or of organizational attri- butes, such agreement is irrelevant. In the past the researcher has spent approximately three months observing the "clinic" and the inmates as an interested student with no connections or affiliations 214Ibid., p. 32. 109 with any corrections department or other agency. The in- mate community became accustomed to the researcher's pre— sence and would not become suspicious with his presence once more. The researcher made it a point to become known to the inmate population, by participating in various in- mate and staff-sponsored "games" (group therapy or rap groups) where the inmates were free to "put a game" on the researcher. A "game" is when the members of the "group" focus their attention and questions upon the person who has the "game on him." During such a game the inmates probed deep into the researcher's motives for being in the clinic, and got to know him as a person. The researcher also spent considerable time in informal "rap" sessions with the inmates. The researcher felt he was accepted when he was invited to join the inmate governing and "bitch" meetings after the normal staff hours. It is at these meetings, which have no staff members present or custodial personnel, that the inmates air their feelings to one another about the living arrangements and staff members, prOgrams, and make general comments about anything on their "minds." The researcher was also invited into the in- mates' "houses" or cells to “rap." While in various in- mates' houses they were gracious hosts and offered soft drinks and cookies, rare commodities in the prison world. 110 Network Differentiation The selection of the analytical perspective of dyadic contacts makes it necessary to collect sociometric data at the same time descriptive data is collected. It is not possible to identify the various roles until a topo- logical analysis of the sociometric data for the entire clinic pOpulation is completed. The sociometric data re- quires the inmates to name their respective contacts. The researcher used his acceptance to assure the inmate com- munity that their responses remained anonymous and was seen only by him. Since structure, rather than flow, of information is investigated in the present study, data was gathered at one point in time.215 Causal statements cannot be made although perceived differences in the behavior of indi- viduals will be used to describe the inmate community's structure. Network differentiation is explored rather than tested in this study. Variables The variables that are tested are members of the following variable classes: (1) communications contacts, (2) task related information possession, (3) control over message flow, (4) influence in the organization, 215Donald MacDonald, "Communication Roles and Communication COntent in a Bureaucratic Setting“ (un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970), p. 35. 111 (5) importance of secondary contacts, (6) specific leadership, (7) Openness of the communications system, (8) satisfaction with the communications system, (9) delib- erate message transaction, (10) direction of message transaction, (11) first source of information, and (12) formal role relationship, formal job assignment, to in- formal role, liaison versus non-liaison role. Hypotheses The hypotheses are designed to examine certain as- pects of roles in the informal inmate community, their communications' behavior, and their interpersonal and organizational influence potential. Communications Contacts Schwartz found that persons within a college recog- nize the persons in that organization with the most in- fluence.216 The staff also perceived liaison persons to have more influence in the organization than did other members of the college. MacDonald found that in a federal bureaucracy the role of a liaison person was understood by its occupants, who perceived themselves to have a greater number of communications contacts and influence in the organization than other persons in the organization.217 216Schwartz, op, cit., pp. 122-23. 217MacDonald, 3p, cit., pp. 94-95. 112 Walton hypothesized that ”centrals" differ from ”peri- pherals" by having more power, authority, and expertise in an organization, and supported these predictions in his research.218 It seems clear that if the liaison role is understood by others, even though they do not know the term, and the role is understood by its occupants, perhaps one reason for becoming a liaison person in the prison society, may be that the individual is active in seeking out other peOple in order to request and give information or advice. Hypothesis 1 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have a greater number of communications contacts than non—liaison persons perceive themselves to have. By inspecting the sociolgram drawn from the works of Jacobson, Seashore, and Weiss (reported in Weiss) to identify liaison persons, a random sample of liaison and non-liaison persons revealed a broader Span of reciprocated contacts for liaison persons.219 Hypothesis 2 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have a greater number of communications contacts than non—liaison persons have. 218Eugene Walton, "A Magnetic Theory of Communica- tion," NOTS Administration Publication III (China Lake, Calif.: U.S. Naval Ordinance Test Station, 1962). 219Weiss, op, cit., pp. 60-61. 113 Task Related Information MacDonald postulated and tested the concept that liaison persons would possess a high level of task informa- tion and a high level of maintenance information.220 His work supported the former but failed to support the latter. The Weberian view of social systems implies that liaison persons will have more work related information than non- liaison persons since this approach includes the assump- tion that supervisors have more knowledge than subordinates. It is proposed here that high information level about the environment is a facet of expertise. If a liaison person seeks the role, he should perceive himself as having such information. Two hypotheses may be stated relative to role positions: Hypothesis 3 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more task related information (information on treatment goals and objectives, workings of the clinic, job duties, etc.) than non-liaison persons have. Hypothesis 4 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more task related information (information on treatment goals and objectives, workings of the clinic, job duties, etc.) than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. 220MacDonald, 9p. cit., pp. 96-97. 114 Control over the Message Flow The possession or perceived possession of infor- mation implies power to transmit or not to transmit or to manipulate the communications. MacDonald states "When one considers the control over information that people have in organizations, one must also consider the relation- ships between such control and the formal authority to control."221 Message control may be seen as the power to modify messages or to initiate new messages. Organiza- tional members who are perceived to have such control ought to be perceived as central to the organizational structure. If the liaison person Seeks the role or is aware of it, then two hypotheses can be stated: Hypothesis 5 Non-liaison persons perceive liaison persons to have more control over the flow of messages than non- liaison persons have. Hypothesis 6 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more control over message flow than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. Influence in the Organization, Sppcific LoaderShip and Secondary Contacts Since the possession of information implies power in the inmate community, the use of this power should be of interest to the researcher. Power to influence through 2211bid., p. 39. 115 message transfer could take two forms: personal influence or organizational influence. Any individual within an organization from a phenomenological viewpoint, could differentiate influence in the organization at least on three levels; (1) the specific dyadic contacts influence over me, (2) my dyadics contacts over his other contacts (diffuse), and (3) the importance of the other (secondary) contacts which my dyadic contact has.222 Katz observed, "an individual may be influential not only because peOple within his group look to him for advice, but also be- "223 The cause of whom he knows outside of his group. implication of these statements for the liaison role is that this strategic position may be related to influence both in terms of power over information relay and the concomitant Opportunity to exercise Opinion leadership over dyadic contacts. If liaison persons seek this role then four hypotheses can be postulated: Hypothesis 7 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more influence over personal Opinions for their dyadic contacts than non-liaison persons. 222Schwartz, op, cit., p. 39. 223E. Katz, "The Two-Step Flow of Communications: An Up-To-Date Report of an Hypothesis," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXI (Spring, 1957), 74-75. 116 Hypothesis 8 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more important secondary contacts in the organization than non-liaison persons are perceived to have. Hypothesis 9 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more influence in the organization than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. Hypothesis 10 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more influence in the organization than non- liaison persons are perceived to have. Openness of the Communications .— System MacDonald reported numerous studies that show an individual's informal position in the organization affects his attitudes toward the system's communication program, i.e., toward whether the system is open or closed.224 Gustrad reported a significant difference in the perceptions of how Open a department's communications system was between the deans, who acted as supervisors, and the professors of a given department. The deans re— ported the system to be more Open than did the subordinate 225 professors. Halpin obtained essentially the same 224MacDonald, op, cit., pp. 39-40. 225John Gustrad, "Communication Failures in Higher Education," Journal of Communication, XII (1962), 11-12. 117 results from his investigation of the organizational cli— mate of public schools. The supervisors perceived the organization's structure as more Open to influence than the teachers who perceived the system as closed to personal 226 influence. These findings give rise to Hypothesis 11: Hypothesis ll Liaison persons perceive the organization's communica— tion system to be more open than do non-liaison persons. * Satisfaction wiph the Communications System The correlates that make up satisfaction with an organization are complex. MacDonald reported that, "some Of the same concerns involved in system Openness appear also to be related to satisfaction."227 The present study approaches the concept of satisfaction through postulating a need for timely, accurate, easily-used information. In a sense, the inmates with more access to such information have a great source of potential power in the inmate com- munity. It would seem that, peOple having this power are more satisfied with the system that grants it to them, than people who are without it. 226Andrew Halpin, Theory and Research in Adminis- tration (New York: Macmillan Co.{’1966). 227MacDonald, op, cit., pp. 40-41. 118 Hypothesis 12 Liaison persons perceive the communications system as more satisfying than do non-liaison persons. Deliberate Message Transaction Schwartz suggests that Since liaison persons' con- tacts are perceived to be more structurally diverse than non-liaison persons; this suggests that there may be physi- cal or psychological difficulties in interacting between liaisons and their dyadic contacts, versus non-liaisons and their contacts.228 To the extent such differences exist, it might be assumed that initiation of messages re- quires more effort in liaison-non-liaison dyads than in non-liaison-non-liaison dyads, i.e. message transaction initiation within liaison-non-liaison dyads may be more deliberate or purposeful than non-liaison-non-liaison dyads who would be more likely to just happen to meet in the course of a day. Hypothesis l3 Liaison-non—liaison dyads more frequently participate in deliberately initiated message transactions than do non-liaison-non-liaison dyads. Initiation and Direction of Message Transaction Any set of deliberately initiated message trans- actions between two peOple may be further differentiated 228Schwartz, op, cit., p. 34. 119 by the directionality of the initiation, i.e. the pro- portion of times A seeks out B to the times B seeks out A. One person may seek another either to give or to get in- formation and Opinions. If we hypothesize that the liaison role is a "magnetic center" (Walton, 1962) who possesses unique attributes in the form of access to information the implication for directionality of message transaction initiation will be proportionately different between liaison-non-liaison dyads and non-liaison—non-liaison dyads, i.e., directionality of interaction will be more equal in the latter dyad than the former, i.e., non-liaisons will meet by chance to a greater degree than will liaisons. Hypothesis 14 The directionality of deliberate message initiation is more disprOportionate in liaison-non-liaison dyads than in non-liaison-non-liaison dyads. First Source of Information From the preceding hypotheses it seems logical that the liaison persons will be looked to for information be- cause of their strategic locations in the organizations. Their strategic location implies that the liaison person is in a position to have early access to information that is available in the organization. Although he is peri- pheral to any given clique group, he is central among at least two clique groups. Studies of network centrality in problem-solving small groups indicate that centrals assume 120 a position of information relay leadership by virtue of 229 If the liaison role can be their strategic location. assumed to be analogous to centrality in a small group then it might be expected that liaison persons will be more con- sistently used as first sources of information by their dyadic contacts, than will non-liaisons. Hypothesis 15 Liaison persons will be perceived by non-liaison persons as first sources of organizational related information to a greater extent than non-liaison persons. Formal Role Relationship to InformaI R61e The final hypothesis will set forth to test Clemmer's observation that the greatest Obstacle in be- coming an inmate leader is visibility, and that a prison job assignment may provide the needed visibility.23o AS reported in Chapter I, pages 89-93, key inmate clerks and other strategically-placed inmates gain access to informa— tion through the performance of their assigned duties.231 This strategic information center fits the definition of the liaison role with its access to organizational informa- tion that non-liaisons lack. 229Bavelas, op, cip,, p. 508. 230C1emmer, 1940, op. oi_t., p. 144. 231Morris and Morris, op. cit., p. 137. 121 Hypothesis 16 Liaison persons are more likely to hold high status inmate jobs than are non-liaison persons. Sociometric Analysis The basic sociometric data taken from the personal contact checklist will be graphically represented on a matrix. The matrix will have the code numbers of the respondents in the left and tOp margins of the matrix in alphabetical order. The questionnaire directed the reSpondent, the column person on the matrix, to indicate on a five-point scale his frequency of interaction with his named contact person, row person on the matrix. Initially it was planned that a "1" would be entered into the appropriate cell for every communication contact nomination in the several times daily category, a "2" for a nomination in the about once-a-day category, a ”3" for a nomination in the 2 or 3 times a week category, a "4" for a nomination in the about once-a-week category, and a "5" for a nomination in the less than once-a-week category. The results of the data made it necessary only to use the one, for all nomi- nations were at the frequency of several times daily. A second matrix was then constructed requiring the matching nominations to be reciprocated. The appro- priate nomination frequency category was entered into the cell. The nominator frequency in the left side of the cell, the nominees in the right side of the cell. 122 Using these reciprocated contacts, Weiss's pro- cedures were followed to Specify group members and liaison persons. First, the reciprocated matrix was partitioned or divided into groups that included most Of the non-zero cells pertaining to their members contacts. Weiss ex- plains: The Same partitioning is applied to both the rows and the columns, SO that the principle sub- matrices (those lying along the diagonal) are square. The set of individuals identified with each prin- ciple submatrix is called a segment. The concrete interpretation is that, except for liaison persons, each individual is included in the same segment with the people he contacts, i.e., each segment contains one or more of the conceptual separate groups.232 The segments were divided so that members in the segment had a minimum number of contacts outside the segment. Each segment could contain several clusters of contacts around the diagonal. Separation of sub-groups within a segment was accomplished by removing tentatively identified liaison persons from the segment matrix, re- ordering the matrix to maintain clusters around the diagonal, removing tentative liaisons, ordering the matrix, etc. The end goal of this procedure was to identify the separate clique groups within each segment by inspection. Careful attention was paid to the final identification of separate clique groups to be sure that 232Weiss, op, cit., p. 91. 123 the original arbitrary boundary of a segment did not in fact divide one or more clique groups into different seg- ments. The general rule that was used within the segments to identify liaison persons was that if their removal and their contacts removal resulted in separation of the clique groups, that person Should be deleted from the matrix and considered a tentative liaison individual. The tentative liaison individuals who were identi- fied by their removal from segments based on their multi- ple contacts outside their segments were then tested following the procedures devised by Weiss. The following criteria were set for final identification of liaison persons: 1. A liaison person must have at least two contacts outside his group, not counting other liaison persons. An exception occurs if he has contact with two or more liaison persons outside his group. 2. A liaison individual does not have a majority of contacts in any one group, but has contacts with members of two or more groups. These contacts may be with other liaison persons only where these persons are themselves members of groups. 3. If a person is not a liaison individual by these criteria, but also is not a member of any group, and if such a person has all or nearly all his 124 contacts with other liaison persons, he should be classified as a liaison individual. 4. A non-liaison group member may have no more than one contact outside his own group, except with liaison persons, and must have a majority of his contacts within his own group. Hypotheses Testing The generalizability of the results of a study using a sociometric design for identifying the different roles within the clinic presents some difficulties for the researcher. Jacobson and Seashore, and Weiss who first prOposed the method, reported their data as per- centages and frequencies. They felt that their data was not much further amendable to further statistical mani— pulation. Selvin and others argue that Since inferential statistics rests on the assumptions of samples that are somehow randomly drawn, this is the one criterion of their use that cannot be violated.233 Johnson and other parametric statisticians argue that research is done for the purpose Of generalizing to some universe whether the sample is random, nonrandom, or a target population. Johnson argues "given that 233Selvin and Hagstrom, ”The Empirical Classifi- cation of Formal Groups," in College Peer Groups, ed. by Theodore M. Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson (Chicago: Aldine, 1966). 125 generalization of research findings is made either directly or indirectly, these researchers contend that it is better to construct part of a bridge from the sample to a larger universe by inferential statistics, and part by logic, "234 This rather than build the entire bridge logically. is the position that was taken on the analysis of the hypotheses in this research study. If the findings are found to occur beyond chance within the group being stud— ied, then it can be generalized to populations with simi- lar characteristics. The parametric statistic that will be utilized to test for significance of the hypotheses will be the T-Test for independent sample means with unequal numbers in each sample. Johnson reports that Cohen found a number of studies which have demonstrated that where there were Severe departures from the parametric assumptions of normality, equality of variance, etc., the validity of the parametric significance test, "T,“ was not impaired.235 234Knowlton Johnson, "Police Interaction and Referral Activity with Personnel of Other Social Regulat- ing Agencies: A Multivariate Analysis” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971), p. 41. 2351bid., p. 41. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN Sociometric techniques have previously been used in attempts to reflect the Operational structure of the social units being investigated. The works of Jacobson and Seashore and of Donald Schwartz chose to define the role structure of relatively "flat" organizations with strong academic orientations in terms of work contacts, communica- tion interaction between pairs of members concerning work- related matters. MacDonald's study examined the role struc- ture in a hierarchical stable government bureau using gen- eral communications contacts between pairs of individuals communications not differentiated by content. This study will use MacDonald's method of general contacts between pairs of individuals rather than the more restrictive work- related contacts as used in the works of Jacobson and Seashore and of Schwartz. The study pOpulation from which the samples was drawn consists of all the inmates of a prison psychiatric unit located in one confined space of two levels above a 126 127 large maximum security state prison located in a Midwestern state. Inmates are defined as individuals who have been adjudicated by a court of law, found guilty, sentenced to the custody of the state corrections department and assigned to the psychiatric clinic. The psychiatric clinic has been designed primarily to provide diagnostic and Short-term treatment services. Inmates in need of more extensive psychiatric care are transferred to one of the facilities of the department of mental health. The inmate population of interest in this study are the inmates who live in the clinic in the especially designed group treatment orientated therapeutic milieu program. The inmates, approximately 60 in number, live in the clinic where they participate in a form of self-government. Interaction between inmates is encouraged. The members of the clinic before being assigned there, lived in the general prison population. The members of the clinic residential program are composed of three basic groups: the drug offenders, sex offenders, and youthful offenders. The drug offenders are men that have been addicted to Opiate drugs and committed various crimes of robbery to support their "habits." The sex offenders are men who have committed various forms of rape or child molesting while the young offenders have mixed criminal careers, but are for the most part under 20 years of age. The drug offenders and the sex offenders live on one tier of prison cells, with each group having its own governmental 128 structure. The youthful offenders live on a separate tier of cells with its own governmental structure. Interaction between the groups is permitted. The clinic population can be said to be made up of what is considered to be "hard core felons." The study takes a census, that is, tests all the members of the inmate clinic residential programs, to gain sources of data for the study. Each reSpondent was asked to complete one questionnaire consisting of primary demo- graphic data and self-perception data, a personal contact questionnaire list and five personal contact questionnaires that were completed for each individual named in the per- sonal contact questionnaire list. All instruments are self- completed questionnaires. The inmates received compensation at the time of the administering of the questionnaire for their participation in the experiment. All inmates who participated did so on a voluntary basis. The Sample Although sociometric and questionnaire data is collected from all members of the study population, only those persons with reciprocated contacts with other inmates in the study population are used in the final sample. This is necessary in order to identify members of clique groups, and liaisons and non-liaison role persons. The first step in determining the sample will be to complete a matrix analysis of the sociometric data in order to classify the 129 pOpulation into liaison persons and non—liaison person categories (the isolates that were found were not included in either category). The primary sample of liaison persons include all of the individuals identified in that category. The non-liaison persons are identified who are dyadic con- tacts of individuals in the liaison_primary sample. These non-liaison dyadic contacts, the secondary samples, are used as the source of data to test the hypotheses concern- ing non-liaisons' perceptions of liaison persons taken from the Personal Contact questionnaires these individuals com- pleted on their reciprocated contacts who are in the liaison sample. Data on self-perceptions is taken from the Self- Perception questionnaire completed by the liaison and non- liaison sample populations who are in frequent reciprocated contact with liaison persons. Jacobson and Seashore found 35 liaison persons in a pOpulation of 196, and Schwartz identified 21 liaisons among 142 organization members. Using roughly the same proportions to predict the incidence of liaison persons in the present study, one would expect to find approximately 13 liaison individuals in this study population. ‘When making this prediction one must not be surprised if it is not true, as Schwartz warns, "Prediction is risky, the number and nature of liaison persons in an organization will depend on, at least, the task coordination demands or the 130 degree of rigidity in adhering to formal hierarchical lines."236 One organization may have more liaison persons than another per unit of membership. All liaison persons identified in the psychiatric clinic among the inmate residence comprise one "sample.“ Compared with them are a group of non—liaison persons who were in reciprocated contact with liaison persons. Thus, self-perceptions held by liaisons and non-liaisons, and other perceptions held by liaison-non-liaison dyad members, could be examined to determine whether their perceptions of the organization and of communication behavior were similar or dissimilar. It is not expected in this study that a sufficiently large number of individuals will be available to permit random sampling from within two such pOpulationS. If an organization much larger than the one in this study were investigated, it might be possible to order the dyadic contacts of all liaison persons as a sampling pOpulation, order the dyadic contacts of all non- liaison persons as a sampling population, and then randomly select individuals into two sample categories from these two populations. Operationalizing Variables By use of responses that describe the self and other perceptions of respondents, one may compare the 236Schwartz, op, cit., p. 30. 131 perceptions each role holds of the other. Sixteen hypo- theses are examined in the present study. All but three make use of Likert-type scales to Operationalize variables. Two hypotheses were tested by the use of ratios and one by comparison of identified liaison persons with the formal job assignments of the inmates. Where possible, questions or entire scales were taken from previous research in order to insure useful measurement by utilizing experience reported in the liter- ature. It should be noted that the scales are adapted to the specific conditions of the clinic. The adaption was done in such a manner as not to affect the original pur- pose Of the question. Some way had to be devised for deciding whether items contributing to an index do indeed measure the same thing or "go together." The scales used here included at most four items, a fact which limits the techniques avail- able to test scale internal consistencies. Item inter— correlations are used to test for the consistency of the scales. The items used to Operationalize variables are stated in the following presentation. TO preclude con- fusion, it should be noted that some scales are listed in two forms, some have a "this person" version in addition to the "I" version. The total questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A. 132 I. Variable One--Number of Communication Contacts Hypothesis 1 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have a greater number of communication contacts than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. (self Perception Questionnaire Scale) Cues for the items in this scale were abstracted and used by Schwartz from Walton's model testing study of the "Magnetic Centers" of communication in organiza- tions.237 All items in this scale use the Likert-type responses to form summated scale ratings using "strongly agree,” ”agree,” "neither agree nor disagree,“ "disagree," and ”strongly disagree,” foils. Response values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 were assigned to all the respective foils in this study, unless otherwise stated, to allow summation into one mean score for the scale. Ippm_1 Scale 1 I communiéate with more inmates in the clinic than most other inmates who are assigned here do. Item_2 Scale 1 I have access to very few clinic personnel and inmates, compared to other inmates around here. Itemp3 Scale 1 In most organizations there are small groups of peOple who prefer to work or relax together. I have contacts in more of these groups than most other inmates do around here. 237 Schwartz, op, cit., pp. 47-49; Walton, op, cit., pp. 79-109. 133 Response values to the second item, above, were inverted, then the numerical values of reSponses to the three items summed and averaged into one score. The higher the mean score, the more communicatiOn contacts the respondent Should perceive himself to have. Hypothesis 2 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have a greater number of communications contacts than non-liaison persons have. (Personal Contact Scale) Cues for the items to test this hypothesis were abstracted by Schwartz from Walton's work on "Magnetic 238 The first Center" of communications in organizations. item in this scale uses the foils "well above average for the clinic," "above average," "about the same as others on the clinic," "below average," and ”well below average for the clinic." The remaining two items use the scale responses of "strongly agree," "agree," "neither agree nor disagree," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." Item 1 Scale 2 About how many clinic staff members would you say this person has contact with in an "average" week compared to the number with whom most other inmates on the clinic have contact? Item 2 Scale 2 This person has contacts with more inmates on the clinic than do most others on the clinic. 238 Schwartz, op, cit., pp. 48-49; Walton, op, cit., pp. 79-109. 134 Item 3 Scale 2 This person communicates with very few clinic staff members or inmates on the clinic. Each respondent is given a mean score based upon the numerical values of the reSponses to the three items averaged into one score. The items are scored so the higher the mean score, the more contacts the dyadic con- tact is perceived to have. II. Variable Two--Task Related Information Hypothesis 3 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more task related information (information on treatment goals and objectives, workings of the clinic, job duties, etc.) than non-liaison persons have. (Personal Contact Scale) Cues for the Operationalizing of this variable's first hypothesis was develOped by MacDonald.239 MacDonald designed the items to be used "across settings" to test for work related information. The two items that make up this scale use the Likert-type reSponseS, "well above average for the clinic," "above average," "about the same as for other people on the clinic," "below average," and "well below average for the clinic." 239MacDonald, op, oip., p. 56. 135 Item 1 Scale 3 Now, instead of thinking about communications contacts, think about how much he knows about clinic programs and duties. Compared to other inmates on the clinic, how do you rate the level of knowledge he has about clinic related activities? Item 2 Scale 3 How about his knowledge about tOpics that are not related to clinic programs or duties directly . . . what is going on within the clinic, who gets along with whom, who's having trouble adjusting to the clinic, who is adjusting, who is smart, etc. Is his level of knowledge: Each respondent is given a total mean score based upon the numerical values of the responses to the two items on this scale. The items are scored so that the higher the total score the more task information the dyadic contact is perceived to have. Hypothesis 4 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more task-related information (information on treatment goals and Objectives, workings of the clinic, job duties, etc.) than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. (Self-Perception Scale) The operationalizing of this hypothesis uses the form of the items in Hypothesis 3. The Likert-type responses and the scoring weights remain the same. Item 1 Scale 4 Now, instead of thinking about communications contacts, think about how much you know about clinic programs and duties. Compared to other inmates on the clinic, how do you rate the level of knowledge you have about clinic-related activities? 136 Item 2 Scale 4 How about your knowledge about topics that are not related to clinic programs directly . . . what is going on within the clinic, who gets along with whom, who's having trouble adjusting to the clinic, who is adjusting, who is smart, etc. Is your knowledge: Each respondent is given a mean score based on his responses to the items in this scale. The items are scored so the higher the score the more task-related in- formation the individual perceives himself to have. III. Variable Three--Control over the Message Flow Hypothesis 5 Non-liaison persons perceive liaison persons to have more control over message flow than non-liaison persons have. (Personal Contact Scale) Cues for the items in this scale were abstracted by MacDonald from James Hickey's work, "The Effects of Informal Control on Perceptions of Centrality," in the 240 spring issue of Journalism Quarterly. The two items that make up this scale use the response foils, "strongly agree," ”agree," "neither agree or disagree," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." Item 1 Scale 5 en someone needs to get a message to some group or person in the clinic, this person can usually tell him the best way to do it. 24°Ibid., p. 57. 137 Item 2 Scale 5 When he thinks it's best for the group he lives or works with, this person can usually control the amount and kind of information the group gets. Each respondent is given a total mean score based on his reSponses to the items according to the mean of the response weight. The items are scored so the higher the total score, the greater the dyadic contacts perceived control over message flow. Hypothesis 6 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more control over message flow than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. The operationalizing of this hypothesis uses the I form of the items in Hypothesis 5. The Likert-type responses and the scoring weights remain the same. Item 1 Scale 6 When someone wants to get a message to some group or person in the clinic, I can usually tell him the best way to do it. Item 2 Scale 6 When I think it's best for the group I live or work with, I can usually control the amount and kind of information the group gets. Each respondent is given a total mean score based on his responses to the items according to the scale weights. The items are scored so the higher the total score, the greater is the self-perception of control over message flow. 138 IV. Variable Four--Inf1uence in the Organization, Specific Leadership and Secondary Contacts Hypothesis 7 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more influence over personal opinions for their dyadic contacts than non-liaison persons have. (Personal Contact Scale) Cues for the items that make up this scale were abstracted by Schwartz from Rogers and Cartano, and 241 Troldahl and VanDam. Schwartz modified the scale in his study by asking the respondents to estimate potential specific leadership with a named individual. It iS this approach that is used in the items that make up this scale. Specific Opinion leadership is defined as the perceived influence a dyadic contact has over the respond- ent as reflected in information and opinion-giving and seeking behavior. Four items make up this scale with each item having five response sets. Item 1 Scale 7 Which of the following has usually occurred during discussions you've had with this person in the past week about activities, programs, or people in the clinic? I asked him questions much more than he asked me. more than he asked me. about as often as he asked me. less than he asked me. much less than he asked me. 241Schwartz, 0 . cit., pp. 51-58; E. Rogers and P. Cartano, "Methods 0 MEESuring Opinion Leadership," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVI (Fall, 1962), 435-41; V.’TEOIdah1 and R. VanDam, "A New Scale for Identifying Public Affairs Opinion Leaders," Journalism Quarterly, XLII, No. 4 (Autumn, 1965). 139 Item 2 Scale 7 Whenever you communicate with this person which one of the following is usually the case? almost always he talks and I listen. often he talks and I listen. we usually talk and listen equally. often I talk and he listens. almost always I talk and he listens. Item 3 Scale 7 Considering the relationship you have with this person, who do you think depends on the other more for advice on matters related to the clinic? I depend much more than he depends on me. more than he depends on me. about as much as he depends on me. less than he depends on me. much less than he depends on me. Item 4 Scale 7 'When you and this person discuss activities of the clinic, which of the following happens more often during these talks? He tells me about a great many more things than I fell him. many more things than I tell him. the same number of things I tell him. many less things than I tell him. a great many less things than I tell him. Each reSpondent is given a mean score based on his responses to the items according to the scale response weights. The items are scored so the higher the mean score, the more influence over personal opinions the dyadic contact is perceived to have. Hypothesis 8 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more important secondary contacts in the organization than non-liaison persons are perceived to have. (Personal Contact Scale) 140 Cues for the items in this scale come from an 242 The abstraction of Walton's work found in Schwartz. importance of the secondary contact is defined in terms of access to individuals in the "power structure" or knowledge of organizational activities. Three items make up this scale with the first and third having the re- . sponse sets Of "strongly agree," "agree," "neither agree or disagree," "disagree,“ and "strongly disagree." The second item has the response sets, "well above average for the clinic," "above average," "about the same as others on the clinic," "below average." and "well below average." Item 1 Scale 8 If therehis anything important going on in the clinic, this person has contacts with people who usually know about it. Item 2 Scale 8 How important are the inmates of the clinic that this person knows most closely? Itpm_3 Scale 8 This person has contacts with individuals who are relatively high in the "power structure" of the clinic. Each respondent is given a total mean score based on his responses to the items. The items are scored so that the higher the mean score, the more important the 242Schwartz, op- cit-. pp- 53-54: Walton: Pfi- SE" pp. 83, 89, 92, 98. 141 secondary contacts the dyadic contact is perceived to have. Hypothesis 9 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more influence in the organization than non—liaison persons perceive themselves to have. (Self- Perception Scale) . Cues for the items that make up this scale were abstracted by MacDonald and Schwartz from Walton, and from Pelz and Andrews.243 The three items that make up this scale use the response sets of "strongly agree,” "agree," "neither agree nor disagree," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." Item 1 Scale 9 :The inmates who have a lot of influence around here generally reSpect the suggestions that I make. Item 2 Scale 9 Many of the "official" and “unofficial" influen- tial peOple in the clinic look to me for opinions and advice. Item13 Scale 9 I have a way of getting what I want from the other inmates in the clinic with whom I have contact. Each respondent is given a total mean score based on his responses to the items in this scale. The items 243MacDonald, op. cit., p. 58; Schwartz, op. cit., p. 50; Walton, op. citTT'p§T_83, 87, 91; Pelz and__' _—_ Andrews, ScientIStS-Ih Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1966), pp. 17-18. 142 are scored so the higher the mean score the more in- fluence in the organization the person perceives himself to have. Hypothesis 10 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more influence in the organization than non- liaison persons are perceived to have. (Personal Contact Scale) The cues for the items that make up this scale were abstracted by MacDonald and Schwartz from the work Of Walton, and from Pelz and Andrews.244 The response sets for the items in this scale are, "strongly agree," "agree," "neither agree nor disagree," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." Item 1 Scale 10 Theiinmates who have a lot of influence around here generally reSpect the suggestions that he makes. Item 2 Scale 10 Many of the "official" and "unofficial" influen- tial people in the clinic look to him for opinions and advice. Item 3 Scale 10 He has a way of getting what he wants from the other inmates in the clinic with whom he has contact. Each respondent is given a total mean score based on his responses to the items in this scale. The items 244Ibid. 143 are scored so the higher the total score the more in- ‘fluence in the organization the dyadic contact is per- ceived to have. V. Variable Five--Openness of the Communications System Hypothesis 11 Liaison persons perceive the organization's communica- tion system to be more Open than do non—liaison persons. (Self-Perception Scale) Cues for the three items that make up this scale were abstracted by MacDonald from the works of Halpin and from Pelz and Andrews.245 The three items all use the five reSponse sets of "strongly agree," "agree," ”neither agree nor disagree," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." The response sets for the first two items have values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. The third item is a negatively worded item and the reSponse values are l, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively. In scoring the item the last item would be inverted giving a total score when added with first two items indicating the perceived system openness. Item 1 Scale 11 Inmates around here are really encouraged to take any kind of problems to the clinic staff. 24SMacDonald, op, cit., pp. 52-58; Pelz and Andrews, op, cit., pp. 48-49; Halpin, op. cit. 144 Item 2 Scale 11 There is a free two-way discussion of any problems that occur in the clinic between inmates and staff. Item 3 Scale 11 When suggestions are made by inmates on the clinic, staff members seldom give the suggestions serious consideration. Each respondent is given a mean score based on his responses to the items according to the scale re- sponse weights. The items are scored SO the higher the total score, the more Open the communications system is perceived to be. VI. Variable Six--Satisfaction With the Communications System Hypothesis 12 Liaison persons perceive the communications system as more satisfying than do non-liaison persons. (Self- Perception Scale) Cues for the items in this scale were taken from MacDonald's study in communication roles.246 The response sets that make up the three items in this scale use the "strongly agree," "agree," "neither agree nor disagree," "disagree,” and "strongly disagree" foils. The first two items have scoring weights of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively with the third having scoring 246MacDonald, op. cit., pp. 58-59. 145 weights of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The third item is inverted and added with the first two items to give one summation score for the scale. his Item 1 Scale 12 The information we get from staff members is usually in very useful form . . . easy to understand and complete. Item 2 Scale 12 Egnerally Speaking, the information we get from the staff members is accurate. Item_3 Scale 12 One trouble with the information we get from staff members is that it's usually late . . . not here when we need it. Each respondent is given a mean score based on reSponses to the items according to the assigned response weights. The items are scored SO the higher the total score the greater satisfaction the individual will have with the communications System. VII. Variable Seven-—Deliberate Message Transaction Hypothesis l3 Liaison-non-liaison dyads more frequently participate in deliberately initiated message transaction than do non-liaison-non-liaison dyads. (Personal Contact Scale) The cue for the item that Operationalizes this 247 variable comes from the work of Schwartz. This variable 247Schwartz, op, cit., pp. 49-50. 146 is Operationalized as a direct estimate of the frequency of deliberate message transaction in the dyadic contacts reported by the respondent. Item 1 Scale 13 Out of 100 times you might have contact with this person, about how many times would: (a) You seek him or initiate the contact (you go to see him) (b) He seeks you or initiates the contact (he comes to you) (c) None of the above, we just happen to meet (neither of us goes to the other) Total Contacts 100 This variable is scored as a direct estimate of the frequency of deliberate message transaction in the dyadic contacts. The frequency of contact reported in response C is taken as the reflex of estimated deliberate initiation, 100 minus C equals frequency of deliberate message transaction based on 100 transactions. VIII. Variable Eight--Direction of Message Transaction Hypothesis 14 The directionality of deliberate message initiation is more disproportionate in liaison-non-liaison dyads than in non-liaison-non-liaison dyads. (Personal Contact Scale) This variable is Operationalized by using the re- Sponses from scale 13. This variable is scored as a direct estimate of interaction frequency between the respondent and his dyadic contact. Estimated frequency of respondent Seeking behavior to contacts seeking behavior (responses 147 alternatives A and B in scale 13) is taken as a measure of the directional initiation ratio for deliberate message transactions within the dyad. The specific measure is the fraction A over B or B over A with the larger number always in the denominator. The more the fraction deviates from one, the more disproportionate is message transaction initiation in the dyad. IX. Variable Nine--First Sources of Information Hypothesis 15 Liaison persons will be perceived by non-liaison persons as first sources of organizational-related information to a greater extent than non-liaison persons. (Personal Contact Scale) Cues for the items that make up this scale were 248 This scale is made reported in the work of Schwartz. up of three items each with five reSponse sets. The first and third items have reSponse sets with values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 with the second having reSponse values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The second item is inverted and added with the first and the third to give a summation of the item's scores . 248Schwartz, op, cit., pp. 50-52. 148 Item 1 Scale 15 When you’learn some new change or new idea being talked about in the clinic, how likely are you to hear it first from this person. extremely likely likely 50-50 unlikely extremely unlikely Item 2 Scale 15 As new develOpments happen in the clinic, I usually "get the word" from someone other than this person. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree Item_3_Scale 15 Thinking hack over the contacts you've had with this person in the past week, about how often have you learned something new from him about clinic programs, duties, or people? almost everytime very Often about half the time seldom almost never Each respondent is given a mean score based on his responses to the items according to the assigned score weights. The items are scored so the higher the total score, the greater the likelihood the dyadic contact will serve as the first source for organizational information for the respondent. 149 X. Variable Ten--Formal Role Relationship to Informal Role Hypothesis l6 Liaison persons are more likely to hold high status inmate jobs than are non-liaison persons. (Self- Perception Demographic Data) . The data to test for this variable is taken from the demographic questionnaire which asks for the inmate to state his job classification. A high status inmate job will be considered as inmate clerks and typists. The emergent liaison roles are compared to the non-liaison persons to determine if the liaisons occupy a greater percentage of the high status inmate jobs than the non— liaisons. Contact with Ori inal Research Operationalized, SeI%-Perception Scale As noted in the review of the literature on prison- ization, pages 52-54, the work of Wheeler, Schrag, and Garabedian represent the best works done on the degree of prisonization and social roles in the inmate community.249 The three authors have set forth five basic roles in the prison community. They are the politicians, square Johns, outlaws, right guys, and dings. The politicians are the 249Stanton Wheeler, "Socialization in Correctional Communities"; Clarence Schrag, "A Preliminary Typology"; Peter Garabedian, "Social Roles and Process of Social- ization in the Prison Community." 150 manipulators, the front "office boys" or inmates who manage to get the good inmate jobs. They have the charac- teristics of what the liaison role is expected to possess. The square Johns are the non-criminal types who find them- selves in prison but who do not identify with prison values or criminal ideals. Their orientation remains with conventional society. They would be expected to be iso- lates in the prison community. The outlaws are the men who reject the norms of the prison community as well as conventional society. They are impulsive and act only in their self interests. They become the guerrillas, toughs, and merchants of the prison system. They also would be expected to be the isolates in the inmate society. The right guy role is the "true" con. He is the inmate who will never violate the inmate code. He has the charac- teristics Similar to those that the non-liaison person is hypothesized to possess. The last role of the ding or outcast role has the characteristics of an isolate in the liaison-non-liaison model being hypothesized. The dings are abnormal people who are rejected by the conventional inmate population. They may be mentally abnormal or participate in actions that are repulsive to the inmate community, female homosexual role. To provide for con- tinuity with past research done on the inmate community, the instrument that is representative of the instruments used to classify the inmate community into the five roles 151 based upon self-reported attitudes and values, is included 250 The in the self-report part of the questionnaire. instrument tests for the five roles by providing three questions concerning attitudes and values that are defini- tive for a given role. The fifteen items have reSponse sets of "strongly agree," "agree,".”disagree," and ”strongly disagree." These are weighted with the values of +2, +1, -1, and -2 respectively. The instrument is designed so that a given individual will receive a zero or near zero score on four of the sets of three items that test for roles other than his and Six or near Six on the scale that tests for the role that he occupies as reflected in his attitudinal reSponseS. Politician Roleyguestions 1. You've got to have confidence in yourself if you're going to be successful. 2. There's a little larcency in everyone, if you're really honest about it. 3. Who you know is more important than what you know, and brains are more important than brawn. Sguare John Role Questions 1. I generally feel guilty whenever I do wrong. 2. The only criminals I really know are the ones here in the institution. 3. Most people try to be law-abiding and true. 250Peter Garabedian, "Social Roles and Processes of Socialization in the Prison Community," Social Problems (Fall, 1963), 140—52. 152 Outlaw Role Questions 1. "Might is right" and "every man for himself“ are the main rules of living, regardless of what people say. 2. You have to take care of yourself because nobody else is going to take care of you. 3. It makes me sore to have peOple tell me what to do. Right Guy Role goestions 1. The biggest criminals are protected by society and rarely get to prison. 2. Inmates can trust me to be honest and loyal in my dealings with them. 3. Police, judges, prosecutors, and politicians are just as crooked as most of the people sent to prison. Ding Role Questions 1. I worry a lot about unimportant matters. 2. I am very nervous much of the time. 3. Most peOple are not very friendly towards me. Operationalizing of the Sociometric Design, hThe Personal Contact Checklist The reSpondent is asked to name five inmates who are residents of the clinic or who come to the clinic on a regular basis with whom the respondent communicates ‘with most frequently. Communication is defined on the instructions as face-to-face conversation, formal or infOrmal meetings, and letters sent between the reSpondent and his named contact. The respondent is also asked to 153 check the frequency of the contact as one of five cate— gories; "several times daily," "about once a day,” "2 or 3 times a week," "about once a week," and ”less than once a week." The frequency of interaction is used to deter- mine the strength of interactions when defining the matrix. The respondent is asked to fill out a personal contact questionnaire for each of the five named peOple. Asking the respondents to limit their responses to five peOple and to complete contact questionnaires on the five named people is justified in the literature. Donald Clemmer reported that, "The average size of primary groups to which Short-term men belonged was 4.4 members . . . the average size of primary groups made up of men of longer residence was 3.2 members per group structure. ."251 Donald Schwartz reported that the number of reciprocated contacts in his study was five individuals.252 Donald MacDonald found the average number of reciprocated contacts to be 4.97.253 The practical limitation of time also entered into the decision. The questionnaire is designed to take one-half hour to complete. 251Clemmer, 1940, op, cit., p. 120. ZSZSchwartz, op. cit., p. 106. 253MacDonald, op, cit., p. 67. 154 Pretest Procedures It was decided to pretest the survey instrument to be used in this study to: (1) determine if data collection procedures resulted in sufficient cooperation from the reSpondentS, (2) to evaluate ambiguities in questionnaire instructions and item wording, and (3) to analyze the scales for internal consistency. ; To avoid contaminating the study population with the pretest instrument, a correctional facility that emphasized group interaction and counseling was selected as the source for the pretest sample. Within the facility twenty "clients" who were there for penal Of- fenses or opiate drug-related problems were selected from a list of thirty-one clients who were penal Offenders or had drug-related problems. The twenty members of the pretest pOpulation were randomly divided up into four groups of five subjects each. The pretest questionnaire was administered to one group of five subjects at a time in the agency's confer- ence room. The subjects were told in the instructions to ask any questions about the wording or meaning of the questionnaire that they could not easily understand. If they did not wish to ask aloud, they were to circle any words in the questionnaire they did not understand clearly. The researcher was in the room to answer the questions that the subjects may have had. 155 To fit the agency, the questionnaire items were tailored to fit the agency's pOpulation. That is, the term "clients" was substituted for "inmates" and "agency" for "clinic" in the questionnaire items. All other word- ing and questionnaire presentation remained the same. The pretest respondents were asked only to complete one personal contact questionnaire for the first of the five names on their personal contact checklist. One question- naire from each subject was felt all that was needed to accomplish the goals of the pretest. All twenty of the selected subjects when approached volunteered to participate in the study. All the subjects were administered the questionnaire on the same day. No major instruction or item-wording ambiguities were mentioned by any of the respondents during or after the administration of the testing instrument. The re- searcher asked each group of five subjects after they finished the questionnaire if there were any ambiguities in the questionnaire. The responses from all four groups indicated that there were no difficulties encountered in understanding the questionnaire items. The researcher inspected the pre—test questionnaires and did not find any words circled to indicate ambiguity. The completion time for the pretest instrument for the four groups had a mean of 16 minutes with a mode F..'r I'm. ‘R- 156 of 15 minutes. From this data it was felt that an "aver— age" respondent could complete the entire questionnaire in 20 to 30 minutes. Pretest Scale Analysis To determine the internal consistency Of the items in each scale a Pearson's product moment coefficient of correlation matrix was inspected for negatively corre- lated items. None of the items in any of the scales correlated zero or negatively with any other item in its respective scale. TABLE l.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived Number of Contacts. Scale 1, N=20 (Pretest) Item Numbera 1 2 3 1 x ‘ .447 .692 2 . x .602 3 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on operationalizing of variables. 157 TABLE 2.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Number of Contacts. Scale 2, N=20 (Pretest). —— Item Numbera l 2 3 l x .688 .682 2 x .801 3 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on operationalizing of variables. TABLE 3.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Task-Related Information. Scale 3, N=2 (Pretest). Item Numbera 1 2 1 x .854 2 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on operationalizing of variables. TABLE 4.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived, Task-Related Information. Scale 4, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera l 2 l x .793 2 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on operationalizing of variables. 158 TABLE 5.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Control of Message Flow. Scale 5, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera l 2 l x .738 2 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on Operationalizing of variables. TABLE 6.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived Control of Message Flow. Scale 6, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera l 2 l x .815 2 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on operationalizing of variables. TABLE 7.--Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Influence over Personal Opinions. Scale 7, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera 1 2 3 4 1 x .291 .603 .329 2 x .377 .605 3 x .506 4 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on Operationalizing Of variables. Fn' ..._. 159 TABLE 8.--Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Importance of Secondary Contacts. Scale 8, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera 1 2 3 1 x .586 .593 2 x .606 3 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the Section on Operationalizing of variables. TABLE 9.--Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Self- Perceived, Influence in the Organization. Scale 9, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera 1 2 3 1 x .601 .309 2 x .514 3 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on operationalizing of variables. TABLE 10.--Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Influence in the Organ- ization. Scale 10, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera l 2 3 1 x .735 .472 2 x .507 3 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on Operationalizing of variables. 160 TABLE ll.--Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Self- Perceived, Openness of Communication System. Scale 11, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera l 2 3 1 x .511 .477 2 x .415 3 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on operationalizing of variables. TABLE 12.—-Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Self- Perceived, Satisfaction with Communications System. Scale 12, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera l 2 3 1 x .628 .317 2 x .335 3 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on operationalizing of variables. TABLE l3.--Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, First Source of Informa- tion. Scale 15, N=20 (Pretest). Item Numbera 1 2 3 1 x .761 .653 2 x .574 3 x aRefers to scale items as presented in the section on Operationalizing of variables. CHAPTER IV F IND INGS Administrative Arrangement One month was required to make arrangements for the administering of the questionnaire to the prison popu- 1ation of interest to the researcher. The first step was to contact the director of the clinic to explain the pro- posed research design, ask for permission to do the re- search and ask for any suggestions he had to improve the research design. The clinic director, who encourages research, gave tentative approval dependent upon approval from the director of research for the department and state director of corrections. The clinic director suggested that compensation be given the inmates who would be asked to participate, on a voluntary basis, for their time. This suggestion was most valuable to the researcher and the one that enhanced cOOperation from the inmates. The director explained that singe the drug companies' research in prisons and their policy of paying inmates for their participation, any participation on the part of inmates is expected to result in compensation for their time. Also, 161 162 departmental policy, which seeks to protect inmates from being exploited, encourages such compensation. There of course is the practical side of paying a man for his time, which also entered into the decision. Since money is not allowed in a maximum security prison and the researcher wanted to provide "payment" immediately to the volunteer subjects it was decided to "pay" the subjects in the prison monetary unit of exchange, cigarettes. To do SO required the permission of the director of corrections. The researcher then approached the director of research with the proposed research design. The director of research was interested in the following points; what were the qualifications of the researcher, why was he doing the research (theory behind the research), what type of instrument was going to be used, what would be done with the data, what was the procedure for gathering the data, what population was the researcher interested in, would the volunteers be compensated, what department staff would be required, and what department facilities would be needed by the researcher. The research director then presented the proposal to the state director with his recommendations. The State Director of Corrections then approved the research. The director of research then sent the prOposal for the research to the warden of the prison where the psychiatric clinic is located, for 163 his approval. After he approved it, the director sent notification to the clinic director that the research had been approved. The researcher then contacted the clinic director to make the final arrangements for the research in the W clinic. The researcher followed the suggestions for prison research techniques presented in Maurice Farber's 254 article on the topic. The researcher did not want to disrupt the established prison routine that is necessary 1" in handling a large body of men. The researcher did not want to withdraw a large body of men at one time from their various work gangs or regular counts or meals. The researcher must also create a minimum of disturbance among the inmates themselves. The director of the clinic and one staff psycholo- gist decided that any night after 5:00 p.m. would create the minimum interference with prison routine. After this hour the job assignments have ended and all the men are counted and fed, and have free time until night lock-up which takes place at approximately 11:00 p.m. The staff psychologists volunteered to inform the men that the re- searcher would be coming and asking that they participate 254Maurice Farber, "Prison Research: Techniques and Methods," The Journal of Social Ppychology, XIV (1941), 295-310. 164 voluntarily in a research project without telling them what the research would be like, before the researcher's arrival. Administering the Instrument It was decided to administer the research instru- ment to the inmates by the residential programs they were assigned to. That is, the men in the sex offender, drug offender, and youthful offender programs would be adminis— tered at separate times that same night. This was done to keep the subjects' numbers to approximately ten per test period so that the researcher could answer any questions the subject might have and to detect any illiterate in- mates who might wish to "fake" the responses. The first group of men tested were the sex Offender residential prOgram inmates. They were selected as the first test group solely because they were the first group to have all its members done with their meals and counted. They were asked to come to the nurses' lounge. The nurses' lounge is a room approximately 12 feet by 18 feet with a large table in the center of the room with chairs around it and a couch along one wall. At the time of the research, this program consisted of nine men all con- victed of either rape, attempted rape, or indecent liber- ties with a female minor. All nine men came to the lounge. The staff psychologist then introduced the re- searcher as a graduate student in criminal justice who 165 was working on a research project as part of his training from Michigan State University. It was emphasized that this research was in no way connected with the department of corrections and would not effect a man's status in it. The researcher then addressed the men, once more stating who he was, and that the research was part of his education and not research done for the corrections department. The researcher told the inmates that any information about a given inmate would be held in strict confidence, but that the generalized results would be presented to the corrections department. To insure the confidence of the inmates, an envelope was provided for the instrument to be placed in and sealed when they com- pleted the instrument. These sealed instruments would not be opened while the researcher was inside the prison, and once Opened would be read only by him and then destroyed. The researcher informed the subjects that he had Obtained the permission of the Director of Correc- tions, the warden, and the director of the clinic to conduct the research and compensate them for their time with payment of two packs of cigarettes. Participation would be strictly voluntary. The last point was empha- sized strongly. The researcher stated that the purpose of the research was to find out about the communication structure of the clinic. That is, who talks to who. This would require the inmates to name the men they talked 166 to. The researcher emphasized that names would be turned into numbers before any inmate or member of the correc- tions department ever saw the generalized results. The researcher then explained that the instrument would re- quire them also to put their name on it and answer ques- tions about themselves and five men who they talked to in the clinic. It was explained that these questions per- tained to their communication behavior and nothing else. There was no hidden psychological test within the ques- i tionnaire. The researcher then asked the inmates if they had any questions about the research. The researcher was challenged by one of the inmates. He was asked if the payment of cigarettes was insulting to the rest of the inmates. The researcher responded that the payment of money, in this case cigarettes, was a fact of life for compensating a man for his time whether on a job or in any other endeavor in the "real world." But, if the man would feel his integrity was challenged, the researcher would be glad to make arrangements for the man's payment to be donated to the fund for indigenous inmates. At this point the man quickly backed down among the laughter of his peers. The man did not appear insulted and joked with his peers about his integrity. A jovial atmosphere existed at the end of the confrontation. 167 At this point, the researcher stated that the instrument was designed to take approximately one-half hour to complete. The researcher then asked who would like to volunteer to take the instrument, reminding them that they would be required to name not only themselves but five other inmates on the instruments. These named men were to be inmates in the clinic and that they were to spell the first and last names as well as they could. All nine men volunteered to take the instrument. L The general comment was that a "con” would do anything for two packs of cigarettes.* The researcher stated that he would answer any questions the men might have while taking the instrument. The only question that was asked was if men in the general population could be included as persons contacted or if staff members could be named. The researcher was surprised to find that the earliest the instrument was completed was 45 minutes, with the average time taken as one hour and five minutes with one inmate taking an hour and a half. The inmates seemed to be working very hard on each response, thinking them out. The researcher did not feel this time was due to reading or comprehension difficulties. This impression *The cigarettes' brand name used was Pall Malls. This impressed the inmates, for Pall Malls are the accepted unit of exchange throughout the prison. They could not understand how the researcher knew this; he obtained the information by asking an older inmate when visiting the institution. 168 was obtained from talking to five of the nine inmates about various individual items. The inmates had a good knowledge of the content and meaning of the individual items. They stated that they had to think hard when answering the questions, for they were never asked them I before. Also, the internal consistencies of the instru- ment seems to provide indirect evidence of the thorough- ness of the inmates' efforts. These results will be pre- sented later in the paper. Upon completion of the sex offender population, the drug offender population consisting of nine men were assembled in the prison clinic library. It was decided to assemble these men in the library rather than the nurses' lounge so that the nurses could regain the use of their lounge. The library is a room of Similar dimensions to the lounge with a large table in the center of the room. The researcher was introduced to the assembled inmates in the same manner he was introduced to the sex offender population. The researcher knew some of the drug Offender inmates from his contacts with them in the past and had about ten minutes of social conversation with them. He then presented his research to the group in the same manner as it was presented to the sex offender population. The researcher added that although the instru— ment was designed to take one-half hour, it took the sex offender's group one hour to complete. All nine men 169 initially agreed to take part in the research. Fifteen minutes into the research one inmate stated, "Fuck it, it's too God damn long," placed his cigarettes back into the packet along with the instrument and returned them and left. The other inmates resumed their task seemingly ‘7 uneffected by their colleague's actions. The first questionnaire was returned in forty minutes, the last in one hour and thirty-five minutes. The only question asked during the instrument-taking was whether or not the man had to name five inmates if he talked to less than that number. When told he did not have to list five, but only list the men he talked to, the man was satisfied and completed the instrument. It is interesting to note that all inmates listed five con- tacts in the drug offender group, except the man who asked the question, when listing less than five would have made the completion of the instrument much faster and easier. Before the instrument could be administered to the youthful offender's population, the researcher had to wait one hour for that group's night yard time to be over. The nurses and psychologists Offered to keep the men in from yard time for those who wished to take part in the experiment if the researcher did not wish to wait for the completion of the yard time. The researcher chose to wait for the expiration of yard to gain further cooperation from the inmates. 170 When the youthful offenders returned from the yard, the researcher went to the cell block that housed the youthful offender group. The head nurse introduced the researcher to the men who were assembled in the day room. The population numbered thirty-four in number. I The researcher presented himself and his research in the ‘ same manner as he had to the other inmate groups. One inmate refused to take part in the research project. The thirty-three men were taken to the clinic L library in three groups to participate in the research project. The first ten men, picked by the head nurse, were administered the questionnaire. During the adminis- tering of the questionnaire, no one in the test group asked any questions about the research or the question- naire. The Span of time taken by this group ranged from fifty minutes to one and a half hours with a mean time of sixty-five minutes. When all members finished the items the head nurse escorted them back to their cell block and sent up the next group. This group also consisted of ten men. They were given the same instructions as the other test groups. In this group was one man who was illiterate. Upon his request the researcher read the items to him. This was done so as not to embarrass him in front of his peers. The researcher allowed him to earn his payment of cigar- ettes. The researcher discarded the questionnaire as its 171 validity was in question. The man did not seem to under- stand the questionnaire items. The other nine inmates asked no questions during the testing period. The span of time taken by this group ranged from fifty-five min- utes to ninety-five minutes with an average of seventy- 5 five minutes. When everyone in the group had finished, the head nurse escorted them back to their cell block and allowed the remaining group of thirteen men to come to the clinic library for testing. The researcher once more explained his research instrument to the test population in the same manner he had to the other test groups. When asked for questions a spokesman for the group said that the first group was discussing the research and were arguing about its pur- pose. At this point the researcher presented to them the general theory of group leadership without naming any Specific traits. This general description satisfied the men that the instrument was not a hidden psychiatric examination. There was no further discussion or ques- tioning. The general comments were, "O.K., we were just wondering about it." To assure them, the researcher stated that if they felt there was any other meaning to a given item they could ignore it and not reSpond to it. It is interesting to note that no man chose to take this option. The researcher feels that this one statement gained the confidence of the men and arrested any doubts 172 they had about the nature of the instrument. The re- searcher also had established his identity with two men in the group from previous exposure to the clinic, who supported the researcher. The researcher detected two men who were illiter- F- ate in this group. They asked the researcher to assist them in responding to the instrument. The researcher assisted them and then discarded their questionnaires, for they did not seem to understand the questionnaire items. The range of time taken by this last group ranged from 75 minutes to 105 minutes with the average being 95 minutes. The administering of the research instrument is reported in summary form in Table 14. TABLE l4.--Administration of Research Instrument. Number Range of time Mean time to Unusable Sub'ects to complete complete questionnaires J instrument (in instrument or refusals minutes) (in minutes) 9 45-90 65 9 40-95 71 1 refusal 11 50-90 65 l refusal 10 55-95 75 1 illiterate 13 75-105 95 2 illiterate 173 From a total study population of 52 individuals, 50 individuals or 96.1 per cent volunteered to participate in the research project resulting in 90.4 per cent of the population providing usable test scales, after rejection of the three scales completed by the illiterate inmates. Of the scales that were retained, all had completed both part one, personal data questionnaires, and part two, contact checklists and contact scales for all the named individuals. Of the two men who refused to take or finish ‘ the test instrument, both were determined to be isolates in the sociometric analysis. The three illiterate re- Spondents' reSponses as to who they contacted were included in the sociometric analysis. The 50 test instruments that were retained for analysis of personal contact scales re- sulted in 229 reported contacts, with a 100 per cent re- sponse rate in completing the personal contact question- naires. Scale Analysis Of the 229 completed Personal Contact question- naires there were no items or reSponseS to questions that *were not responded to in the instruments. In the Personal Data questionnaires there was once more 100 per cent com- jpletion of all items. This made missing data evaluation 'unnecessary. 174 The raw data from the individual research in- struments of the usable subjects were analyzed according to the score weights assigned to them as specified in Chapter III, page 125. This data was then entered into the 101 Olivetti Underwood Programma Calculator so that all inter-item correlations could be determined to detect any zero-order correlation coefficients or negatively corre- lated items. All of the obtained Pearson Product Moment Correlations were Significantly different from zero at the 0.001 level, two-alternative tests, N=229 (critical value of 4=.228) for Contact questionnaires and N=47 (critical value of r=.270) for Self Perception scales. The obtained inter-item correlations for the self- perception scales and Personal Contact scales are as follows. (The designations of each item will be presented as scales were presented in Chapter III, pages 125-152. It should be noted that the items were randomly placed in the research instrument and were not numbered).* *Research instrument as used presented in Appendix A. 175 TABLE 15.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived, Number of Contacts. Scale 1, N=47. Item Numbera 1 2 3 X .6799 .6885 x .7079 x aAS presented in Chapter III, pages 132-133. TABLE 16.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived, Task—Related Information. Scale 4, N=47. Item Numbera 1 2 l x .8061 2 x aAs presented in Chapter III, pages 135-136. TABLE l7.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived, Control Of Message Flow. Scale 6, N=47. Item Numbera l 2 l x .6757 2 x aAs presented in Chapter III, page 137. 176 TABLE 18.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived, Influence in the Organization. Scale 9, N=47. Item Numbera l 2 3 x .6233 .5138 x .5143 x : aAs presented in Chapter III, pages 141-142. TABLE 19.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived, Openness of Communications System. Scale 11, N=47. Item Numbera l 2 3 x .6799 .7311 x .6671 x aAs presented in Chapter III, page 143. TABLE 20.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Self-Perceived, Satisfaction with Communications System. Scale 12, N=47. Item Numbera l 2 3 x .5604 .7952 2 x .4721 x aAs presented in Chapter III, pages 144-145. 177 TABLE 21.-~Inter—Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Number of Communications Contacts. Scale 2, N=229. Item Numbera 1 2 3 x .9062 .8466 x .7906 r x aAs presented in Chapter III, pages 133-134. ‘6’ TABLE 22.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Task-Related Information. Scale 3, N=229. Item Numbera l 2 1 x .7247 2 x aAs presented in Chapter III, pages 134-135. TABLE 23.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Control of Message Flow. Scale 5, N=229. Item Numbera 1 2 x .6618 2 x aAs presented in Chapter III, pages 136—137. 178 TABLE 24.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Influence Over Personal Opinions. Scale 7, N=229. Item Numbera l 2 3 4 1 x .6798 .5952 .5523 2 x .6054 .6622 3 x .7523 4 x aAs presented in Chapter III, pages 138-139. TABLE 25.--Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Importance of Secondary Contacts. Scale 8, N=229. Item Numbera 1 2 3 1 x .7764 .8707 2 x .7707 3 x aAs presented in Chapter III, page 140. TABLE 26.--Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, Influence in the Organiza— tion. Scale 10, N=229. Item Numbera l 2 3 l x .5601 .5423 x .6201 x aAS presented in Chapter III, pages 142-143. 179 TABLE 27.-—Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Personal Contact Perceived, First Source of Informa- tion. Scale 15, N=229. Item Numbera l 2 3 1 x .6324 .7111 x .6133 X aAS presented in Chapter III, pages 147-148. All inter-item correlations of the Self-Perception and Personal Contact Scales are adequately significant at the 0.001 level to warrant their retention in the analysis of the hypothesis. Sociometric Analysis The source of data for sociometric mapping of the communication structure of the inmate informal organ- ization was the Personal Contact Checklist of the re- search instrument. A total of 229 contacts were listed by the 50 research instruments that included the personal contact checklist, 47 usable instruments plus the three illiterates. Of these 229 contacts listed, 100 per cent reported the frequency of contact as several times daily. This finding is not surprising considering the confines of a maximum security prison. Completion of the sociometric analysis to identify the necessary tOpological properties of the communication 180 structure required determining reciprocation of contact from the contacts reported in the checklist. Since this topological analysis was accomplished in matrix form, the most efficient method of determining reciprocation was to begin with construction of the 52 by 52 matrix. It was decided to include the two refusals to determine the number of individuals who named them as contacts, and to find their relative position in the inmate organization. The first step of the matrix analysis consisted of first making a preliminary matrix where the respondents were originally listed sequentially in alphabetical order ac- cording to the residential treatment program, drug, sexual offender, or youthful offender, they belonged to on each axes of the matrix. Groupings of individuals in the final matrix was accomplished by inspecting the loca- tions of tentatively identified reciprocated choices, rows and columns agree they contact each other, in the pre- liminary matrix and relisting individuals out of alpha- betical order and residential grouping within the second matrix in order to bring each into adjacency with a majority of the other individuals with whom he had contact. The purpose of the reordering was to create clusters of reciprocated contacts around the diagonal as required for matrix analysis. The final matrix was plotted on 11 inch square section of 1/8 inch Square graph paper. Respondents' 181 identification numbers were listed down the left-hand edge of the sheet (for rows) and across the top of the sheet (for columns) in identical sequence beginning in the upper left-hand corner, bringing into adjacency those individuals who named each other as contacts. The data contained in the Personal Contact Check- lists was then transferred to the matrix by placing a mark in the matrix intersect cell of the respondent and his reported contact. This first transfer was made using the identification numbers along the Side of the matrix (rows) for the respondent (the person making choices), and the identification numbers along the top of the matrix (columns) for the contacts listed (the persons chosen). At the completion of this step the matrix entries consisted of 229 cells, representing the total contacts listed in the Personal Contact Checklists. Next, to make entries in the matrix symmetric and to determine reciprocation in such a way as to have a record of a reciprocated dyad, the axes of the matrix were rotated counterclockwise one-quarter turn and the data from the checklists again transferred to the matrix. Now, however, the identification numbers for the contacts listed (persons chosen) were along the bottom of the matrix; i.e. rows in step 1 became columns in step 2. At the completion of these two steps, those cells of the matrix which contained two entries represented 182 reciprocated contacts. At this point there were a total of 124 cells with double entries indicating 124 recipro- cated one-way communication linkages, or 62 two-way pairs of individuals. A reproduction of the final working matrix is presented in Figure 3. The shaded cells represent recip- rocated contacts, the x cells are unreciprocated con- tacts. The dashed lines represent the Six segments used in analyzing the clique groups. Using only the reciprocated contacts in the final matrix, the topological analysis was accomplished follow- ing the procedures specified by Weiss as presented in Chapter III, pages 102-106.255 The first step was to partition the larger matrix into smaller segments by inspection. The segments were selected so members within the segment had a minimum of contacts outside the segment. By this procedure the large matrix was divided into Six smaller square matrices. Segment A contained ten individuals, Segment B contained seven, Segment C had five individuals, Segment D contained seven peOple within it, Segment E contained eleven indi- viduals within and Segment F contained nine (Figure 3). The segments were COpied on separate sheets of graph paper and each analyzed individually in order to isolate sepa- rate clique groups. f 255Weiss, 9p. cit., pp. 88-108. Respondent 183 Named Contact e‘e I I r I ’j e AA ee AI 8 I CI D I E F I 0A AA CA A I I I eA Aoo Al I l I u A I a I I | l eAAe e A I I eAAe eeAI I I I I I A. O I A | I I A e Aee e A I I I I PQQ. _A_ ..._ I I I I eeeoa I I e e Ae | I I I .. C. P I I e e eAA I I I AAA A AAee eeI I I Ae Ae e I | I I T70 _______ A .2 | I I I .. I I A A I A I A AA l el I A AA IA I I__________________g_ A A A AA AAAA IA e A A A I A A. O. I A l I AA. eeel I OOI 4: O. . IA.. A I (3 3 I5 A : O Iee e a I A A I _____________ A ”7“"7 a A: £5AO. AI A I e A A A e ee qA A A AAI ‘30 e O A I e e eAI A I AA e Aeq A I A A Ae e A e A e Ieee I A eAA e e I A Ae A d .A I AA A e I '——-_“—_”—-_-‘_”_"o—A_—‘__‘—'_”Z‘"—' " eAA e I C Reciprocated Contacte .. . . A . I A Unrecipzocated Contacts A A . . C A O A I A A 0 AAI A A Ae A A eeA I (5 £5 (3 I. In ____n._u__.__u._____u___99"_9_99__u_éu____9__“_3 A A Figure 3.--Matrix of Reported Communications Contacts. 184 The basic procedure of the segment analysis is to remove tentatively identified liaison persons from the segments until separate clique groups can be identified by inspection. The only permissible contacts outside a group cluster (i.e., with individuals in other clusters) are Single contacts between two individuals in two sepa- rate groups. These are bridge contacts in graph theory terminOIOgy. The result of this procedure was a list of the membership of twenty separate clique groups and a list of fifteen tentative liaison persons (those who had been removed from the segments or who were originally listed as tentative liaisons because they had two or more contacts outside of their segment, not counting contacts with indi- viduals already tentatively identified as liaisons). The 'pnoblem was then to construct a sociogram of the total population and attempt to replace the tentatively identi- fied liaisons to determine if they met the criteria of the liaison role definition. Based on the information pre- sented by Weiss as reported and used by Schwartz, and the conceptual meaning of an articulation point in graph theory, the following criteria were utilized for the final identification of liaison persons.256 256Schwartz, op. cit., pp. 99—101, 185 1. To be considered a member of a separate group, a liaison must have a majority of his contacts within the group, not counting contacts he has with other liaison persons. These are liaison group members. 2. Not counting contacts he has with already identi— fied liaison persons, a liaison who has member- ship in a separate group must have a minimum of one contact outside his group. 3. A liaison individual is one who does not have membership in a separate group, but has contacts with persons in a minimum of two separate groups. These contacts may be with other liaisons only if these liaisons have membership within their respective groups (in this case, the liaison set may be treated as a separate group). 4. There will probably be a group of liaisons who cannot be characterized as having membership in any separate group, but who have all or nearly all their contacts with other liaisons, at least two of whom must be members of two separate groups. These are members of the liaison set. 5. A non-liaison group member may have no more than one contact outside his own group (except with 186 liaisons) and must have a majority of his con- tacts within the group. The final sociogram of the communication struc- ture of the clinic Should be such that if all the liaisons are removed from the sociogram, the work groups will separate into individual clusters except for bridge con- tacts between groups. The final test of a liaison per- son's identification should be as follows: ignoring bridge contacts between groups tO which a liaison is connected and ignoring other liaison contacts among these groups and treating the liaison set as a separate group, if the liaison is removed from the sociogram the groups in question Should separate. If the liaison has membership in a separate group, when he and only he is removed his group should separate from the other groups to which he is connected leaving no connections among the groups in question (exceptions noted above). If either one of two connected persons could be removed to separate any two groups, then this is an improper solution, this is a bridge contact. The sociogram of the communications structure of the study population is reproduced in Figure 4. The end result of the topological analysis was the identification of eleven liaison persons (21.15 per cent of the study ;population) and forty-one persons as non-liaison persons (78.85 per cent). Of these forty-one non-liaisons, two 187 muomucou pouncoumwomm ucmmeumum mHmSOA>HOcH meauowccou mecwq cOHumNacmmuo HmEuOmcH eumEcH on» no musuosuum coaumowcSEEou may no EmumOauomII w vacuum \ // . \I’ ’ mucosa?“ msouopI Ix \ II // _ ...... \ / «I /\/\/ \ Dana 6836a 8.6933 _ _ . \\ Iuoneme . / \ , e. l swam... commmflwcoz C / \ manta /// XV. \ _\//\I \ “KT 5:. R \\ I \ /::...\ .\/_ cognaq \ a, A Ix A \ / umm comfiqu \ _ \ A \ / / P \I I // x A L I L. I .I \ I K J« ..... P nan / \“um \ an”. A 4 / r mm mm.” mm. .3 \ , , // \ /II I \K \ I I I I‘ \ / I I III \.\ III / \ \\ \\ \ //// I \l I I\ //I\ « “s$/ I I ..... A \ l \ \ // /IT _ / L _ , _ / l / \ / \ / I I x A "mm / \ \ / an” \/ / /, / x / / / L / / \ 188 were refusals and three were illiterates giving a usable N of thirty-six non-liaison persons, all of whom were members of clique groups. Of the eleven identified liaison individuals, all were members of clique groups, with eight liaisons having multiple group membership and four liaisons making up two liaison sets. The range in group size (including liaison group members in their respective groups) was from two to Six members. Group Size 2 3 4 5 6 Number of groups 5 9 4 l 1 N=20 Characteristics of the ReSpondents Sociometric data on communication Personal Con- tact and Self-Perception items as well as demographic information obtained from the general information page Of the research instrument can be utilized to characterize the liaisons and non-liaison members of the inmate in- formal organization. This data is presented as descrip- tive parameters of the study population, whose value is in describing certain characteristics of the population and for later use as comparative statistics for other empirical case studies conducted in similar, or dissimilar organizations. 189 Sociometric Description Of the Study POpulation The number of reciprocated contacts of liaisons and non-liaisons is charted in Figure 5. Isolates are not included in Figure 5, but do appear in other socio- metric and demographic tables, because the Operational definition of an isolate is the absence of reciprocated contacts. The study found three such individuals. The test of the span of reciprocated contacts differed significantly for the liaison and non-liaison samples a "T" test for independent sample means with un- equal numbers in each sample was used. The findings are as follows: Span of Reciprocated Contacts Non-Liaison ' ' "I! Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Score 3.2727 2.5000 2.0490 Sample Standard Deviation 1.0523 1.0469 Obtained Range of Scores 2-5 2-5 The obtained difference between sample means is significant beyond the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=43, critical value of "T"=2.01 using Table III of Fisher and Yates Text, Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research).257 257Sidney Armore, Introduction to Spatistical Analysis and Inferences for PsychOIOgy afid Education (New York: John WiIéy and Sons, 1966I, p.7501. Number of Members Receiving Choice 190 Liaisons (N=ll) _._._—-Non-Liaisons (N=32) H O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of Choices Received Figure 5.--Frequency Polygon for the Recipro- cated Choices Received by Liaisons and Non-Liaisons. 191 Demogrpphic Characteristics of the Study POpulation In the review of the literature in Chapter I it was suggested that one function of "prisonization" is taking on the culture of the prison to make the "pains of imprisonment" less severe. It was also suggested that inmates take on various roles that are reflections of the degree they adapt to the prison culture, these roles being in Clarence Schrag's terminology, politicians, square Johns, right guys, dings, and outlaws. Since "pains of imprisonment" and length of sentence are thought to be related by most writers in the field whether linearly or curvilinearly, it was decided to compare the liaisons and non-liaisons who agree they are in reciprocated contact with each other to see if they differed on various aspects of sentence length and the role played in the inmate cul- ture using the roles of Clarence Schrag and the instrument that was used to test for these various roles. Aspects of Sentence and Parole A summary of the reported crimes for which the liaison and non-liaisons who are in reciprocated contact are currently under sentence for is presented in Table 28. In both the liaison and non-liaison samples, crimes of violence make up approximately half of the crime categories, 54.54 per cent for liaison individuals and 49.5 per cent of the non-liaison individuals, compared 192 TABLE 28.--Self—Reported Crimes Currently Serving Sentence for by Study Population Type. Crime Liaisons Liaisons Non-Liaisons Non-Liaisons Armed robbery 2 18.18 7 29.16 Armed robbery and kidnapping - l 4.08 Assault with intent to rape 4 36.36 Attempted breaking and entering 1 4.08 Attempted forgery l 9.09 Attempted larceny 1 9.09 Attempted rape 2 8.1 Breaking and entering l 9.09 4 16.67 Car theft 2 8.1 Felonious assault 1 4.08 Indecent liberties with minor 2 8.1 Immigration violation 1 4.08 Entering without breaking l 4.08 Manslaughter l 4.08 Parole violation 1 9.09 Possession of narcotics 1 4.08 Sodomy 1 9.09 N=11 N=24 193 with 24.32 per cent of the general prison pOpulation in Michigan penal institutions.258 The largest single cate- gory of liaison offenders is assault with intent to rape accounting for 36.36 per cent of the liaison group with armed robbery accounting for 29.16 per cent of the non- liaison sample making it the largest single offense cate- gory for non-liaison individuals. Closely related to crime presently serving sen- tence for is the length of sentence placed upon the indi- vidual and the number of times he has seen the parole board. Tables 29 and 30 summarize this information taken from the general information sheet of the research instru- ment. Since in Michigan a man is usually given a maximum and minimum sentence to serve, it is impossible by study- ing the sentence alone to determine how long a man may be expected to serve in prison. What can be done is to find out if there are any general differences between the liaison and non-liaisons in the study pOpulation on the three aspects of an indeterminate sentence. These are length of maximum, minimum sentence and the span between the maximum and minimum sentence. To test if the minimum sentence to be served differed significantly for the liaison and non-liaison 25 . . . . . . 8Criminal Statistics, State of Michigan, Depart- ment of Corrections, 1971 (Lansing, Mich.:4‘Department ETCorrections, 1971). 194 TABLE 29.——Self-Reported Length of Sentence and Have Seen Parole Board, Liaison Individuals. Sentence in Years Span of Sentence Paroizegoard Minimum Maximum Maximum - Minimum Yes No 1.5 5.0 3.5 x 1.5 5.0 3.5 x 1.92 2.0 .083 x 2.0 4.0 2.0 x 3.0 10.0 7.0 x 3.5 5.0 1.5 x 5.0 15.0 10.0 x 5.0 15.0 10.0 x 7.5 15.0 7.5 x 10.0 20.0 10.0 x 10.0 20.0 10.0 x i 25 4.6290 i510.5454 :5 5.9166 195 TABLE 30.--Self—Reported Length of Sentence and Have Seen the Parole Board, Non-Liaison Individuals. Seen Sentence in Years Parole Board Span of Sentence Minimum Maximum Maximum - Minimum Yes No . 2.0 1.0 x 1.5 5.0 3.5' x . 5.0 3.5 x . 4.0 2.0 x . 5.0 3.0 x . 5.0 2.5 x . 10.0 7.5 x . 15.0 12.5 x . 4.0 1.0 x . 10.0 7.0 x . 15.0 12.0 x . 30.0 27.0 . 15.0 11.5 . 5.0 1.0 4.0 10.0 6.0 4.5 10.0 5.5 5.0 10.0 5.0 x 5.0 10.0 5.0 x 5.0 15.0 10.0 x 6.5 10.0 3.5 x 7.5 10.0 2.5 x 7.5 15.0 7.5 x 7.5 15.0 7.5 x 10.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 5.0 25 4.5 i511.0 i5 6.5 196 samples who reported reciprocated contacts a "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers in each sample was used. The findings are as follows: Minimum Length of Sentence Non-Liaison . 0 N N Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Score 4.6290 yrs. 4.5000 yrs. .115766 Sample Standard Deviation 3.0744 yrs. 3.0822 yrs. Obtained Range of Scores 1.5-10 yrs. 1-15 yrs. The obtained difference between sample means for minimum sentence is not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests d.f.=34, critical value of "T"= 2.042). Testing of the maximum sentence to be served by the two samples in the population using a "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers in each sample to determine if they differ significantly obtained the following results: Maximum Length of Sentence Non-Liaison ' ' I! " Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Score 10.5454 yrs. 11.000 yrs. —.199206 Sample Standard Deviation 6.3727 yrs. 6.2801 yrs. Obtained Range of Scores 20-2 yrs. 30-2 yrs. 197 The obtained difference between sample means was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=34, critical value of ”T"=2.042). As well as the maximum and minimum sentences to be served by the two groups the span between these two extremes was also tested for any statistical significance using the "T" test for independent sample means with un- equal numbers in each sample. The obtained results are as follows: Difference Maximum-Minimum Sentence Non-Liaison . . N N Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Score 5.9166 yrs. 6.5000 yrs. -.324889 Sample Standard Deviation 3.7042 yrs. 5.4018 yrs. Obtained Range of Scores .083-10.0 yrs. 1-27 yrs. The obtained differences between the liaison sample and the non-liaison sample was once more not signi- ficant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=34, critical value of "T"=2.042). Since no aspect of the indeterminant sentence was significant, perhaps there would be a difference in the two samples in whether or not they had ever gone before the parole board. The number of parole "flops" may serve to distinguish the two samples in question. To test for significance between the two samples a value of one was 198 given to each reSpondent who had gone before the parole board and a value of 0 was assigned to those who had not. Then a "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers in each sample was used to test for any significant difference between the two samples. The results are as follows: Seen Parole Board Liaison Sample Non-Liaison "T" Value Sample Mean Score .3636 .52 -.874695 Sample Standard Deviation .4810 .4995 The obtained differences between the liaison sample and the non-liaison sample was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=34, critical value of "T"=2.042). Since the fact that the two samples did not differ significantly on whether or not they had ever seen the parole board and suffered the mental anguish that accom- panies a "flop," perhaps the two groups would differ in traits associated with the length of time left to be served before one becomes eligible to see the parole board and secure possible release from imprisonment. This data is summarized in Table 31. The "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers in each sample was used to test for any 199 TABLE 31.--Time Left in Sentence in Months Before Sample Groups are Eligible to Come Before Parole Board. Liaison Individuals Non-Liaison Individuals 2.0 0.00 6.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 13.0 4.0 14.0 6.0 25.0 8.0 60.0 8.0 74.0 10.0 _| 12.0 X = 20.8181 12.0 12.0 16.0 18.0 21.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 30.0 31.0 108.0 §'= 16.2173 200 significant difference between the two samples on time re- maining before the groups appear before the parole board. The results are as follows: Time Remaining Before See see Parole Board Non-Liaison Liaison Sample "T" Value Sample Mean Score 20.8181 mos. 16.2173 mos. 1.56892 Sample Standard Deviation 22.6988 mos. 21.7254 mos. Obtained Range of Scores 2-74 mos. 0-108 mos. The obtained difference between the liaison sample and the non-liaison sample was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=32, critical value of "T"=2.046). Prison Roles As reported in Chapter III it was decided to use the same instrument to test for the various traditional roles that have been used in the major research on prison informal organization by Wheeler, Schrag, and Garabedian. The five traditional roles are politicians, square Johns, outlaws, right guys, and dings. Briefly reviewing the descriptions of the five roles; the square John would be the inmate who holds norms and values of conventional society, the outlaw rejects both the inmate community norms and conventional society's norms, right guys are 201 "true cons," individuals who are fully "prisonized," dings are the mental defectives or female homosexuals, and the politicians are the men who manipulate the system for self gain. The politician role fits closely with the traits hypothesized to accompany the liaison role and the right guy role closely resembles the traits of the non-liaison persons' hypothesized traits. Using the scale weights and scoring procedures presented in Chapter III, pages 149-152, a "T" test independent sample means with unequal members in each sample was used to test for any signifi- cant difference between the two samples in the five tradi- tional roles. The results by scale score weight are presented in summary form in Tables 32a, b, c, d, and e. Positive numbers denote acceptance of role and negative numbers denote rejection of role and 0 numbers denote neutrality of role. The results of the "T" test for the five roles are as follows: Politician Role Non-Liaison . . H II Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Score 2.8181 3.4000 -.850549 Sample Standard Deviation 2.1666 1.7663 Obtained Range of Scores +5.0- -1 +6-0 202 TABLE 32a.--Politician Role Scale Score of Liaison and Non- Liaison Individuals. Range possible, +6- -6. Liaison Individuals Non-Liaison Individuals 0 +1 +1 ‘ 0 +2 +1 +4 +1 +4 +2 +5 +2 +5 , +3 +5 4 +3 +5 - +4 -1 +4 _ +4 X = 2.8181 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +5 +6 X = 3.4000 203 TABLE 32b.--Square John Role Scale Score of Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals. Range possible, +6- -6. Liaison Individuals Non-Liaison Individuals 0 0 +1 0 +1 0 +2 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -2 +2 -3 +2 3! =- -.5454 +3 +3 +3 -1 -l -1 -l -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 —5 204 TABLE 32c.--Outlaw Role Scale Score of Liaison and Non- Liaison Individuals. Range possible, +6- -6. Liaison Individuals Non-Liaison Individuals 0 +1 +1 +2 +1 +2 +1 +3 +2 +5 +2 -]_ +2 -1 +3 -1 +3 -3 +4 -3 +5 +6 §'= .2727 fl: .4400 205 TABLE 32d.--Right Guy Role Scale Score of Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals. Range possible +6- -6. Liaison Individuals Non-Liaison Individuals 0 0 +1 0 +1 0 +1 0 +3 +1 +3 +1 +3 +1 +4 +2 +4 . +2 +6 +3 -1 +3 +3 2': 2.2727 +3 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +5 +5 +5 +6 +6 —1 -1 206 TABLE 32e.--Ding Role Scale Score of Liaison and Non- Liaison Individuals. Range possible +6- -6. Liaison Individuals Non-Liaison Individuals 0 0 +1 +2 +1 +3 +1 -1 +1 -1 +2 -2 +2 -3 -l —3 -2 -4 -2 -5 -2 if = -1.1818 ‘3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 —4 -4 -4 -5 -6 xl II I a: «o o» {o o. Mean Score Sample Standard Deviation Obtained Range of Scores Mean Score Sample Standard Deviation Obtained Range of Scores Mean Score Sample Standard Deviation Obtained Range of Scores Mean Score Sample Standard Deviation Obtained Range of Scores 207 Square John Role Non-Liaison Liaison Sample Sample "T" Value -.5454 -.2000 -.50289 1.3726 2.0784 +2- —3 ~-+3— -5 Outlaw Role Liaison Sample Non-Liaison "T" Value Sample .2727 p .4400 -.194081 2.3775 2.3846 +5- -3 +6- -3 Right Guy Role Liaison Sample Nog;:;i:son "T" Value 2.2727 2.5600 -.382529 1.9581 2.1181 +6- -1 +6- -1 Ding Role Liaison Sample Non-Liaison "T" Value Sample -l.1818 -2.0000 -l.01956 2.4052 2.1354 +3- 05 +2- —6 208 None of the five roles reached significance at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=34, critical value of "T"=2.042). Data Sources for Hypotheses Tests The data from the Communications Research Question- naire, Self-Perceptions and Personal Contact question- naires were both used as sources on self-perception and other perception of liaison and non-liaison respondents. A Personal Contact Questionnaire was used only where it represented a report on a reciprocated contact, i.e., the two people agreed that they communicated with each other. The Personal Contact Questionnaires completed by the eleven liaison individuals and the twenty-six non-liaison individuals in reciprocated contact with one or more of the eleven liaisons, became one source of data, and the Self-Perception scale of the two groups became the other source of the data. Tests of Hypotheses Findings dealing with the tests of hypotheses are presented under each major variable category. In each case the method of evaluating the hypothesis was to com- pute the "T" test for independent sample means with un- equal numbers in each sample. 209 1. Variable One--Number of Communication Contacts Two hypotheses were postulated regarding self- perceptions by the respondent of his number of communica- tion contacts and how his reciprocated non-liaison contact perceives the number of contacts he has with non-liaison persons he is in contact with. Hypothesis 1 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have a greater number of communications contacts than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. The data source for this hypothesis was obtained from the three—item scale (see pages 132-133), with a potential average summed range from one to five, on the Self-Perception Questionnaires completed by the eleven liaison role individuals and the twenty-six non-liaison individuals, who were in reciprocated contact with a liai— son individual. A summary of the average summed range for the individuals in the two samples is presented in Table 33. The higher the summed value the greater the number of perceived communications contacts the person perceives himself to have. The results of the "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers in each sample are as follows: 210 TABLE 33.--Summary of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self—Perception for Hypothesis 1. Range 1-5. Liaisons' Self-Perceptions Non-Liaisons' Self-Perceptions 2.0 2.0 2.33 2.66 3.0 3.33 3.66 4.0 4.0 4.33 4.66 35 3.2700 1.66 2.0 2.0 2.33 2.66 2.66 2.66 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.66 3.66 3.66 4.0 4.66 4.66 5.0 5.0 3? 3.2789 211 Hypothesis 1 Non-Liaison . . II OI Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 3.2700 3.2789 -.028529 Sample Standard Deviation .8959 .8556 Obtained Range of Scores 2.0-4.66 l.66-5.0 The obtained difference between the sample means is not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=35, critical value of "T"=2.040), the hypo- thesis is not supported. Hypothesis 2 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have a greater number of communication contacts than non-liaison persons have. The data source used to test this hypothesis was gathered from the three-item scale (see pages 133-134), with a potential summed average range of l to 5, on the Personal Contact Questionnaire completed by the twenty- six non-liaisons about their perceptions of the eleven liaisons and thirty non-liaison contacts who they have reciprocated contacts. A summary of the average summed range is presented in Table 34. The larger the mean value on the scale, the greater the number of communication contacts the respondent perceives his contact to possess. 212 TABLE 34.--Summary of the Average Summed Values From Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison- Non-Liaison Dyads, and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads to Test Hypothesis 2. Possible range 1—5. Non-Liaisons' Contact Perceptions of Non-Liaisons' Contact Perceptions of Liaisons Non-Liaisons 2.0 2.33 2.0 2.33 2.0 2.33 2.0 2.50 2.0 2.66 2.0 2.66 2.33 2.66 2.33 2.66 2.66 3.0 2.66 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.66 3.33 3.66 3.33 3.66 3.33 4.0 3.33 4.0 3.33 4 0 3.33 4.0 3.33 4.0 3.33 4.33 3.33 4.33 3.66 4.33 3.66 5.0 3.66 5.0 3.66 3.66 Y’= 3.4030 4.33 4.33 5.0 213 The results of the "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers to test for significant differences between the two sample means are as follows: Hypothesis 2 Non-Liaison Liaison Sample "T" Value ..Sample Mean Scale Score 3.0814 3.4030 -l.766741 Sample Standard Deviation .7106 .7555 Obtained Range of Scores 2.0-5.0 2.33-5.0 The obtained differences between the sample means is not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=63, critical value of "T"=1.999), the hypo- thesis is not supported. II. Variable Two--Task—Related Information Two hypotheses were postulated regarding self- perceptions by the reSpondent of his possession of task- related information and how his reciprocated non-liaison contact perceives his knowledge of task-related informa- tion. Hypothesis 3 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more task-related information (information on treatment goals and objectives, workings of the clinic, job duties, etc.) than non-liaisons have. 214 The data source used to test this hypothesis was gathered from the two-item scale (see pages 134-135), with a potential average summed range of one to five, on the Personal Contact Questionnaires completed by the twenty-six non-liaisons about their thirty-five recipro- cated contacts with the eleven liaison persons and their twenty-nine Personal Contact Questionnaires about the perceptions of the non-liaison individuals in the sample. A summary of the average summed value for the perceptions of the two samples by the twenty-six non-liaison individ- uals is presented in Table 35. The larger the mean value on the scale, the more task-related information the re- spondent perceives his contact to possess. The results of the "T" test for independent means with unequal numbers to test for significance in the differences in the two sample's means are as follows: Hypothesis 3 Non-Liaison ' ’ " ll Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 3.4285 3.4710 —.223899 Sample Standard Deviation .7666 .7427 Obtained Range of Scores 2-5 2-5 The obtained differences between the sample means is not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative 215 TABLE 35.--Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison- Non-Liaison Dyads and Non—Liaison-Liaison Dyads, to Test Hypothesis 3. Possible range 1-5. Non-Liaisons' Contact Non-Liaisons' Contact Perceptions of Perceptions of Liaisons Non-Liaisons m.51:-a.nohbbbbwwwwwwwwwwwwwwNNNNN O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I OU'U'IU'IOOOOOOOO‘U‘UIUIU‘UIUIU'OOOOCOUIUIU'iOO Y 3.4710 oooomoooooommmmoooooooooooooooommmo U mmmmeaboebbwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwNNNN XI II o b N m U‘ 216 tests, d.f.=63, critical value of "T"=l.999), the hypo— thesis was not supported. Hypothesis 4 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more task-related information (information on treatment goals and objectives, workings of the clinic, job duties, etc.) than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. The data to test this hypothesis was obtained from the two-item scale (see pages 135-136) with a poten- tial summed average of one to five on the Self-Perception Questionnaires. These questionnaires were completed by the eleven liaison individuals and the twenty-six non- liaison individuals who reported a reciprocated contact with a liaison individual, about themselves. A summary of the average summed range for the individuals in the two samples is presented in Table 36. The higher the summed value the greater the self-perceived possession of production-related information. The results of the "T" test for independent means with unequal numbers to test for significance in the dif- ferences between the sample means are as follows: Hypothesis 4 Non-Liaison o . I! ll Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 4.0454 3.4742 1.619359 Sample Standard Deviation .8906 1.0144 Obtained Range of Scores 2.0-5.0 1.0-5.0 217 TABLE 36.--Summary of the Average Summed Values from Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self- Perceptions, for Hypothesis 4. Range 1-5. Liaisons' Non-Liaisons' Self-Perceptions Self-Perceptions 2.0 1.0 3.0 . 1.5 3.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.33 5.0 3.5 Y= 4.454 3'5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Y'= 3.4742 218 The obtained difference between the sample means is not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=35, critical value of "T"=2.040), the hypo- thesis is not supported. III. Variable Three-~Control over Message Flow Two hypotheses were postulated regarding self- perceptions of the respondent on his control over message flow and how his non-liaison contact perceives this control. Hypothesis 5 Non-liaison persons perceive liaison persons to have more control over message flow than non- liaison persons have. The data to test this hypothesis was gathered from the two-item scale (see pages 136-137), with a possible range in value from one to five, found on the Personal Contact scales of the non-liaison individuals who had reciprocated contacts with a liaison individual. The source of data for the two samples comes from the thirty-five Personal Contact Questionnaires completed by the twenty-six non-liaison persons about their percep- tions of the eleven liaison individuals and the twenty- nine Personal Contact Questionnaires the same twenty-six non-liaisons, who reported reciprocated contacts with liaisons, completed about non-liaisons they were in contact with. A summary of the average summed value for 219 the perceptions of the two samples by the twenty-six non-liaison individuals is presented in Table 37. The larger the mean value on the scale, the more control over message flow the sample is perceived to have. The results of the "T" test for independent means with unequal numbers to test for significance in the dif- ferences in the sample means are presented as follows: Hypothesis 5 Non-Liaison Liaison Sample "T" Value Sample Mean Scale Score 3.4142 3.3965 .081483 Sample Standard Deviation .7698 .9682 Obtained Range of Scores 2.0—4.5 1.5-5.0 The significant differences between the sample means is not significant at the 0.05 level (two alterna- tive tests, d.f.=63, critical value of "T"=l.999), the hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 6 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more control over message flow than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. Data to test this hypothesis comes from the Self- Perception questionnaire of the eleven liaison persons and the twenty-six non-liaisons who reported reciprocated 220 TABLE 37.-~Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison- Non-Liaison Dyads and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads, to Test Hypothesis 5. Possible range 1-5. Non-Liaisons' Contact Non-Liaisons' Contact Perceptions of Perceptions of Liaisons Non-Liaisons OOU'IUIOOOOOOOOOU'IU'IU'IU‘IU'IU'IUOOUIWWOOUIU1U'I UHfltbbd>bub£bhd>bnbJhwtnquthLuquhJNDONHVP‘HF“ 7 3.3965 be.bhpnbbabbbbwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwmwwwww I O O . C O O O O I O O O O I C I C O mu:mmmoooooooommmmwmmmmooooooomooooo i 3.4142 221 contacts with one or more of the eleven liaison persons. The scale that tests this hypothesis is made up of two items (see page 137) providing a possible mean score of one to five. The average scale scores for each person is summarized in Table 38. The higher the value, the more control over message flow the person perceives him- self to have. The results of the "T" test for independent means with unequal numbers to test for significance of the differences between the mean values of the two samples are as follows: Hypothesis 6 Non-Liaison ' ' ll 0! Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 3.2272 3.4807 -.95079l Sample Standard Deviation .8356 .7000 Obtained Range of Scores 2.0-5.0 2.0-5.0 The obtained differences between the sample means is not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=35, critical value of "T"=2.040), the hypo- thesis was not supported. IV. Variable Four--Inf1uence in the Organization Four hypotheses are postulated regarding liaisons and non—liaisons who are in reciprocated contact with 222 TABLE 38.--Summary of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self-Perceptions for Hypothesis 6. Range 1-5. Liaisons' Non-Liaisons' Self-Perceptions Self-Perceptions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 ' 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 ’ 3.0 5.0 3.5 3?: 3.2272 3'5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 ? 3.4807 223 them, self-perceptions of their general influence in the organization, and the non-liaisons perceived influence of liaisons and non-liaisons they are in contact with. As well as general leadership, specific Opinion leadership as perceived by non-liaisons and the importance of their secondary contacts was also tested. Hypothesis 7 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more influence over personal Opinions for their dyadic contacts than non-liaison persons have. Data to test this hypothesis came from the twenty- six non-liaison persons who are in reciprocated contact with the liaison persons. The twenty-six non-liaisons completed a total of thirty-five Personal Contact Ques- tionnaires on their perceptions of the liaison persons and thirty Personal Contact Questionnaires on their percep— tions of non-liaison persons. The scale in the Personal Contact Questionnaire that was used to test this hypo- thesis was made up of five items (see pages 138-139)- The scores on these five items were averaged to give each individual a possible score of one to five. The larger the score, the more influence over personal opinions the person was perceived to have. Table 39 summarizes the findings of this scale. 224 TABLE 39.--Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaisons- Non-Liaison Dyads and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads to Test Hypothesis 7. Possible range 1—5. Non-Liaisons' Contact Perceptions of Non-Liaisons' Contact Perceptions of Liaisons Non-Liaisons 2.25 1.25 2.25 2.0 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.75 2.25 2.75 2.50 3.0 2.50 3.0 2.75 3.0 2.75 3.0 2.75 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.25 3.0 3.25 3.0 3.25 3.0 3.25 3.0 3.25 3.0 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.75 3.5 3.75 3.5 3.75 3.5 3.75 3.75 3.75 4.25 4.0 4.33 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Y’= 3.0110 4.25 4.25 4.25 3.3142 225 The results of the "T" test for independent means with unequal numbers to test for significance of the differences between the mean values of the two samples are as follows: Hypothesis 7 ‘4 - Non-Liaison ' ' II II A Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 3.3142 3.0110 2.014296 Sample Standard Deviation .5422 .6711 Obtained Range of Scores 2.25-4.25 1.25-4.5 The obtained differences between the sample means was significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=63, critical value of "T"=l.999), the hypothesis was supported. Hypothesis 8 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison persons to have more important secondary contacts in the organization than non-liaison persons are perceived to have. The source of the information to test this hypo- thesis came from the perceptions of the twenty-six non— liaison persons who were in reciprocated contact with the liaison persons. They reported their perceptions in the Personal Contact Questionnaires. They completed 226 thirty-six scale items about their perceptions of liaison persons and thirty Personal Contact Questionnaires about non-liaison persons. The scale on the Personal Contact Questionnaires that tested this hypothesis was made up of three items (see page 140). The score weights on these three items were averaged to get a summed score for each person the non-liaison was in contact with. This data is summarized in Table 40. The higher the summed average score, the more important is the contact's perceived secondary contacts. The results of the "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers, to test for significance of the differences between the mean values of the two samples are as follows: Hypothesis 8 Non-Liaison ' ° nu Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 3.3302 3.3735 -.253226 Sample Standard Deviation .7449 .6387 Obtained Range of Scores l.66-5.0 2.33-5.0 The obtained differences between the sample means was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=63, critical value of "T"=l.999), the hypo- thesis was not supported. 227 TABLE 40.—-Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison- Non-Liaison Dyads and Non—Liaison-Liaison Dyads to Test Hypothesis 8. Possible range 1-5. Non-Liaisons‘ Perceptions of Contact Non-Liaisons' Perceptions of Contact Liaisons Non-Liaisons 1.66 2.33 2.0 2.33 2.33 2.66 2.33 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.66 3.33 3.66 3.33 3.66 3.66 4.0 3.66 4.0 3.66 4.0 3.66 4.0 3.66 4.0 .0 4.0 .0 4.33 .0 4.33 .33 5.0 .66 .66 Y 3.3735 .66 .0 xl U méhhfibh-fi O h.) w o N 228 Hypothesis 9 Liaison persons perceive themselves to have more in- fluence in the organization than non-liaison persons perceive themselves to have. Data for this hypothesis was obtained from the Self-Perception questionnaires that were completed by the eleven liaison persons and the twenty-six non-liaison persons, who were in reciprocated contact with a liaison person or persons. The scale that is on the Self- Perception Questionnaire that tested for this hypothesis was made up of three items (see pages 141-142). The items were scored so that the higher the score, the more influence in the organization the reSpondent perceives himself to possess. The individual item's scores were averaged to give one average summed score for the entire scale. The higher the mean score, the more influence in the organ- ization the respondent perceives himself to have. This data is summarized in Table 41. To test for significance of the differences in the mean values of the two sample pOpulations, a “T" test for independent means with unequal numbers was run on the data. The results are as follows: 229 TABLE 41.—-Summary of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals' Self-Perceptions for Hypothesis 9. Range 1-5. Non-Liaisons' Self-Perceptions Liaisons' Self-Perceptions 3.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 3.33 2.0 3.33 2.33 3.33 2.33 3.33 2.33 3.66 2.33 3.66 2.66 4.0 2.66 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3E= 3.5127 3'0 3.0 3.0 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.66 3.66 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.33 4.66 Y 3.0807 230 Hypothesis 9 Non-Liaison Liaison Sample "T" Value Sample Mean Scale Score 3.5127 3.0807 1.790309 Sample Standard Deviation .3586 .7606 Obtained Range of Scores 3.0-4.0 1.5-4.66 The obtained differences between the sample means was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=35, critical value of "T"=2.04), the hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 10 Liaison persons are perceived by non-liaison to have more influence in the organization than non-liaison persons are perceived to have. Data to test this hypothesis comes from the Per- sonal Contact Questionnaires completed by the twenty-six non-liaisons who had reciprocated contacts with one or more liaison individuals. A total of thirty-five Personal Contact Questionnaires were completed about the percep- tions of the eleven liaisons and thirty Personal Contact Questionnaires were completed about non-liaisons whom they were in contact with. The scale to test this hypothesis was made up of three items (see pages 142-143), which gave an average total score such that the higher the score, the 231 more influence in the organization the individual is per- ceived to have. This data is summarized in Table 42. To test for significance of the mean differences in the values of the two samples a "T" test for independent means with unequal numbers was run on the data. The re- sults are as follows: Hypothesis 10 Non-Liaison ° ' nu Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale. Score 3.2722 3.2283 .273133 Sample Standard Deviation .6305 .6638 Obtained Range of Scores 2.0-5.0 2.0-4.33 The obtained fifferences between the sample means was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=63, critical value of “T"=l.999), the hypo- thesis was not supported. V. Variable Five—-Openness of Communication System One hypothesis was postulated under this general variable to test for the respondents' perceptions of the organization's communications system. Hypothesis 11 0 ' ' ' Liaison persons perceive the organization 5 communications system to be more open than do non-liaison persons. 232 TABLE 42.--Summary of the Average Summed Values from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison- Non-Liaison Dyads and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads to Test Hypothesis 10. Possible range 1-5. Non-Liaisons Contacts Perceptions of Non-Liaisons Contacts Perceptions of Liaisons Non-Liaisons 2.0 2.0 2.66 2.0 2.66 2.33 2.66 2.33 2.66 2.33 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 3.0 2.66 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3 33 3.33 3.66 3.33 3.66 3 33 3.66 3.33 3.66 3.33 4.0 3.33 4.0 3.66 4.0 3.66 4.0 3.66 4.0 3.66 4.33 4.0 4.33 4.0 4.0 X = 3.2283 4.33 4.66 5.0 233 Data to test this hypothesis was gathered from the Self-Perception scales completed by the eleven liaisons and twenty-six non-liaisons who reported reciprocated con- tacts with one or more liaison persons. The scale that tested for this hypothesis was made up of three items (see page 143) that were scored so the higher the mean value for the three items, the more open the respondents' perceptions of the organization's communications system. The data is summarized in Table 43. The larger the summed mean score, the more Open the respondent perceives the communications system to be. To test for any significant differences between the mean values of the two samples a "T" test for independent samples with unequal numbers was used. The results are as follows: Hypothesis ll Non-Liaison ' - nu Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 3.1800 3.2407 -.218074 Sample Standard Deviation .5569 .8452 Obtained Range Of Scores 2.0-4.0 l.33—5.0 The Obtained differences between the sample means was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative 234 TABLE 43.--Summary Of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non-Liaison Individuals Self-Perceptions for Hypothesis 11. Range 1-5. Liaison Non-Liaison Self-Perceptions Self-Perceptions 2.0 1.33 2.66 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.33 3.0 2.33 3.0 2.66 3.33 2.66 3.33 2.66 3.66 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 i = 3.1800 3'33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.66 3.66 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.33 4.66 5.0 Y = 3.2407 235 tests, d.f.=35, critical value Of "T"=2.040), the hypo- thesis was not supported. VI. Variable Six—-Satisfaction with the Communications System One hypothesis was postulated to test for the re- spondents' self-perceptions on how satisfying the organi- zation's communication system is. Hypothesis 12 Liaison persons perceive the communications system as more satisfying than do non-liaison persons. Data to test this hypothesis was obtained from the Self-Perception Questionnaires completed by the eleven liaison persons and the twenty-six non-liaisons who were in reciprocated contact with one or more liaison persons. The scale that tested for this hypothesis was made up of three items (see pages 144—145) that were scored in such a manner that the larger their average numerical score, the more satisfying the respondent perceives the communications system to be. The data is summarized in Table 44. The larger the summed mean score, the more satisfying the re- spondent perceives the communications system to be. To test for significance of the mean difference in the two samples a "T" test for independent means with un- equal numbers was run on the data. The following are the results: 236 TABLE 44.-~Summary of the Average Summed Value for Liaison and Non—Liaison Individuals' Self-Perceptions for Hypothesis 12. Range 1-5. Non-Liaison Self-Perceptions Liaison Self-Perceptions 2.50 2.0 2.66 2.33 2.66 2.33 3.0 2.33 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.66 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.33 3.0 5?: 3.2190 3'33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 4.0 4.0 4.33 4.33 4.33 Y = 3.3050 237 Hypothesis 12 Non-Liaison . . II II Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 3.2190 3.3050 -.397235 Sample Standard Deviation .5575 .6187 Obtained Range of Scores 2.5-4.33 2.0-4.33 The Obtained differences between the sample means was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=35, critical value of "T"=2.04), the hypo- thesis was not supported. VII. Variable Seven--Deliberate Message Transaction One hypothesis was postulated about the initiation of the communications between members of the liaison and non-lisison roles. Hypothesis l3 Liaison-Non—Liaison dyads more frequently participate in deliberately initiated message transaction than do non-liaison-non-liaison dyads. Data to test this hypothesis was gathered from the Personal Contact Questionnaires completed by the twenty- six non-liaisons who were in reciprocated contact with one or more liaison individuals. The non-liaisons completed thirty-four Personal Contact Questionnaires about the eleven liaisons and thirty Personal Contact Questionnaires 238 about non-liaison persons that included the test scale. The scale was made up of one item (see page 145) that was scored as a direct frequency estimate of out of 100 contacts the number of times contact was made by chance, i.e., "we just happen to meet." The larger the number, the greater the dyads participated in interaction by chance. Table 45 summarizes the data. Possible range of scores is 0-100. To test for the significance between the mean values of the two samples a "T" test for independent means with unequal numbers was run on the data. The results are as follows: Hypothesis l3 Non—Liaison . 0 0| I! Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 21.6176 7.0000 2.126346 Sample Standard Deviation 32.5106 20.1907 Obtained Range of Scores 0-100 0-100 The obtained differences between the sample means were in the opposite direction than predicted and signi— ficant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=63, critical value of "T"=l.999), the hypothesis was not supported. 239 TABLE 45.--Summarizes out of 100 Contacts, the Number of Contacts of Non-Liaison-Non-Liaison Dyads and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads that were on a Chance Basis, as Perceived by Non-Liaison Individuals, Test for Hypothesis 13. Range 0—100. Non-Liaisons Contacts Non-Liaisons Contacts Perceptions of Perceptions of Liaisons Chance Non-Liaisons Contact Chance Contact OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Hra m6: 055.5wa 00000 :5wa OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000000000000 U'I-b OD 100 (Dd CO 7.0 XI n 100 100 100 SE = 21.6176 240 ‘VIII. Variable Eight--Direction of Message Transaction One hypothesis was postulated concerning the per- ceived direction of message flow in the organization between the two roles. Hypothesis l4 The directionality Of deliberate message initiation is more diSproportionate in liaison-non-liaison dyads than in non-liaison-non-liaison dyads. The data to test this hypothesis comes from the Personal Contact Questionnaires scale that was used in Hypothesis 13 (see page 146). Estimated frequency of respondent seeking behavior, you seek him, to contacts seeking behavior, he seeks you, (reSponses alternatives A and B) was taken as a measure of the directional init- iation ratio for deliberate message transaction within the dyad. The specific measure is the ratio A over B or B over A with the larger number always in the denoninator. The more the ratio deviates from one, the more dispro- portionate is message transaction. The data is summarized in Table 46. To test for the significance between the mean values Of the two samples a "T" test for independent means with unequal numbers was compiled on the data. The results are as follows: 241 'TABLE 46.--Summarizes out of 100 Contacts, the Frequency Of Times the Contacts in the Non-Liaison-Non- Liaison and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads were not on a Chance Basis, Test for Hypothesis l4. .5782 Range 1-0. Non-Liaisons Contacts Non-Liaisons Contacts Perceptions Of Perceptions of Liaisons Deliberate Non—Liaisons Contact Deliberate Contact 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .875 1.000 .818 .800 .800 .667 .750 .667 .714 .667 .667 .500 .667 .333 .667 .333 .577 .266 .429 .250 .333 .250 .333 .200 .200 .010 .020 .010 .010 .010 .010 .010 .010 0.000 .010 .010 .6637 .010 0.000 0.000 242 IX. Variable Nine--First Sources of Information One hypothesis was postulated that set forth the non-liaisons perceptions concerning from where they re- ceive their information about organizational changes or news . Hypothesis 15 Liaison persons will be perceived by non-liaison persons as first sources of organizational related information to a greater extent than non-liaison persons. The data to test this hypothesis will be gathered from the Personal Contact Questionnaires completed by the twenty-six non-liaison persons in reciprocated contact with one or more liaison persons. The twenty-six non- liaison persons completed thirty-five Personal Contact Questionnaires about the eleven liaisons and thirty Per- sonal Contact Questionnaires about non-liaisons that con- tained the scale that was used to measure perceived source Of information. The scale was made up of three items (see page 148). The scores from these three items were averaged, giving a score for the entire scale. The higher the value, the greater the extent that the respondent sees the named person as the first source of information. Table 47 gives a summary Of these values. To test for the significance between the mean 'values Of the two samples a "T" test for independent means 243 TABLE 47.-~Summary of the Average Summed Value from Personal Contact Questionnaires of Non-Liaison- Non-Liaison Dyads and Non-Liaison-Liaison Dyads, to Test Hypothesis 15. Possible range 1-5. r: Non-Liaisons Contacts Non-Liaisons Contacts Perceptions of Perceptions of Liaisons Non-Liaisons 1.66 1.33 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.33 2.0 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 3.0 2.66 3.0 2.66 3.0 2.66 3.0 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.33 3.0 3.66 3.0 3.66 3.33 3.66 3.33 4.0 3.33 4.0 3.33 4.33 3.33 4.33 3.33 3.33 X'= 2.9300 3.66 3.66 4.0 X = 2.7871 244 with unequal numbers was run on the data. The results are as follows: Hypothesis 15 Non-Liaison o o H I. Liaison Sample Sample T Value Mean Scale Score 2.7871 ' 2.9300 -.899217 Sample Standard Deviation .5523 .7270 Obtained Range Of Scores 1.66-4.0 1.33-4.33 The Obtained differences between the sample means was not significant at the 0.05 level (two alternative tests, d.f.=63, critical value of "T"=l.999), the hypo- thesis was not supported. X. Variable Ten--Formal Role Relationship to Informal Role One hypothesis was postulated that set forth the relationship between the informal relationship and the formal structure. Hypothesis 16 Liaison persons are more likely to hold high status inmate jobs than are non-liaison persons. The data to test this hypothesis was taken from the demographic questionnaire filled out by the eleven liaisons and twenty-six non-liaisons who were in recip- rocated contact with a liaison individual. Of the eleven 245 liaisons, eleven filled out their job classification instrument and twenty-five of the twenty-six non-liaisons completed this instrument. The data is summarized in Table 48. Comparing the two groups of inmates of interest in this study by inspection does not show the hypothesized pattern that was expected. According to the findings of Richard Cloward and F. E. Haynes, as reported in Chapter I, the jobs of Office clerk and typist should provide an individual with access to the centers of the prison com- munications system, and place them in the role of a liaison person. NO such clear-cut relationship emerges in this study. The formal job of office clerk was held by one liaison member while the position of typist was held by two non-liaison persons. It was then reasoned that perhaps the liaison persons would manipulate themselves into formal positions that would allow them access to information and power that was not observable to the researcher. To test this pos- sibility a comparison was made comparing the manner in which the liaison and non-liaison groups secured their present job classification. There are three ways an inmate may get a position in the formal organization. He may be assigned to it routinely by the prison classifi- cation committee, he may request the position, or a staff member may ask for a given individual to be placed on a 246 TABLE 48.--Formal Job Classification of the Liaison and Non-Liaison Persons. Job Liaison Non-Liaison Classification Persons Persons College Assignment 2.0 18.18% 0 0% Factory Assignment 1.0 9.09% 0 0% Hall Boy 0 0% 3 12% Janitor l 9.09% 2 8% Kitchen Help 5 45.45% 5 20% Occupational Therapy 0 0 2 8% Office Clerk 1 9.09% 0 0% School, Elementary 0 0% 3 12% Teacher's Aid 0 0% l 4% Typist 0 0% 2 8% No Assignment 1 9.09% 7 28% 247 given job. The three manners were assigned values Of 3, 2, and 1 respectively. Each reSpondent was then given a score corresponding to the manner in which he secured his job classification. The scores for the members of the two sample populations were then compared to determine the percentage of each sample that secured their job assignments by the various methods. Table 49 summarizes this data. It was Observed that the percentages of the liaison sample who were requested to take a job assignment, 40 per cent, was nearly twice the percentage, 22.2 per cent, of the non-liaison sample that was requested to take a job assignment. The other two methods did not seem to differ in the percentage of the liaison and non-liaison who were routinely selected or asked for a given job assignment. By inspection it appears that the liaison persons are requested by staff members to be assigned tO various jobs in the formal prison system nearly twice as often than are non-liaison persons. It appears that the liaison persons are individuals who have skills that are in demand by staff members in the prison organization. 248 TABLE 49.--Score Weights of Job Assignment, by Sample Population, Routine Selection=3, Request=2, and Asked For=l. XI Liaison % of Non-Liaison % of Persons Sample Persons Sample 1 4o 1 22.2 1 l 2 ———20 2 2/ 2 3 40 2 3 2 = 2.0 100 3 3 3 3 44.4 3 3 3 3 Y'= 2.222 99.9a aRounding error. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS The basic objectives of the present work were (1) to develOp a conceptual and methodological framework for the study of the interactive or communications system in a prison inmate informal organization, and (2) to apply this framework to an empirical examination of phenomenological attributes associated with certain topo- logical features of the communications structure. The present chapter contains a summary and dis- cussion of the findings of the study concluding with suggestions for future research. Summary Previous research that has been done on the in- formal inmate organization has focused on the roles asso- ciated with various violations of what has been called the prison code. These roles are said to exist in a superior-subordinate relationship to each other. The intent of this study was to suggest that a system of cooperation between various roles is the norm, rather 249 250 than a superior-subordinate relationship. This system revolves around the supplying of goods and services to the majority of the inmates. This system replaces indi- vidual force with one of cooperation. The heart Of the system would be the communications system that supplies the inmate community with knowledge and support to carry forth these goals. It is through face-to-face communica- tion that a given member Of the inmate community forms a "social reality" of prison life. The intent of this study was to map the extent functional communications structures exist in the inmate informal organization and then, to differentiate this sociometric map into two structural types based on topological concepts of graph theory, and finally, to describe differences in Specified variables between the two structural types. An assumption undergirding this approach is that the most definitive understanding of the inmate informal organization may be arrived at by the study of generic communications pat- terns and events as Opposed to partial anaylsis based on elements of only the formally-described structure, or in assumed to exist violations of the prison culture. The primary structural type examined was the liaison communication role. Individuals who function in liaison roles have interlinking communications contacts with two or more separate sociometric defined clique groups in the inmate informal organization. Essentially, 251 when liaison role persons are removed from the sociogram Of communication contacts, clique groups to which they are connected separate into isolated entities with the exception of single communication contacts (bridges) between two members Of different groups. Thus, the liaison role, which is a conceptual analogue to the arti- culation point in graph theory, is a critical location in the structure of the inmate informal organization. The prison organization selected for this study was a residential treatment program located above a maxi- mum security institution in a Midwestern state. The pro- gramming is under the control of the director of the pro- gram with security being under the control of the warden of the institution. In preparation for differentiating the communica- tion structure of the inmate organization into tOpological types, information from the Personal Contact Checklist was utilized to determine reciprocation of contact among the members of the inmate organization. The topological and empirical analysis was based upon reciprocated con- tacts. From a population Of 52 members with a potential of 1,352 reciprocated pairs, 124 reciprocated one-way communication linkages were found making up 62 two-way pairs. The reciprocated contacts were cast into a socio- metric matrix and, using procedures described by Weiss, analyzed to yield the identification of eleven liaison 252 role persons and thirty-six non-liaison persons who were in reciprocated contact with one or more liaisons that belonged tO twenty separate clique groups of varying size.259 Of the eleven liaison persons all were members of a clique group with eight liaison persons having multiple group membership and four liaison persons making up two liaison pairs. The range of clique groups, liaison and non-liaison, ranged from two to six members in size. For the tests of the hypotheses on individuals' self-perceptions, the data was taken from their reSpective Self-Perception Questionnaires. The data to test the hypotheses that postulated differences in perceptions of the liaison and non—liaison roles by the non-liaison persons were gathered from the Personal Contact Question- naires completed on the reSpective role. The liaison and non-liaison persons were evaluated on several demographic items. The liaison role persons differed significantly from the non-liaisons at the 0.05 level (using a "T" test for independent means with forty-three degrees of freedom, critical value Of "T"= 2.01), in the number Of reciprocated contacts that each group had with liaisons reporting a higher mean value than the non-liaisons. Both the liaison and non-liaison groups were made up Of men who were convicted of crimes 259Weiss, Op. cit., pp. 88-108. 253 of violence, double the rate that is found in the general prison pOpulation. The liaison role persons had 54.5 per cent Of its members in this category with 49.5 per cent of the non-liaisons being convicted of crimes of violence. Aspects of the sentence, length or span, minimum and maximum time to be served by the two samples did not reach significance at the 0.05 level using a "T" test for independent sample means with unequal numbers in each sample. The two samples also were compared on whether or not they differed significantly on the fact that they had or had not gone before the parole board. The two sample's mean differences were not significant at the 0.05 level using a “T" test for independent means with unequal num- bers in each sample. The samples also failed to reach significant difference on the time left before they could see the parole board once more or for the first time. In addition to examining aSpects of crimes for which sentenced, sentence traits and parole board dif- ferences, demographic data was also collected on whether or not the two samples differed in the position of the values Of one of the five traditional prison roles using the original research instrument to test for these roles. The mean differences were tested with the use Of “T" tests for independent means with unequal numbers in each sample. Of the five roles: politicians, square Johns, outlaws, right guys, and dings, no significant 254 differences were found at the 0.05 level of significance between the two sample means. It was concluded that the liaison and non-liaison samples are similar on the tested demographic traits. Sixteen primary hypotheses were postulated in this study to examine the differences in functioning between the liaison and non-liaison samples as perceived by their reciprocated non-liaison contacts and self- perceived traits. Fifteen of the hypotheses were eval- uated with the use of the "T" test for independent sample means with unequal members in each sample with degrees Of freedom equal to thirty-five on the self-perceived scales and sixty-three on the non-liaison perceived scales Of the functioning of the liaison and other non- liaisons (two alternative tests). Number of Communications Contacts Two hypotheses were set forth to postulate the awareness of actual structural attributes of liaisons' and non-liaisons' roles. By definition, the liaison role has a greater structural diversity of contacts among the sociometrically defined groups than do non-liaison role persons. Since these roles are determined only through the analysis of sociometric data and may not be concretely visible to members of the inmate informal organization, the question was whether or not individuals 255 who had contact with liaisons and non-liaisons are aware of their actual pattern of contacts and whether the liaison role person was aware of the diversity of his contacts. Hypothesis 1 stated that liaison role persons would perceive themselves to have a greater number Of contacts in the organization than non-liaison persons per- ceive themselves to have. Hypothesis 2 stated that liaison role persons would be perceived by non-liaisons to have a greater number of communications contacts than non-liaison persons. The mean differences between the two samples were in the opposite direction than was hypothesized with neither of the differences significant at the 0.05 level. Task-Related Information Two hypotheses were postulated regarding the self-perceptions of the liaison role persons and the perceptions of the non-liaison reciprocated contact con- cerning the amount of task-related information possessed by the liaison role person. Hypothesis 3 postulated that liaison persons would be perceived by non-liaison per- sons to have more task-related information than non- liaison persons would be perceived to have. The mean differences between the samples was in the Opposite direction than postulated but not significant at the 0.05 level of significance. 256 Hypothesis 4 postulated that the liaison role persons would perceive themselves to have more task-related information than non-liaison role persons perceive them- selves to have. The obtained differences in the means were in the direction postulated but did not reach the 0.05 level Of significance. Control over Message Flow Two hypotheses were postulated regarding the self- perceptions of the liaison role and the perceptions of the non-liaison reciprocated contacts about the extent the liaison persons can control the flow of messages to the clique groups. The control of such information is by defi- nition the function of the liaison role person. Hypothesis 5 postulated that non-liaison persons will perceive liaison persons to have more control over the flow Of messages in the informal organization than non-liaison persons have. The mean differences found be- tween the two samples were not significant at the 0.05 level, but were in the predicted direction. Hypothesis 6 postulated that liaison persons per- ceive themselves to have more control over the flow of messages in the informal organization than non—liaison per- sons perceive themselves to have. The differences in the means between the two samples was in the opposite direction than postulated, but did not reach significance at the 0.05 level. 257 Influence in the Organization Four hypotheses were made concerning the self- perceptions and the perceived influence over others in the informal inmate organization the two roles have in the clinic. Hypothesis 7 postulated that liaison role persons are perceived by non-liaisons to have more influence over personal opinions than non-liaisons have over other in- mates in the informal organization. The Obtained differ- ences in the means were in the postulated direction and significant at the 0.05 level. As well as having influence over personal Opinions of others, the role Of liaisons would result in contacts with individuals of influence in the formal organization as well as in the informal organization. Hypothesis 8 postulates that liaison persons are perceived by non- liaison persons to have more important secondary contacts in the organization than non-liaison persons. The mean differences were slightly in the Opposite direction than was postulated, and not significant at the 0.05 level. It was reasoned that if the liaison role persons had influence over others, personal opinions, and had im- portant secondary contacts, that they would perceive them- selves to have more general influence in the organization than non-liaisons would perceive themselves to have. These same non-liaison persons would also perceive the liaison 258 role person to have more general influence than non- liaisons possess. Hypotheses 9 and 10 state these re- lationships respectively. The mean differences for Hypothesis 9 were in the postulated direction but not significant at the 0.05 level. The mean differences in thesamples in Hypothesis 10 were also in the hypothesized direction but not significant at the 0.05 level. Openness Of Communications System Hypothesis 11 postulated that the liaison role persons would perceive the clinic's communications system to be more open than do the non-liaison role persons. The mean differences between the two samples were slightly in the Opposite direction than postulated and not signi— ficant at the 0.05 level. Satisfaction with the Communications System It was thought that because of the hypothesized traits Of the liaison role, they would be more satisfied with the communications system than non-liaison persons. Hypothesis 12 postulated that liaison persons would per- ceive the communications system as more satisfying than do non-liaison persons. The differences in the mean dif- ferences between the two samples were in the opposite direction than hypothesized and not significant at the 0.05 level. 259 Deliberate Message Transaction and Direction Two hypotheses set forth differences between liaison-non-liaison dyads and non-liaison-non-liaison dyads in terms of the frequency and directional ratio of delib- erate message transaction initiation. In this case, dyadic communication behavior as perceived by one member of the dyad was the unit of analysis. The expectation stated in Hypothesis 13 was that out of 100 hypothetical situations liaison-non-liaison dyad members have more frequently sought one another deliberately (as opposed to chance meeting) than has been the case between members of non-liaison-non-liaison dyads. The obtained mean differences in the samples were found to be Opposite than was postulated and significant at the 0.05 level. The Obtained means of 21.6176 and 7.0000 indicated that non-liaisons feel they have chance meetings with liaisons approximately one out of five contacts and have one out Of fourteen contacts on a chance basis with non-liaison persons. The general tendency in both samples was for contacts not to occur on basis of chance, but be deliberately initiated. Hypothesis 14 suggested that, of the deliberately initiated message transaction occasions, the directional ratio Of initiation in liaison-non-liaison dyads would be more disproportionate than in non-liaison-non-liaison 260 dyads, i.e., the frequency of each member of the dyad seek- ing the other would be more nearly 50-50 in non-liaison- non-liaison dyads. The Obtained direction ratios differ- ences between the two samples were opposite from the direction postulated, but the differences were not signi- ficant at the 0.05 level. First Sources of Information Hypothesis 15 postulated that liaison persons would be perceived by non-liaison persons as first sources of clinic related information as compared to other non- liaison persons. The differences in the mean differences between the two samples were in the opposite direction than was postulated, but were not Significant at the 0.05 level. Formal Role Relationship to Informal ROle One hypothesis was set forth that stated that liaison persons were more likely to hold high status in- mate jObs than would non-liaison persons. This was set forth in Hypothesis 16. It seemed logical that because~ of the definition of the liaison role function to serve as a communicator to clique groups, they would hold posi- tions in the formal structure that would allow them to carry out this function. Such jobs would be typist or clerk positions where access to records and influential 261 Officials Of the clinic are available. Upon inspection Of the formal jobs held by the two sample populations no distinguishable pattern could be detected and the hypo- thesis was not supported. The manner in which the two sample populations secured their positions was then examined to detect any manipulation into positions by the inmates of the two samples. It was postulated that the liaison role persons would manipulate themselves into formal positions in the clinic that enhanced their personal access to information and influence. By inspection the percentage of the liaison samples, who were requested to be assigned to a job by a staff member, was nearly twice that of the non- liaison sample. Tables 50 and 51 summarize the results Of the demographic data and the tests of the hypotheses for the two sample populations. Discussion Inspection of the sociometric, Figure 2, shows an interesting phenomena. Three clique groupings emerge very clearly with very little overlap between the members of the three general groupings. Upon investigation it became evident that the general group represented in Segment A represents the sex offender group, Segment B the drug Offenders' group and Segments C, D, E, and F the youthful Offender grouping Of inmates in the residential 262 TABLE 50.--Summary of the Results of the Demographic Data, Between the Liaison and Non-Liaison Samples. Demographic Data Result of Mean Values Significant Level .05 Span of reciprocated contacts Crimes of violence Minimum sentence Maximum sentence Span of Sentence Seen parole board Time left to see board Politicians Square John Outlaw Right Guy Ding Liaisons have greater Span than non-liaisons Approximately 50% of both groups ' Liaisons have slightly longer minimum sentence than non—liaisons Non-liaisons have slightly longer maximum sentence than liaisons Non-liaisons have slightly longer Span than liaisons Non-liaisons seen board to greater degree than liaisons Liaisons have longer time before can see board than non-liaisons Both groups have traits of role with non-liaisons having a greater tendency than liaisons Both groups reject role, close to neutral, liaisons reject slightly more than non- liaisons Both groups close to neutral on role, non-liaisons accept role slightly more than liaisons do. Both groups accept role. Non- liaisons to greater extent than liaisons Both groups reject role. Non- liaisons reject role to greater degree than liaisons. Yes NO NO NO No NO NO NO NO No NO 263 TABLE 51.--Summary of Results of Tests of Hypotheses Between Mean Value Differences of the Liaison and Non-Liaison Roles. Supported H otheses yp .05 Level Liaisons perceive self to have a greater number Of contacts than non-liaisons perceive self. No Liaisons are perceived to have greater number of contacts than non-liaisons. No Liaisons are perceived to have more task information than non-liaisons. No Liaisons perceive self to have more task information than non-liaisons perceive self. No Liaisons are perceived to have more control over message flow than non-liaisons. No Liaisons perceive self to have more control over message flow than non-liaisons perceive self. No Liaisons are perceived to have more influence over personal opinions than non-liaisons. Yes Liaisons are perceived to have more important secondary contacts than non-liaison persons. No Liaisons perceive self to have more influence in organization than non-liaison persons perceive self. NO Liaisons are perceived to have more influence in the organization than non-liaison persons have. No Liaison persons perceive the organization communications system as more Open than do non-liaison persons. No Liaison persons perceive the organizational communications system to be more satisfying than do non-liaisons. NO Liaison-non-liaison dyads more frequently participate in deliberate message transaction than do non-liaison- non-liaison dyads. No 264 TABLE 51.--Continued. Supported Hypotheses .05 Level Liaison-non-liaison dyads amount of deliberate message transaction is more diSproportionate in direction than in non-liaison-non-liaison dyads. No Liaisons are perceived to be first sources of organizational-related information. No Liaisons are more likely to hold high status No inmate jobs than are non-liaison persons. Pattern Subhypotheses Liaisons are more likely to manipulate self Liaisons found to into jobs than are non-liaisons. be assigned to a job, by a staff member, nearly twice as fre- quent as non- liaisons. 265 programs in the clinic. It seems that in a residential program that emphasizes interaction between members, the three groups form very strong identifications with their respective residential program. When investigating this phenomena it was learned from the program director, that the program had as one of its goals the separation of the sex and drug Offender populations frOm the youthful offender population. This was done in order to avoid the exploitation of the young offenders by the older inmates. It should be mentioned that this is a temporary stage in the development Of a total therapeutic community. The eventual goal Of the program will allow the intermixing of the various offender categories. Another explanation of this phenomena could have its basis in the programming design itself. The program design encourages group interaction within offender cate- gories to provide group support and help for a given individual from men with similar problems. This has the effect of restricting interactions with other groups where communication patterns have not yet been established.260 A theoretical explanation for the grouping of the three residential groups could also be found in the works Of Clemmer, of Festinger, Schachter and Back, and of 260Selznick, 2p. cit., p. 522. 266 261 These researchers found that individuals who Goffman. live in close proximity to each other are more likely to form stable interactions patterns with each other than with people who do not live near them. The various mem- bers of the three residential programs live apart from each other. The youthful offenders living on a separate tier from the sex and drug Offenders, and the sex and drug Offenders living at opposite ends of the same tier. The sociometric design showed out of fifty-two members of the residential program, three individuals appeared as social isolates or approximately 6 per cent of the population. Donald Clemmer found in his works ap- proximately 2 per cent of the population to be isolates.262 Upon inspection of the three isolates a very interesting phenomena appeared. Of the three men identified as iso- lates, one was named as the "wife" of a non-liaison member and the second through conversation with the researcher informed him of his status as a "she" and the wife of a non-liaison person. This individual also had the Observ- able ornaments of a prison "she," i.e., earrings, necklace, female rings, long fingernails, and eye liner. With this knowledge it became clear to the researcher why the other 261Clemmer, 1940, pp, cit., p. 100; Festinger, Schachter and Back, 9p. cit., p. 8; and Goffman, pp, cit., p. 56. 262Clemmer, 1940, 92. cit., p. 100. 267 members of the study population did not name these two individuals as contacts. To contact another man's "wife" is an offense men can be killed over in the prison culture. The "husbands" of the two "wives" stated to the researcher that they did not name their wives as contacts for they were "women" and not worthy of being named. This left one man or approximately 2 per cent of the population as true isolates which is in agreement with Clemmer's findings. Upon examination of the liaison role persons an interesting fact emerged. The man who challenged the re- searcher in the original administration of the research instrument to the sex offender group appeared as a liaison role person. The researcher informally asked the man if he felt truly insulted by the payment of the cigarettes as he would have the researcher believe. He reSponded by saying that he was just filling a role expected of him by the "community." It seems that he has a reputation as the "devil's advocate" on matters related to the clinic. The reactions of his peers at the time of the confrontation also gave the researcher this impression. A hostile atmosphere never developed, comments like, "there he goes again, what's your bitch this time" were muttered by the other members of the sex Offender group during the con- frontation. It was very significant that the mean differences between the sample means on the span of reciprocated 268 contacts was significant at the 0.05 level and in the direction of the theoretical definition of the liaison role. The liaison role has, by its very definition, a greater span of contact than the non-liaison role per- sons. This phenomena pointed out that even men selected through tOpOlogical analysis of the-sociometric were true liaisons as defined by graph theory. The finding that the liaison and non-liaison groups are made up of approximately 50 per cent violent Offenders is of no surprise if one looks at the intent of the residential treatment program. It is designed to treat "hard" core felons who have committed crimes Of a sexual nature or drug—related offense as well as treating the young men in the maximum security prison. To be committed to a maximum security institution at a young age usually requires an extensive record and a crime of violence. This by definition to be admitted to the com- munity residential program an Offender would more than likely be convicted of a crime of violence or one that is usually associated with violence. Much research in the prison literature represented by such researchers as Garabedian, Wheeler, Schrag, and Clemmer, as reported in Chapter I, pages 60-64) point out that the degree of involvement in the inmate community is 263 related to one's length of sentence. The researchers 263Schrag, 1954, 93. cit., pp. 37-42. 269 postulate that the longer a man is in the inmate community the greater are his tendencies to become prisonized or accept the inmate culture. To lessen the pains of im- prisonment these men will seek ways to make their stay at the institution as comfortable as possible. The researcher felt that the definition of the liaison role person's func- tion assisted in this task. That is, by definition they serve as sources of information about prison life that could be used to lessen the pains of imprisonment. In exchange for this information, respect and leadership could be bestowed upon them.264 They would thus appear to have become prisonized to a very high degree. Since in Michigan a man is not sentenced to a fixed length of time, the relationship between sentence length and degree of involvement in the inmate community, was tested for dif- ferences in the three aSpects of their sentence; minimum, maximum, and Span of time between the maximum and minimum sentences of the two sample groups. It was expected that the liaisons would have longer sentences, maximum, minimum, and Span, than would the non-liaison role persons. The results of the analysis did not show any significant dif- ferences between the mean samples of the two groups. Both groups were very closely matched on all three aspects of the sentence. This could be a reflection of the selection criterion of the residential program. The typical sentence 264Cloward, 2p. cit., p. 21. 270 for a man in the residential program would be 4.5 to 11 years. This is comparable to the average time Spent in the institutions by the general prison population of 2.5 years.265 It was deduced that perhaps the degree of prison- ization or activity in the inmate culture may also be re- lated to the fact that the man had been turned down for parole, resulting in the realization that he had much more time to be served before he could be released. If a man had never been turned down for parole, he may wish to stay "clean" to secure an early parole. Using this lOgic it was expected that the liaison persons, who are very active in the inmate culture, would have been turned down for parole to a greater extent than non-liaisons who are less active in the inmate community. The results were found to be in the Opposite direction than hypothesized, but not significant at the 0.05 level. Perhaps the ex- planation for this can be found in the work of Donald 266 Clemmer found that active members of the Clemmer. community are less likely to get into difficulties than are the less active members of the inmate community. Perhaps the liaison persons who are more active in the inmate community than non-liaisons, by definition, do so 265Private conversation with members of the Michigan Parole Board, Summer Of 1971. 266C1emmer, 1940, 92. cit., p. 145. 271 because they have suffered the pains of a parole "flOp," to a lesser degree than the non-liaisons. The liaisons are active in the inmate community striving for a parole release. It must be pointed out that the clinic encour- ages group interaction, which is evaluation quite highly. Men who are active in the program are looked upon as men striving to overcome the problems that led to their imprisonment. In examining the roles' values on the items of the questionnaire used by Peter Garabedian to identify the traditional prison roles Of politician, square John, out- law, right guy, and dings, it seemed to the researcher that the values proposed to be held by the politician's role closely fit the values of the liaison role person. The values of the square John role closely fit the re- searcher's conceptions of the values that would be held by the non-liaison role persons. It was expected that both the liaisons and non-liaisons would reject or be neutral on the values held by the outlaw, square John, and ding roles. The results of the "T" test for independent sample means in two samples with unequal numbers did not find any significant differences at the 0.05 level between the two sample's means on any of the five roles. It is inter- esting to note, however, that both the non-liaison and liaison roles accepted the politician role to a greater degree than they accepted the values of any other role. 272 Upon examination of the questions that make up the poli- tician role value score, the researcher felt that the emphasis of the clinic prOgram in develOping confidence and interpersonal skills may have accounted for this high mean score for both groups. That is, questions, "You've got to have confidence in yourself if you're going to be successful," "There's a little larceny in everyone, if you're really honest about it," and "Who you know is more important than what you know," and "Brains are more im- portant than brawn," reflect self-honesty and self- inspection. It should be noted that six inmates commented that the third question was contradictory, but they agreed with the last part strongly enough to evaluate the entire question highly. Both samples rejected or were neutral on the values that were summed to give a score on the square John, out- law, and ding role. The items emphasize self-doubt, lack Of dependence on others, and emphasis on physical strength which are Opposite tO the goals of the residential pro- gram. The rejection scores on these values seem to pro- vide indirect evidence that the values, at least as measured by this instrument, that are held by what has been called hard "core felons" in the clinic, do not fit the traditional definitions of values held by inmates in maximum security institutions who are outcasts from even 273 the inmate community. The values held by the men in the "bug" clinic are not abnormal in this study. The right guy role was evaluated in a positive light by both samples. The right guy role is said to be made up Of attitudes and values held by the true "con." These values stress, "be true to your own kind, the other inmates," and "hold the criminal justice system in con— tempt." The results of this scale are not surprising. The value that emphasizes loyalty to one's own group is also the manner of treatment in these early stages of the residential program, that is based on a group support model. Explaining the contempt for the criminal justice process required some interviews with the inmates. The researcher found in talking to the inmates that they feel the corrections system is unfair to them as individuals. If they strive hard to become "rehabilitated" and truly change their "outlook" on life, they may still be rejected for parole. They concluded that they must not only be rehabilitated but they must also pay retribution for their deeds. This is a very frustrating situation to be in. They don't feel it is correct to have one authority re- sponsible for rehabilitation and another for their re- lease from imprisonment. They have found too often that the twO groups hold differing definitions of the purpose Of imprisonment. 274 Before discussing the findings of the hypotheses it is appropriate to review the limitations which must be placed upon the generalizability of the conclusions from which this data was collected. 1. The study pOpulation from which the data was col- lected was not randomly selected. The study de- sign is essentially that Of an empirical case study utilizing saturation sampling. It should be noted that the study population is a sub-unit Of a larger parent organization and does not include contacts outside of the sub—unit boundary or with staff personnel. The study pOp- ulation is limited tO the individuals formally prescribed to the residential treatment program. It should be further noted that the study population includes a greater percentage of sex offenders, hard core drug Offenders, and young offenders than would be found in a general prison population. In the general population of the Michigan penal system approximately 7 per cent make up drug Offenders and 4.3 per cent sex offenders.267 267Criminal Statistics, State of Michigan, Department of Corrections, 1971. 2. 275 A second limitation stems from the phenomenological nature of the data, eSpecially in regard to esti- mates Of dyadic and self-perceived behavior. The assumed congruence of actual dyadic behavior with behavior perceived and reported by one member Of the dyad or self-perceptions must be tempered with the recognition of the possibility of perceptual distortion on the part of the perceiver. Inter- views with these various persons may also suffer the same limitations. A third limitation Of the generalizability of the findings of this study is due to the fact that this study restricted itself to topological con- cepts identifiable only on the basis of recip— rocated contacts. Contacts that were not recip- rocated were not included in the analysis of this study. A final limitation relates to the nature of the sampling model used to define sources of data for the tests of hypotheses. The sampling unit was liaisons and non-liaison role persons, self— perceptions and the perceptions of non-liaisons who are in direct reciprocated contact with liaison role person or persons. The perceptions 276 Of others in the organization who are not in direct contact with them were not included in the analysis. The sampling model also did not provide for random selection Of the liaison or non-liaison in reciprocated contact with a liaison role per- son. This limitation was a practical necessity based on the small number Of individuals in each sample group. The result is that the application Of statistical tests based on random selection criterion can only be assumed to approximate the potential parameters. Unsupported Hypotheses Of the sixteen hypotheses only one was supported as postulated. Fourteen were unsupported and one was found to be significant but in the Opposite direction than was postulated. Following are some of the methodological and theoretical factors which may be related to these outcomes. Theoretical Reasons The researcher feels that the lack Of signifi- cance in the unsupported hypotheses may be the result of the success of the goals of the residential treatment program. Traditionally the prison environment has been an isolated society with communications between inmates 277 and inmates and staff kept to a minimum for reasons of security and custodial order. The residential treatment program, in contrast to this model, emphasizes an open communications system. The data sources for the tests of the study were designed so that a score value over three represented agreement with the item, while a value below three represented disagreement and three represented the neutral zone of opinion. The hypotheses that dealt with the amount of contacts with other inmates in the inmate informal organization, Hypotheses l and 2; the amount of information on the goals of the prOgram, Hypo- theses 3 and 4; control over message flow to other in- mates, Hypotheses 5 and 6; access to clinic personnel or secondary contacts, Hypothesis 8; amount of influence inmates have in the organization, Hypotheses 9 and 10; and the Openness of the organizational communications be- tween staff and inmates and inmates' satisfaction with it, Hypotheses 11 and 12, all have mean values greater than three indicating satisfaction with the communications system by both samples in the clinic. The clinic members View the clinic as a very Open system. Perhaps their frame of reference, the prison below, accents this comparison. Hypothesis 15 that postulated one group of in- mates could control information or had differential access to it received mean values below three indicating 278 rejection of this hypothesis by both groups in the clinic. This finding is congruent with the other hypo- thesis that the clinic is viewed by its residents as a very open communications system for all inmates. The small difference between the mean values of directionality of information exchange between the two samples in Hypothesis 14, .5782 and .6637 for the liaison and non- liaison samples reSpectively (where the greater the deviation from one the more disproportionate is message transaction), also is congruent with the perceptions of the respondents, that no person or persons has a monOpOly on the communications within the clinic. Methodolggical Problems The significant difference found in Hypothesis 13, which was in the Opposite direction than postulated, could be a reflection of a methodolOgical problem. The variances of estimates of message initiation frequencies were relatively large. It may be that a measurement error occurred here as a result of asking respondents to provide a single estimate of initiation frequency based on 100 hypothetical contact situations. Such estimates may be extremely difficult to make and the resulting un- reliability may have contributed to the inflated variance. Another major methodological problem that may have contributed to type two error, could be that the 279 sample sizes were not adequate. Two Of the unsupported hypotheses, 2 and 9, approached significance in the postulated directions, and were significant at the .10 level (two alternative tests). A third hypothesis, Hypothesis 4, reached Significance at the .20 level (two alternative tests). Supported Hypotheses Hypothesis 7, which postulated that liaison per- sons will be perceived by their non-liaison contacts to have more influence over personal opinions for their dyadic contacts than do non-liaisons was found to be significant in the postulated direction at the 0.05 level. The result indicates that liaison contacts are aware of the fact that the liaison persons affect personal Opinion and serve a function in the inmate informal organization that is different from that of the non- liaison roles. This function is as the socio-emotional leader. It is possible that the liaison role person's ability to influence Opinions may be the result of some personal ability in face-to-face communications rather than a social role function. That is, the ability may be a personal attribute of the individual rather than given him by the nature of the job he does in the formal structure. Two items from the demographic data analysis seem to lend support to this interpretation. 280 The lack Of differences between formal job classifications as presented in Hypothesis l6, lends support to the idea that one's position in the formal prison organization has no effect on one's role as a liaison person in the informal structure. This lends support to the personal role theory of the liaison role, which is contradictory to the relationship between leadership in a prison environment and leadership found in Cloward's and Hayne's findings.268 It is also signi— ficant that the percentage of liaison role persons who were requested to be placed on a job assignment, was nearly twice that of the non-liaison sample lending support to the personal role theory. It is also signi- ficant to note that the liaison role persons have a significantly greater span of reciprocated contacts with other members of the clinic than do non-liaison persons. This is, of course, the very definition of the liaison role. This could be a reflection of the personal ability of the liaisons to communicate more efficiently with other inmates in the clinic. No matter for what reason they accomplish the task, the significant fact stands that the sociometric-defined role is also found to have the larger number Of reciprocated contacts as compared 268 Cloward, 9p. cit., p. 97; Haynes, 9p. cit., p. 437. 281 with the other sociometric defined role. The liaison role is fulfilling its hypothesized function. Contributions of the Study The primary contributions of the present study have been to provide evidence that the liaison communi- cation role does exist in a penal environment as a socio- emotional leader. This role has some meaning, at least in the sense Of awareness by those in contact with it, and the role has influence over the personal Opinions Of the non-liaisons in the environment. One aspect Of the liaison role that differentiated it from the non- liaison role was its tendency to have significantly greater numbers of communications contacts than did the non-liaisons persons. The consequence of this prelim- inary study indicates that even in a prison environment that emphasizes inter-inmate communications, there are a select group of inmates who influence opinion to a greater extent than do other inmates in the organization. The liaison role seems to occupy an important position in the informal organization in that he controls the personal Opinions Of other inmates. This places him in a position where he could facilitate or hinder the smooth Operation of the institution through the use of this influence. 282 The present study was exploratory in nature. What has been demonstrated is a conceptual and methodo- logical framework for analysis of the inmate social system without relying on assumed values the population is hypothesized to possess with deviations from it determining an individual's functioning in the informal inmate community. This methodological schema has the advantage when applied to the examination of informal inmate systems of objectively determining roles based on graph theory concepts. These concepts provide discreet cate- gories that can be used for the classification of roles as a prelude to descriptive or functional analysis Of the inmate informal social system. These categories are discreet in the same sense as the traditional classifica- tion system but adds the advantage of including the in- formal communications system into the frame of analysis. The categories are objectively defined as opposed to arbitrary defined constructs based upon assumed cri- teria, i.e., inmate code. The study provided indirect evidence that the goals of the program in the clinic are being achieved. This insight was gained based on the extent communica- tions existed between individuals in the program. The finding that the liaison persons serve as opinion lead- ers, without using some artificially determined 283 criterion for Opinion leadership, could provide a val- uable source of data for the administration of the clinic program. This method of analysis could point out poten- tial bottlenecks or short-cuts in getting the wanted Opinions to a major segment of the clinic pOpulation through the utilization of these opinion leaders. Perhaps the Opinion leaders could be used as co-therapist in the inmate group sessions or as self-government leaders. The liaison role individuals may also be useful in getting the members Of the various residential programs to commu- nicate with each other through the use of their influence. Another possibility for the use Of this research technique could be to build a bridge between small group research and research in penology that may help explain how inmates form clique groups and the interrelationships between these groups. The topological definition of the informal group could be utilized as a preliminary step toward identification of various configurations in natural small groups within the prison culture. The present study also pointed out that the assumptions that aspects of an individual's sentence or crime, are related to the leadership Opinion influency function in the inmate community, was not found to be significant. The study also failed to find all of the traditional roles that are said to exist in a prison environment. 284 The study also pointed out the cooperation that can be secured from the inmate population of a prison if approached honestly and with proper sponsorship that is held to be legitimate by the study population. The study also tested a research instrument that could be used with minor rewording in other maximum security institutions. Suggestions for Future Research It would be of great interest to test for the existence of the liaison role in other inmate social systems to test both the self-perceptions of the liaison role persons and the perceptions of those in contact with them. These results could be compared to the findings presented in this study. In this manner the universality of the role and its function could be tested along with all the hypothesized traits the role is assumed to possess. It would also be of interest to see if the custo- dial staff forms similar clique groups united by the liaison role individual. If these roles are found to exist, it would be Of interest to test the traits or func- tions they serve in the custodial organization, and to compare these traits with those Of the liaison role in the inmate community. A research project could also be done to test both the inmates and the custodial staff Of a maximum security institution. If the liaison role is found to 285 function as originally hypothesized in this study in both the custodial staff and inmate community of a maximum security institution, perhaps a uniting of the liaison roles would increase communications between the two strata. This could result in a lowering of tensions, stereotypes, rumors, and other traits associated with a caste system. A comparison could be made between prisons that are low in tensions and one that is high in tensions, to test for the overlap of the inmate and custodial strata Of a prison. Perhaps institutions with high tensions suffer from a lack of communications between the liaison functions of the two stratas whereas, an insti- tution with lower tensions could be found to possess a greater degree of communications between the two groups of liaison role persons. This contact could enhance commu- nications between the two strata and result in reduced tensions. The present study only examined the liaison role from the perceptions Of liaisons and non-liaisons who were in reciprocated contact with liaison role persons. Organizational members who occupy other roles may eval- uate the functioning of the liaison role differently, or add additional information and insight into the func— tioning of these roles. 286 Other studies could examine Other topological properties of the communications structure. An explora- tion of the functioning Of the bridge person role could be undertaken. Such a study could define and compare the role of the bridge person with that of a liaison person. Perhaps the bridge role person serves as the primary group or clique group leader while the liaisol role serves as his contact with the Official prison organization, the guards. The study of the personality dynamics of the liaison role person might be of great value in determin- ing if it is a social or personal role. A comparison across similar institutions might also investigate whether or not the liaison role differs in purpose and function from institution to institution or remains the same across all maximum security institutions. The topological analysis could also be utilized in other institutional settings with varying degrees of security and population make up to determine the stability and function, task or socio-emotional, of the role across settings with differentiated pOpulationS. Research should determine under what conditions the liaison role functions as a socio-emotional leader, as found in this study and under what conditions the liaison role functions as a task leader, as in MacDonald's work.269 269MacDonald, 2p, cit., p. 57. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Armore, Sidney. Introduction to Statistical Analysis and Inference for Psychology and Education. New York: JOhn Wiley and Sons, 1966. Atchley, Robert, and McCabe, Patrick. "Socialization in Correctional Communities: A Replication." American Sociological Review, XXXIII (May, 1968), Back, Karl. "Influence Through Social Communication." Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVI (1951), 9-23. Bales, Robert. "A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction." American Sociological Review, XV (April, 1950), 257L63. ; Strobeck, Fred; Mills, Theodore; and Rose— borough, Mary. "Channels Of Communication in Small Groups." American Sociological Review, XVI (June, 1951), 461-68. Bates, Sanford. "The Prison: Asset or Liability." The Annals of the American Academy Of Political and Social Science, CCXCIII (May, 1954), 1-9. Bavelas, Alex. "Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups." Group Dynamics. Edited by Darwin Cartwright and Alvin finder. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968. Beck, Bernard. "Organizational Goals and Inmate Organ- ization." American Journal Of Sociology, LI (March, 1966), 522-34. Bennett, James. "The Sentence and Treatment of Offenders." The Annals of the American Academy Of Political and Social Science, CCCXXXIX (January, 1962), 142-56. 287 288 Bixby, Lovell, and McCorkle, Lloyd. "Guided Group Inter- action in Correctional Work." American Socio- logical Review, XVI (August, 1951), 455-59. Blau, Peter. "Structural Effects." American Sociological Review, XXV (April, 1960), 178493. , and Scott, Richard. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing COmpany, 1962. Caldwell, Morris. "Group Dynamics in the Prison Community." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, XLVI (June, 1956), 618-56. Cartwright, Dorwin. "Achieving Change in People: Some Applications Of Group Dynamics Theory." Prison Within Society, A Reader in Penology. Edited By Lawrence Hazebrigg. Gardén City, N.Y.: Double- day and Company, 1968. Clark, Burton. "Organizational Adaptation to Pacareous Values." Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. Edited by AmitaiifitziOni. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Clemmer, Donald. "Imprisonment as a Criminality Source." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XLI (September-OctOber7'1950Y1 311-19. Also in Readings and Criminology and Penology. Edited by David DresSler. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. . The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,il940, 1958. Cline, Hugh. "The Determinants Of Normative Patterns in Correctional Institutions." Scandinavian Studies in Criminology. Edited by NOIES Christie. 0316, Norway: Scandinavian University Books, Volume 2, 1968. Cloward, Richard. "Social Control in the Prison." Prison Within Society; A Reader in Penology. Editedby Lawrence Hazebrigg. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1968. Also in Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Pfison. Social Science Research Council Pamphlet 15. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960. 289 Coe, Rodney. "Characteristics of Well Adjusted and Poorly Adjusted Inmates." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, LII (July, 1961), 178-84. Cohen, Jacob. "Some Statistical Issues in Psychological Cressey, Research." Handbook of Psychology. Edited by B. Wolman. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Donald. "Achievement of an Unstated Organiza- tional Goal: An Observation on Prisons." The Pacific Sociological Review, I (Fall, 1958)T—43-49. AISO in Cpmplex OrganizatiOns, A SociolOgical Reader. Edited by Amitaiifitzion. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Also in Prison With Society; A Reader in Penology. Editediby Lawrence Hazebrigg. Garden City, N.Y.: Double- day and Company, 1968. "Changing Criminals: The Application of the Theory Of Differential Association." American Journal of Sociology, LXI (September, 1955), 116-20. . "Contradictory Theories in Correctional Group Therapy Programs." Federal Probation, XVIII (June, 1954), 20-26. . "Limitations in Organization Of Treatment in The Modern Prison." The Sociology of Punishment and Corrections. Edited by Norman Johnston, Leonard Savitz, and Marvin Wolfgang. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. Also in Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison. Social Science Research Council Pamphlet 15. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960. , ed. The Prison Studies in Institutional Organ- ization and’Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961? , and Krassowski, Witold. "Inmate Organization and Anomie in American Prisons and Soviet Labor Camps." Social Problems, V (Winter, 1957-58), 217-38. Criminal Statistics, State Of Michigan 1971. Lansing, Mich.: Department Of Corrections, 1971. 290 Cuber, John. "Some Aspects of Institutional Disorgan- ization." American Sociological Review, V (June, 1940Y7'483-88. Day, Robert, and Hamblin, Robert. "Some Effects Of Close and Punitive Styles of Supervision." American Journal Of Sociology, LXIX (March, 1964), 499—510. DeBecker, Paul. "The Sociology of Change in Penal Insti- tutions." Changing Concepts of Crime and Its Treatment. Edited‘by HughKlare. New York: Pergamon Press, 1966. Dittes, James, and Kelley, Harold. "Effects of Different Conditions Of Acceptance in Conformity to Group Norms." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIII (1956i, 100:107. Driscoll, Patrick. "Factors Related to the Institutional Adjustment of Prison Inmates." Journal of Ab- normal and Social Psychology, XLVII (July, 1952), 593-96. Eaton, Joseph. Stone Walls Not a_Prison Make. Spring- field, IIIC: Charles C. Thomas, 1962. Emerson, Richard. "Deviation and Rejection: An Experi- mental Replication." American Sociological Review, XIX (December, 1954), 686-93. Farber, Maurice. "Prison Research: Techniques and Methods." The Journal of Social Psychology, XIV (1941), 295-310. Festinger, Leon. "Informal Social Communication." Theory_and Expegiment in Social Communication. Editediby Leon Festinger, Kurt Back, Stanley Schachter, Harold Kelley, and John Thibaut. Research Center for Group Dynamics Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Report of Studies under Office of Naval Research. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1952. ; Schachter, Stanley; and Back, Kurt. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study Of Human Factors in HouSing. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. 291 Festinger, Leon, and Thibaut, John. "Interpersonal Communication in Small Groups." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVI (1951), 92-99. Fisher, Sethard. "Informal Organization in a Correctional Setting." Social Problems, XIII (Fall, 1965), 214-22. . "Social Organization in a Correctional Resi- dence." The Pacific Sociological Review, IV (Fall, 1961), 87-93. Forsyth, Elaine, and Katz, Leo. "A Matrix Approach to the Analysis of Sociometric Data." Sociometry, IX (1946), 340-47. Fox, Vernon. "Prison Disciplinary Problems." The Sociology of Punishment and Correction.—_Edited By Norman Johnston, Leonard Savitz, and Marvin Wolfgang. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. Galtung, Johan. "Prison the Organization of Dilemma." The Prison Studies in Institutional Organiza- EiOn and Change. Edited By Donald Cressey. New York: HOIE, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. "The Social Functions of a Prison." Prison Witpin Sociepy; A Reader in Penology. Edited By Lawrence Hazebrigg. 53rden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1968. Also in Social Problems, VI (Fall, 1958), 127-40. Garabedian, Peter. "Social Roles and Processes of Socialization in the Prison Community." Social Problems, XVI (Fall, 1963), 140-52. Also in The Sociology of Punishment and Correction. Edited by Norman JOhnston, Leonard Savitz, and Marvin Wolfgang. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. . "The Natural History of an Inmate Community in a Maximum Security Prison." The Journal Of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, XVI TMay, 197077 78-85. Garfinkle, Harold. "Conditions Of Successful Degradation Ceremonies." Prison Within Society: A Reader in Penology. Edited by Lawrence Hazébfigg. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1968. 292 Garrity, Donald. "The Prison as a Rehabilitation Agency." The Prison Studies in Institutional Organization andCChange. Editéd by Donaid Cressey. New York: Holt, Rihéhart and Winston, Inc., 1961. Gerard, Harold. "The Anchorage of Opinions in Face-to- Face Groups." Human Relations, VII (1954), 313-25. Giallombardo, Rose. Society of Women: A Study of a Women's Prison. New York: John Wiley and‘SOns, 1966. Gibbons, Donald. Changing the Law Breaker. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. . "Some Notes on Treatment Theory in Correc- tions." Prison Within Society: A Reader in Penolo . Edited by Lawrence Hazebrigg. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1968. , and Garrity, Donald. "Some Suggestions for the Development Of Etiological and Treatment Theory in Criminology." Social Forces, XXXVIII (October, 1959), 51-58. Goffman, Erving. Asylums. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961. "On the Characteristics of Total Institutions: Staff Inmate Relations." The Prison Studies in Institutional Organization and Chapge. Edited By Donald Cressey. New York: HOlt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. Grosser, George. "The Role of Informal Groups in Change of Values." Children,V’(January, 1958), 25-29. Also in Prison Withih Society: A Reader in Penolo . iidited by Lawrence Hazebrigg. New Yor : Doubleday and Company, 1968. . "External Setting and Internal Relations of the Prison." Prison Within Society: A Reader in Penolo . Editedmhy Lawrence Hazebrigg. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1968. Also in Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison. Social Science Research Council Pamphietils. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960. 293 Grusky, Oscar. "Organizational Goals and the Behavior of Informal Leaders." American Journal of Sociology, LXV (July-May, 1959), 59-67. Gustiad, John. "Communication Failures in Higher Educa- tion." Journal of Communication, XII (1962), 11-12. Halpin, Andrew. Theory and Research in Administration. New York: MacMillan, 1966: Hargan, James. "The Psychology of Prison Language." The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXX (Octoher-December, l935),53595596. Harper, Ida. "The Role of the 'Finger' in a State Prison for Women." Social Force, XXXI (1952), 53-60. Hartung, Frank, and Flock, Maurice. "A Social- Psychological Analysis of Prison Riots: An Hypothesis." The Journal of Criminal Law, CriminOlOgy and POiice Science, XLVII (May-June, 1956), 51-57. Hayner, Norman. "Washington State Correctional Insti— tutions as Communities." Social Forces, XXI (April, 1943), 316-22. , and Ash, Ellis. "The Prison as a Community." American Sociological Review, V (September, I940), 577-83? , and Ash, Ellis. "The Prisoner Community as a Social Group." American Sociological Review, IV (June, 1939), 362-69. Haynes, F. E. "SOCiOlOgical Study Of the Prison Com- munity." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXIV (November-Decemher, 1948), Hazebrigg, Lawrence. "An Examination of the Accuracy and Relevance Of Staff Perceptions of the Inmate in The Correctional Institution." The Journal Of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, LVIII (June, 1967), 204-10. Hickey, James. “The Effects of Information Control on Perceptions of Centrality." Journalism Quarterly, (Spring, 1968), 49-54. 294 Homans, George. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950. Hulin, Charles, and Maher, Brendan. "Changes in Attitudes Toward Law Concomitant with Imprison- ment." The Journal Of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, L (September, 1959), 245-50. Irwin, John, and Cressey, Donald. "Thieves, Convicts, and The Inmate Culture." Social Problems, X (Fall, 1962), 142-55. Jacobson, Eugene; Charters, W. W.; and Lieberman, Seymour. "The Use Of the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations." Journal of Social Issues, VII (1951), 18-27. , and Seashore, Stanley. "Communication Practices in Complex Organizations." Journal of Social Issues, VII (1951), 28-40. Johnson, Elmer. Crime, Correction and Society. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1968. Johnson, Knowlton. "Police Interaction and Referral Activity with Personnel of Other Social Regulatory Agencies: A Multivariate Analysis." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Jones, Maxwell. Beypnd the Therapeutic Community. New Haven, Conn.: Yaie Uhiversity Press,il968. Julian, Joseph. "Compliance Patterns and Communication Blocks in Complex Organizations." American Sociological Review, XXXI (June, 1966), 383-89. Karpman, Benjamin. "Sex Life in Prison." The Journal Of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXVIII TJanuary-February, 1948), 475-86. Katz, E. "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An up-to- date Report Of an Hypothesis." Public Opinion Quarterly, XXI (Spring, 1957), 62-78. Kelley, Harold, and Shapiro, Martin. "An Experiment on Conformity to Group Norms Where Conformity is Detrimental to Group Achievement." American Sociological Review, XIX (December, 1954), 667-77. 295 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R. K. "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Artificially—Created Social Climates." Journal of Social Psychology, X (1939), 271-99. MacDonald, Donald. "Communications Roles and Communication Content in a Bureaucratic Setting." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Manocchio, Anthony, and Dunn, Jemmy. The Time Game. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Puhlications, 1970. Mettick, Hans. "Some Latent Functions of Imprisonment." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, L (March-April, 1959), 237—44. McCleery, Richard. "Authoritariasism and the Belief System of Incorrigibles." The Prison Studies in Institutional Opganization and Change. lfidited ih’Donald Cressey. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. . "Communication Patterns as Bases of Systems of Authority and Power." Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison. §Ocial Science Researéh Council Pamphlet 15. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960. "Correctional Administration and Political Change." Prison Within Society: A Reader in Penolo . ‘hditedby Lawrence Hazebrigg. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1968. . Policy Change in Prison Management. East Lansing, Mich.: Government Research Bureau, Michigan State University, 1962. . "The Governmental Process and Informal Social Control." The Prison Studies in Institutional Organization andiChange. Edited by Donald Cressey. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. McCorkle, Lloyd. "Group Therapy with Offenders." The Sociology Of Punishment and Crime. Edited 5?” Norman Johnson, Leonard Savitz, and Marvin Wolfgang. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. 296 McCorkle, Lloyd. "Guard-Inmate Relations." The SociolOgy of Punishment and Crime. Edited by Norman JOhnson, Leonard Savitz, and Marvin Wolfgang. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. , and Korn, Richard. "Resocialization Within Prison Walls." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCCXCIII (May, 1954), 88-98. AISO in Readings in Crimi- nology and Penolo y. Edited by David Drossler. New York: Coihfihia University Press, 1964. Messinger, Sheldon. "Issues in the Study of the Social System of Prison Inmates." Issues in Criminology, IV (1960/69), 133-44. Miller, Paul. "The Prison Code." American Journal of Psychiatry, CXIV (June, 1958i, 583¥85. Morris, Torence. "The Social Toleration of Crime." Changing Concepts of Crime and Its Treatment. Edited by Hugh Kiare. New York: Pergamon Press, 1966. , and Morris, Pauline. Pentonville. London: Routledge and Kegan, 1963. Mouledous, Joseph. "Organizational Goals and Structural Change: A Study of the Organization of A Prison Social System." Social Forces, XLI (March, 1963), 283-90. Nadel, S. F. "Social Control and Self-Regulation." Social Forces, XXXI (1953), 265-73. Ohlin, Lloyd. "Conflicting Interests in Correctional Objectives." Theoretical Studies in Social Organization Of the Prison. Social Science Research Council Pamphlet 15. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960. . "Modification Of the Criminal Value System." The Sociology of Punishment and Correction. Editedhy Norman Johnson, Leonard Savitz, and Marvin Wolfgang. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. , and Lawrence, William. "Social Interaction Among Clients as a Treatment Problem." Social Work, IV (April, 1959). 297 Pelz, Donald. "Leadership Within a Hierarchical Organ— ization.” Journal of Social Issues, VII (1951), 49-55. , and Andrews, F. Scientists in Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Polansky, Norman. "Prison as an Autocracy." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXIII (June, 19427, 16-22. Roebuck, Julian. "A Critique of 'Thieves, Convicts and the Inmate Culture.'" Social Problems, III (Fall, 1963), 193-200. Rogers, E., and Cartano, P. "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership." Public Opinion-Quarterly, XXVI (Fall, 1962), 435-41. Schrag, Clarence. "A Preliminary Criminal TypolOgy." The Pacific Sociological Review, IV (Spring, 1961), 11-16. . "Leadership Among Prison Inmates." American Sociologigal Review, XIX (February, 1954), 37-42. Also in Ragdipgs ih Criminology and Penology. Edited by David Dressler. New York: COlumhia University Press, 1964. "Some Foundations for a Theory of Corrections." The Prison Studies Institutional Organization and Chan e.i*§dited by Donald Cressey. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Schwartz, Donald. Liaison Communication Roles in a Formal Organization. Commuhimetrics Research Report No. 1. Fargo, N.D.: Department of Communica- tions, North Dakota State University, 1968. Scott, Francis. "Action Theory and Research in Social Organization." Prison Within Society: A Reader in Penology. Edited—by Lawrence Hazebrigg. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1968. Selvin, Hanna, and Hagstrom, Warren. "The Empirical Classification Of Formal Groups." College Poor Grou 5. Edited by Theodore Newcomb and Everett Wilson. Chicago: Aldine, 1966. 298 Selznick, Philip. "Foundations of the Theory of Organ- ization." Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. Edited by Amitai EtzioniT' New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Smith, Rosser. "A Probation Officer Looks at Discrep- ancies in Sentences." Federal Probation, XXVI (December, 1962), 25-33. Steinberg, David. “Synanon House--A Consideration of its Implications for American Corrections." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and POTice Science, LIV (December, 1963i, 447-55. Stephenson, Richard, and Siarpitti, Frank. "Argot in a Therapeutic Correctional Milieu." Social Prob- lems. XV (Winter, 1965), 384-95. AISOCin The SOCiolOgy Of PUnishment and Correction. Edited by Norman JOhnson, LeonardCSavitz, and’Marvin Wolfgang. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. Stouffer, Samuel. "An Analysis of Conflicting Social Norms." American Sociological Review, XIV (December,il949), 707-17. Street, David. "The Inmate Group in Custodial and Treat- ment Settings." American Sociological Review, XXX (February, 1965), 40-551 Also in Prison Within Society: A Reader in Penology. Edited by Lawrence Hazebrigg. Garden City, N.Y.: Double- day and Company, 1968. Sutherland, Edwin. Principles of Criminology. New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1955. Sykes, Gresham. "Men Merchants, and Toughs: A Study of Reactions to Imprisonment." Social Problems, IV (Fall, 1956), 130-38. . "The Corruption of Authority and Rehabilita- tion." Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. Edited by AmitaiUEEzioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. . The Society of Captives. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton university Press, 1958. 299 Sykes, Gresham, and Messinger, Sheldon. "The Inmate Social Code." The Sociology of Punishment and Correction. Edited by Norman Johnston, Leonard Savitz, and Marvin Wolfgang. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. , and Messinger, Sheldon. Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the PriSon. Social Science Research CounciI'Pamphlet 15. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960. Tannenbaum, Frank. Wall Shadows. New York: Knicker- bocker Press, 1922. Tittle, Charles. "Inmate Organization: Sex Differen— tiation and the Influence of Criminal Subcultures." American Sociological Review, XXXIV (August, , and Tittle, Pauline. "Social Organization of Prisons: An Empirical Test." Social Forces, XLIII (December, 1964), 216-21. Torrance, Paul. "Sociometric Techniques for Diagnosing Group Ills." Sociometry, XVIII (1955), 597-612. Train, George. "Unrest in the Penitentiary." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminolo and Police Science, XLIV (September-Octoher, 1353), 277-95. Troldohl, V., and Van Dam, D. "A New Scale for Identi- fying Public Affairs Opinion Leaders." Journal- ism Quarterly, XLII (Autumn, 1965), 4. Von Hentig, Hans. "The Limits of Penal Treatment." The Journal of_Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXII (NOvember-December, 1941), 401-10. Wallace, Samuel. Total Institutions. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1971. Walton, Eugene. "A Magnetic Theory of Communication." N.O.T.S. Administrative Publication (1). China Lake, Calif.: U.S. Naval Ordinance Test Station, 1962. Warren, Marguerite. "Classification of Offender as an Aid to Efficient Management." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Polide Science, LXII (June, 1971), 239-58. 300 Watt, Norman, and Maher, Brendan. "Prisoners' Attitudes Toward Home and the Judicial System." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminolo and—POlice Science, L (September, 1959), 327- . Weinberg, Kirson. "Aspects of the Prison's Social Structure." The American Journal of Sociology, XLVII (April, 1942i, 717-26. Weinstein, Eugene; DeVaughan, William; and Wiley, Mary. "Obligation and the Flow of Deference in Ex- change." Sociometry, XXXII (1960), l-14. Weiss, R. S. Processes Of Organization. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1956. , and Jacobson, Eugene. "A Method for the Analysis of the Structure of Complex Organiza- tions." American Sociological Review, XX (1955), 661-68. Also in Compiex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. Editedhy Amitai EEEioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. Wellford, Charles. "Factors Associated With Adoption of the Inmate Code: A Study of Normative Social- ization." The Journal of Crimipal Law, Criminol- ggy_and Polide Science, LVIII (February, 1967), 7-2030 Wheeler, Stanton. "Role Conflict in Correctional Communities." The Prison Studies in Institu- tional Organizatibn and Change. :Edited by DonaldCressey. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. . "Socialization in Correctional Communities." American SociOlOgical Review, XXVI (October, 1961), 697-712. Also in Prison Within Society: A Reader in Penology. Edited'by Lawrence Hahébrigg. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday and Company, 1968. "Social Organization and Inmate Values in Correctional Communities." Proceedings of the American Correctional Association, 1959. Wilson, Thomas. "Patterns of Management and Adaptions to Organizational Roles: A Study of Prison Inmates." The American Journal of Sociology, LXXIV (September, 1969), 146-51. 301 Wolfgang, Marvin. "Quantitative Analysis of Adjustment to the Prison Community." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Pdlice Science, LI (Maréh-April, 196i), 607-18. Yablonsky, Lewis. "Correction and the 'Doing Time' Society." Federal Probation, XXIV (March, 1960), 55-60. Zald, Mayer. "Organizational Control Structures in Five Correctional Institutions." Social Welfare Institutions. Edited by Mayer Zald. New York: JOhn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965. Zemans, Eugene, and Cavan, Ruth. "Marital Relations of Prisoners." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology ahd Police Science, XLIX (May-June, I958), 50-57. . APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE PACKET (Cover Letter, Personal Data Questionnaire, Contact Checklist, Personal Contact Questionnaire) APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE PACKET Cover Letter Communication Questionnaire College of Social Science Michigan State University No one in the clinic staff or any member of the Department of Corrections will ever see any of the com- pleted questionnaires nor will anyone be identified by name with his answers. We need your full and frank answers; we promise you only the Michigan State Research team will see the individual questionnaires. Your parti- cipation in this research is voluntary. The questionnaire will take approximately one-half hour to complete for which you will be compensated. We do ask for your name because we are charting the communication "map" of the clinic; however names will be transferred to numbers immediately. Your re- sponse to this questionnaire will in no way effect your status with the Michigan Department of Corrections. Communications include: face-to-face conversa- tion, formal or informal meetings and letters. Upon completion of the questionnaire, place it in the provided envelope and seal it and return it to the researcher. Please mark an X beside just one Of the possible responses to each questionnaire item. Example: The season Of the year is X Spring Fall Winter Summer 302 303 Personal Data Questionnaire General Information My name is only the M.S.U. research staffiwill read’this I was convicted of . The length of my original sentence was . I have time left before I see the parole board. Have you ever seen the board before? Yes No Where do you lock? - What is your present job classification? . How did you get your present job classification? classification committee requested the job assignment was asked if I would like the assignment by a staff member. Other Explain Now let's turn to the first of the communication questions. 304 Generally speaking, the information we get from the staff members is accurate. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree There is a free two-way discussion of any problems that occur in the clinic between inmates and staff. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree One trouble with the information we get from the staff members is that it's usually late . . . not here when we need it. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree In most organizations there are small groups of peOple who prefer to work or relax together. I have contacts in more of these groups than most other inmates do around here. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree When someone wants to get a message to some group or person in the clinic, I can usually tell him the best way to do it. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree 305 I communicate with more inmates in the clinic than most other inmates who are assigned here do. strongly agree agree neither agree of disagree disagree strongly disagree The inmates who have a lot of influence around here generally reSpect the suggestions that I make. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree The information we get from staff members is usually in very useful form . . . easy to understand and complete. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree I have access to very few clinic personnel and inmates compared to other inmates around here. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree Inmates around here are really encouraged to take any kind of problems to the clinic staff. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree 306 When suggestions are made by inmates on the clinic, staff members seldom give the suggestions serious consideration. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree Many of the "Official" and "unofficial" influential people in the clinic look to me for Opinions and advice. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree I have a way of getting what I want from the other in- mates in the clinic with whom I have contact. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree When I think it's best for the group I live or work with, I can usually control the amount and kind of information the group gets. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree Now, instead of thinking about communications contacts, think about how much you know about clinic programs and duties. Compared to other inmates on the clinic, how do you rate the level of knowledge you have about clinic- related activities? well above average for the clinic above average about the same as for other people in the clinic below average well below average for the clinic 307 How about your knowledge about tOpics that are not related to clinic programs or duties directly . . . what is going on within the clinic, who gets along with whom, who's having trouble adjusting to the clinic, who is adjusting, who is smart, etc. Is your knowledge well above average for the clinic above average about the same as others on the clinic elow average well below average for the clinic Now we would like to ask you a few questions on your feelings. These will assist us in the communication mapping. You've got to have confidence in yourself if you're going to be successful. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree I generally feel guilty whenever I do wrong. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree "Might is right" and "every man for himself" are the main rules of living, regardless of what peOple say. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree The biggest criminals are protected by society and rarely get to prison. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree 308 I worry a lot about unimportant matters. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree There's a little larceny in everyone, if you're really honest about it. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree The only criminals I really know are the ones here in the institution. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree You have to take care of yourself because nobody else is going to take care of you. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree Inmates can trust me to be honest and loyal in my dealings with them. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree I am very nervous much of the time. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree 309 Who do you know is more important than what you know, and brains are more important than brawn. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree Most people try to be law abiding and true. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree It makes me sore to have peOple tell me what to do. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree Police, judges, prosecutors, and politicians are just as crooked as most of the peOple sent to prison. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree Most people are not very friendly towards me. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree 310 Personal Contact Checklist On this page are Spaces about your communications with other members on the clinic. You are asked to name the five inmates with whom you have most frequent communications contact with and how frequent the contacts are. The names are needed to complete the "mapping" of the communications system. However, no one other than the research team will see any of the names you use. The names will be changed into numbers by the research team. Please print or write clearly so the coder can read it. Spell the names as best you can. Consider only the inmates on the clinic or who come to the clinic on a regular basis. Communicate includes: face-to-face conversation, formal or informal meetings and letters. Personal Contact Checklist List the name of each person For each person listed, check the in the clinic with whom you frequency Of contact communicate with regularly. Frequency several about 2 or 3 about less than times once times once a once a Name daily a day, a week week week 1. 2. 3. 4. S. Now for each person you named please complete a personal contact questionnaire. Keep only that person in mind when answering the questions. (For person one you named fill out personal contact questionnaire one, for person two personal questionnaire two, for person three questionnaire three, etc.) 311 Personal Contact Questionnaire One: About Named Person Number One* Out of 100 times you might have contact with this person, about how many times would: (a) You seek him or initiate the contact (you go to see him) (b) He seeks you or initiates the contact (he comes to you) (c) None of the above, we just happen to meet (neither of us goes to the other) Total contacts 100 cussions you've had with this person in the past week or so about activities, programs, or peOple in the clinic? I asked him questions much more than he asked me more than he asked me about as Often as he asked me less than he asked me much less than he asked me When he thinks it's best for the group he lives or works with, this person can usually control the amount and kind of information the group gets. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree This person communicates with very few clinic staff members or inmates on the clinic. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree *The research instrument as used in the research project had a personal contact questionnaire for each of the five named persons, to avoid redundancy they will not be repeated here. 312 person in the past week, about how often have you learned something new from him about clinic programs, duties, or peOple? almost every time very often about half the time seldom almost never When someone needs to get a message to some group or person in the clinic, this person can usually tell him the best way to do it. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree When you learn some new change or new idea being talked about in the clinic, how likely are you to hear it first from this person? extremely likely likely 50-50 unlikely extremely unlikely The inmates who have a lot of influence around here generally reSpect the suggestions that he makes. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree Many of the "Official" and "unofficial" influential peOple in the clinic look to him for opinions and advice. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree 313 About how many clinic staff members would you say this person has contact with in an "average" week compared to the number with whom most other inmates on the clinic have contact. well above average for the clinic above average about the same as others on the clinic elow average well below average This person has contacts with more inmates on the clinic than do most others on the clinic. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree How about his knowledge about tOpics that are not related to clinic programs or duties directly--what is going on within the clinic, who is adjusting, who is smart, who gets along with whom, who's having trouble adjusting to the clinic, etc. Is his level of knowledge well above average for the clinic above average about the same as others on the clinic elow average well below average for the clinic This person has contacts with individuals who are rela- tively high in the "power structure" of the clinic. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree 314 He has a way Of getting what he wants from the other in- mates in the clinic with whom he has contact. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree well above average for the clinic above average about the same as others on the clinic elow average well below average for the clinic If there is anything important going on in the clinic, this person has contacts with the people who usually know about it. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree When you and this person discuss activities of the clinic, which of the following happens more Often during these talks? He tells me about a great many more things than I tell him many more things than I tell him the same number of things I tell him many less things than I tell him a great many less things than I tell him Considering the relationship you have with this person, who do you think depends on the other more for advice on matters related to the clinic? I depend on him much more than he depends on me more than he depends on me about as much as he depends on me less than he depends on me much less than he depends on me 315 As new developments happen in the clinic, I usually "get the word” from someone other than this person. strongly agree agree neither agree or disagree disagree strongly disagree Whenever you communicate with this person which one Of the following usually is the case? almost always he talks and I listen often he talks and I listen we usually talk and I listen equally Often I talk and he listens almost always I talk and he listens Now, instead of thinking about communication contacts, think about how much he knows about clinic programs and duties. Compared to other inmates on the clinic, how do you rate the level of knowledge he has about clinic-related activities? well above average for the clinic above average about the same as for other peOple in the clinic below average well below average for the clinic APPENDIX B ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT LETTER APPENDIX B 1105F University Village East Lansing, Michigan March 21, 1972 Mr. William Kime Michigan Department of Corrections Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Kime: As I relayed in our conversation, I am presently pursuing my doctoral degree in criminal justice at Michigan State University under the direction of Dr. John McNamara. I would like to secure permission from your department to do my doctoral dissertation at the psychiatric clinic located in the State Prison of Southern Michigan. I have previously discussed the prOposed project with Dr. Pesetsky who granted me tentative approval, dependent on departmental approval, to do the research at the clinic. The prOposed research will test the inmate informal communica- tions structure, the roles involved and its relationship to leader- ship in the inmate social structure. The inmate pOpulation within the clinic of interest is the men in the drug and sex Offender pro- grams, approximately 70 in number. The men involved will be asked to voluntarily participate in filling out the experimental question- naire which will take approximately one-half hour. I would like departmental permission to compensate these men by payment of two packages of cigarettes at the time Of the research. The question- naire is designed to require only the researcher for administration, which will make no direct demands upon staff time. The experiment, if approved, will be administered at the convenience of Dr. Pesetsky, but is designed so that it can be administered after inmate work assignment hours in their residential units or group therapy room. The researcher Spent three months this past summer getting acquainted with the institutional procedures and will strive, if granted permission, not to interfere with the operations of the clinic. The data collected will be treated with strict and ethical confidence and no one inmate will be identified by name, nor will the Michigan Department of Corrections be identi- fied without its permission. A copy of the project will be provided to the department at the end of the research. I am including a copy of the research instrument and will be happy to provide any other needed information. Sincerely, John Prelesnik 316 5 5 58 R A R 8 LM II V“ Halli 5" R" E“ V" N”. U" 293 0317 3 " Tli " Nl " .H