Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by OSGOOD, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by NEWCOMB, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Autonomy for Inmates

Counterculture or Cooptation?

D. WAYNE OSGOOD

University of Michigan

ENID GRUBER

University of Michigan

MARK A. ARCHER

University of Michigan

THEODORE M. NEWCOMB

University of Michigan

An inmate counterculture presents a barrier to the institutional goal of long-term reform. If the counterculture is a reaction to deprivations caused by incarceration, increasing autonomy would help co-opt the counterculture to cooperation with the institutional program. Data concerning autonomy for inmates and their adaptation to incarceration were collected from over 400 residents and 160 staff members at institutions for juvenile offenders. The research design avoided confounding autonomy with inmate characteristics and institutional setting, and included a broad range of measures of inmates' adaptation. Inmate reports of greater autonomy were associated with adaptations that were considerably more favorable to institutional goals. There was little relationship between staff reports of autonomy and either inmate reports of autonomy or inmate adaptation. This can be explained by a lack of variance in staff perceptions of groups, meaning that staff members failed to discriminate differences that were substantial in the eyes of inmates.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 1, 71-89 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854885012001006
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
J. M. MacDonald
Institutional Responses to Misconduct in Juvenile Prisons
Criminal Justice Policy Review, June 1, 1997; 8(2-3): 247 - 268.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
M. GOLD, J. MATTLIN, and D. W. OSGOOD
Background Characteristics and Responses to Treatment of Two Types of Institutionalized Delinquent Boys
Criminal Justice and Behavior, March 1, 1989; 16(1): 5 - 33.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyHome page
D. L. MacKENZIE, L. I. GOODSTEIN, and D. C. BLOUIN
Personal Control and Prisoner Adjustment: An Empirical Test of a Proposed Model
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, February 1, 1987; 24(1): 49 - 68.
[Abstract] [PDF]