Coercive Organizations

Coercive organizations are total institutions in which membership is typically forced rather than voluntary. Coercive organizations are typically cut off from the rest of society and have high security measures in place in order to keep the inmates from leaving. Inmates are forced to live under a strict set of rules and rigid routines that regulate all the affairs of everyday life such as mandating how the inmates dress, when they eat, when they go to sleep, and when they wake up. The staff of coercive organizations has complete power over the inmates. Inmates, on the other hand, are often forced to completely give up the right to privacy and are subjected to various "degradation ceremonies" intended to either force them to surrender their former identity, reinforce the power structure of the organization, or both.

Keywords Coercive Organization; Confederate; Experiment; Formal Organization; Interview; Normative Organization; Organization; Secondary Group; Socialization; Social Role; Society; Subject; Survey Research; Total Institution; Utilitarian Organization; Coercive Organizations

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Coercive Organizations

Overview

Through personal correspondence with an inmate of the United States prison system, it is possible to learn a number of aspects of not only the criminal justice system but of life in a total institution that one would be hard-pressed to gain even from research literature. Although one can read in textbooks and journal articles about strict controls, hierarchical authority structures, and other features of such institutions, the insights of an insider — an insider who in many ways has no voice in the organization — were revealing. Coping mechanisms that would usually deescalate a conflict or resolve a problem are prone to failure in the prison system because of the different sets of expectations and rules of the prison. In general, normal living concerns, interests, and protocol do not apply within the walls of a coercive organization. While the need for society to punish those who trespass its rules is obvious, it is not obvious whether the punishment fits the crime or whether such institutions were not set up to encourage rather than correct bad behavior. It is not only prisons, however, that are total institutions. Psychiatric wards (where behavior is strictly regulated on the ward as well as the access to enter and exit from the ward) are only gained by a key foster, which helps to create a stifling, coercive environment.

Both the prison and the psychiatric ward are examples of coercive organizations, formal organizations in which membership is typically forced rather than voluntary. Formal organizations are large, highly organized secondary groups that are structured to efficiently accomplish one or more tasks and meet goals. According to some categorizations, there are three types of formal organizations:

• Coercive organizations, which one is forced to join (e.g., the correctional institution or the psychiatric ward),
• Normative organizations that one joins voluntarily in order to pursue a common interest or to gain personal satisfaction or prestige (e.g., political parties, religious organizations, and sororities and fraternities), and
• Utilitarian organizations that are voluntarily joined in order to gain a material reward (e.g., universities and business organizations).

Characteristics of the Coercive Organization

Prisoners are forced to join the correctional institution by legal mandate. On their own, very few people would be willing to voluntarily join such a coercive organization. Although some people voluntarily commit themselves to psychiatric institutions, for the most part, membership in these organizations is coerced rather than voluntary as well. In addition to the characteristic of having nonvoluntary membership, coercive organizations also typically have high security measures in place in order to keep their membership from leaving (e.g., the guards and towers of the prison; the locked doors of the psychiatric ward). As mentioned above, coercive organizations are considered to be total institutions. In these institutions, the inmates are both cut off from the rest of society and forced to live under a strict set of rules.

Coercive organizations have two levels of membership: inmates and staff. Staff members join these organizations voluntarily, typically in order to earn a living. As a result, what is a coercive organization from the point of view of the inmate is a utilitarian organization from the point of view of the staff. In a coercive organization, the staff has complete power over the inmates, including all the affairs of everyday life such as eating and sleeping. Typically, coercive organizations are characterized by rigid routines and formal rules of behavior. In both examples of the correctional institution and the psychiatric ward, the organization mandates how the inmates dress, when they eat, when they go to sleep, and when they wake up. In such organizations, inmates completely give up the right to privacy and are subjected to various "degradation ceremonies" intended to either force the inmates to surrender their former identity, reinforce the power structure of the organization, or both.

The Goals & Success Rates of Coercive Organizations

Both prisons and psychiatric wards are designed in part to protect the community against potential danger. Increasingly, however, this goal is accompanied by another goal: the socialization of the inmates. Socialization is the process in which individuals learn to differentiate between what the society regards as acceptable versus unacceptable behavior and act in a manner that is appropriate for the needs of the society. Given the goal of socialization, one might expect to see a reduction in the number of coercive organizations and an increase in organizations that allow inmates to learn and demonstrate their social skills. However, coercive organizations continue to flourish. Thomas (1977) examined socialization within a coercive setting in order to better understand prisonization and its consequences. Using a survey research design that included both interviews and questionnaires, the study tested six hypotheses:

• The first of these was that the greater the similarity between the attitudes, values, and behavior from the pre-prison experience in the inmates' society, the greater the assimilation into the inmates' subculture.
• Second, it was hypothesized that the more the formal organization relied on coercion, the more alienated inmates would become from the organization.
• Third, it was hypothesized that the more positive extra-prison influences (e.g., contacts with larger society, self evaluations of post-release chances) experienced by the inmate, the less likely that the use of coercive power would result in alienation.
• Fourth, it was hypothesized that the greater the alienation experienced, the greater the assimilation into the inmate subculture.
• Fifth, it was hypothesized that the more pro-social and supportive an inmate's extra-prison influences were, the less likely the inmate was to be assimilated into the inmate subculture.
• Finally, it was hypothesized that the more an inmate was assimilated into the subculture, the less likely it was that the organization would meet its goal of resocializing the inmate.

Using interviews and questionnaires, the researcher collected data from the subjects (276 adult male felons from a single penal institution) regarding their feelings of powerlessness, post-prison expectations, normative assimilation, social role adaptation, criminal identification, and opposition to the legal system. The results of the study strongly supported the hypotheses and concomitant theoretical model. It was found that pre-prison, prison-specific, and extra-prison factors were directly linked with assimilation. Assimilation, in turn, was found to be directly linked with both the short and long-term consequences of confinement. Thomas concluded that the ways in which inmates adapt to incarceration are due in part to problems inherent to confinement in coercive prison settings, as well as due to a variety of other factors neither caused by the prison nor under its control. In addition, it was concluded that in maximum-security prisons that rely heavily on coercive power to control inmates, the inmate subculture will evolve in such a way to reduce the effectiveness of socialization attempts.

Applications

Investigating Behaviors within a Coercive Institution: The Stanford Prison Experiment

Why do inmates and staff members act the way that they do within coercive institutions? It would be easy to blame the behavior of inmates of a coercive organization on their own shortcomings or character flaws and the behavior on the part of the guards being reflective of the type of personality that is drawn to correctional work. However, there also may be something inherent in the nature of coercive organizations that causes their inmates to act the way that they do. A classic exploration of this hypothesis was performed at Stanford University by a team led by Philip Zimbardo in 1971.

The Research Subjects

The study was conducted using volunteers who were randomly assigned to be either guards or inmates in a simulation prison situation. To recruit subjects for the experiment, Zimbardo advertised in a local newspaper for male volunteers to participate in a study of the psychological effects of prison life. Before being selected to participate in the experiment, the applicants were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical problems, or a history of drug or alcohol abuse. This process reduced the number of applicants from 70 to 24. These individuals were considered to be healthy, intelligent, middle-class individuals who tested within normal parameters on all measures administered, not deviant in any way or showing proclivities toward the type of stereotyped behavior one might expect to occur in a prison setting. The 24 subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: prison guards and prisoners. In the beginning of the experiment, there were nine guards and nine prisoners. Subjects assigned to the role of guards worked in teams of three for eight-hour shifts, providing around-the-clock coverage of the "jail." Of the remaining subjects, nine were assigned to assume the role of prisoner, and the rest were placed on call in case they were needed. It is important to note that at the beginning of the experiment, there was no difference on any discernable factor between the individuals in the two groups. Before participating in the experiment, all subjects were required to sign an informed consent agreement which told the subjects to expect some harassment, violation of privacy and other civil rights, and a minimally adequate diet during the course of the two-week experiment.

The Experimental Procedure

Prisoners

Without notification to the subjects, the local police — who were confederates in the study — went to the homes of those who had been assigned to the prisoner group and arrested them. They were subjected to the full range of procedures and indignities typically associated with an arrest, including being charged, read their Miranda rights, spread-eagled on the police cruiser, searched, and handcuffed, often in front of their neighbors. The "prisoners" were taken to the local police station, formally booked, read their rights again, and fingerprinted. Subjects were then left blindfolded in a holding cell. The prisoners (still blindfolded) were then transported to the "Stanford County Jail," a simulation had been designed based on the inputs of several consultants, including one who had been incarcerated for nearly 17 years. A corridor in the basement of the Stanford University psychology building was boarded up at each end and the doors to some of the laboratory rooms were replaced with doors with steel bars and cell numbers. A closet approximately two-feet square (large enough for a prisoner to stand but not to sit) was converted into a cell to be used for solitary confinement. The simulation environment included neither windows nor clocks so that prisoners could not note the passage of time. Listening devices were concealed within the cells to record the prisoners' conversations and a hole in the wall at one end of the corridor was used to videotape the activities in the hall.

The activities in the simulated prison were designed to be similar to those experienced in a real prison situation. After arriving at the "jail," the "prisoners" were lectured by the "warden" (a confederate of the experimenters) about the fact that they would be receiving different treatment now that they were prisoners. The prisoners were then systematically searched and stripped naked, and subjected to a spray for the purported purpose of delousing. The prisoners then were given a smock with their prison identification number on the front and back as their sole piece of clothing. A chain was also padlocked around the foot of each prisoner. Although many of the activities in the simulated prison (e.g., the chain around the foot) are not done in real prisons, they were included in the simulation in order to increase the feeling of helplessness and oppression. During the course of the experiment, prisoners spent most of their time in the small cells that were barely large enough to hold three cots each.

Guards

Subjects who had been randomly assigned to the "guards" group were not given any training on how to treat the prisoners. However, the guards were warned of the dangerousness of their job. Within broad limits, they were allowed to do what they thought appropriate to maintain order and discipline in the "jail." They made up their own rules for the running of the jail under the supervision of the warden and were given uniforms and wore mirrored sunglasses. In addition, they carried Billy clubs and whistles.

The Effects

Prisoners

Following the arrests and indoctrination, subjects began the simulation of daily life in a prison setting. At first, the subjects did not take their assigned roles seriously and were very conscious of the fact that this was a simulation and that they were merely playing roles. The first in a series of confrontations between guards and prisoners occurred at 2:30 a.m. the first morning, when prisoners were awakened by blasting whistles and required to gather in the hall to be counted.

This began a series of events that resulted in increasingly polarized roles between the two groups. Things escalated to the point that on the second day, the prisoners rebelled. The on-call guards were called in to help force the prisoners back. The prisoners were then stripped and deprived of what little comfort they had. Harassment and intimidation against the prisoners escalated after this point. The guards developed a series of psychological tactics to maintain order and discipline among the prisoners including arbitrary and humiliating behavior. Within 36 hours of the start of the experiment, one of the prisoners began to "act crazy" and had to be released from the experiment. Later, another prisoner who had been feeling ill and had refused to eat, broke down, and became hysterical while talking to a priest (who had been brought in as a confederate) and the principal experimenter (in the role of prison "superintendent").

Guards

Over the course of the experiment, the guards developed three types of coping mechanisms. Some guards were tough but fair, and followed the prison rules. Other guards tried to be "good guys" who did not punish the prisoners and would do small favors for them. Still other guards were hostile, arbitrary, and very inventive in developing new ways to humiliate prisoners. It is important to note, however that these behaviors, had not been predicted by the initial personality tests that had been administered to each of the subjects. Prisoners coped with the powerless and frustration of their situation in a number of ways. Some attempted to rebel against the authority of the guards at first. Several prisoners broke down emotionally and one prisoner developed a psychosomatic rash over his entire body after learning that the "parole board" had denied his request for parole. Other subjects attempted to be model prisoners and do everything required of them by the guards. However, by the end of the experiment, the prisoners had disintegrated both individually and as a group, and the guards were in total control of the prison in this simulated coercive organization.

The Disturbing Results

Although it had been originally planned to conduct the experiment for two weeks, the changes in behavior in the participants and the negative impact of the study made the researchers stop the study after only six days. By that time, the "prisoners" had become withdrawn and depressed and had started to behave pathologically. In addition, some of the guards had started to behave sadistically and none of the other guards attempted to intervene. The study was terminated after videotapes showed the guards engaging in degrading and pornographic abuse of the prisoners late at night when they thought that the experimenters were not watching.

Conclusion

Coercive organizations are total institutions in which membership is typically forced rather than voluntary. Coercive organizations are also typically cut off from the rest of society and have high security measures in place in order to keep the inmates from leaving. Inmates are forced to live under a strict set of rules and rigid routines that regulate all the affairs of everyday life such as mandating how the inmates dress, when they eat, when they go to sleep, and when they wake up. Coercive organizations have two levels of membership: inmates and staff. The staff has complete power over the inmates. Inmates, on the other hand, are often forced to completely give up the right to privacy and are subjected to various "degradation ceremonies" intended to either force the inmates to surrender their former identity, reinforce the power structure of the organization, or both.

Terms & Concepts

Coercive Organization: An organization in which membership is typically forced rather than voluntary. Examples of coercive organizations include military boot camps and correctional institutions. Coercive organizations are a type of formal organization.

Confederate: A person who assists a researcher by pretending to be part of the experimental situation while actually only playing a rehearsed part meant to stimulate a response from the research subject.

Experiment: A situation under the control of a researcher in which an experimental condition (independent variable) is manipulated and the effect on the experimental subject (dependent variable) is measured. Most experiments are designed using the principles of the scientific method and are statistically analyzed to determine whether or not the results are statistically significant.

Formal Organization: A large, highly organized secondary group that is structured to efficiently accomplish one or more tasks and meet goals. Formal organizations may be classified into three categories: normative (voluntary), coercive, and utilitarian. One organization may function in multiple categories depending on one's position within the organizational structure.

Interview: In survey research, an interview is a data collection technique in which the researcher directs a conversation with the subject for the purpose of gathering specific information. Interviews can range from highly structured instruments (with questions that are specifically worded and administered in a prescribed order from which the interviewer may not deviate) to unstructured (in which interviewers only follow a general form and are allowed great latitude in what specific data are collected or what follow-up questions they are allowed to ask). Interviews can be carried out in person or over the telephone.

Normative Organization: An organization in which membership is voluntary and joined in order to pursue a common interest or to gain personal satisfaction or prestige. Examples of normative organizations include political parties, religious organizations, and sororities and fraternities. Normative organizations are a type of formal organization. (Also referred to as a voluntary organization)

Organization: A group of persons who are associated for a particular purpose into an orderly, functional, structured social entity.

Secondary Group: A group of people who typically do not interact on a personal level and whose relationships are temporary rather than long-lasting. Secondary groups are typically established to perform functions and the roles within the group may be interchangeable to some extent.

Socialization: The process by which individuals learn to differentiate between what the society regards as acceptable versus unacceptable behavior and act in a manner that is appropriate for the needs of the society.

Social Role: A set of expectations placed on members of a group of people with a given social position or status within society.

Society: A distinct group of people who live within the same territory, share a common culture and way of life, and are relatively independent from people outside the group. Society includes systems of social interactions that govern both culture and social organization.

Subject: A participant in a research study or experiment whose responses are observed, recorded, and analyzed.

Survey Research: A type of research in which data about the opinions, attitudes, or reactions of the members of a sample are gathered using a survey instrument. The phases of survey research are goal setting, planning, implementation, evaluation, and feedback. As opposed to experimental research, survey research does not allow for the manipulation of an independent variable.

Total Institution: An organization that is cut off from the rest of society, employs strict routines, and has two populations: inmates (who are subject to strict social control) and staff (who enforce the rules). Examples of total institutions include correctional institutions and some mental hospitals.

Utilitarian Organization: An organization that is voluntarily joined in order to gain a material reward. Utilitarian organizations are large and may be nonprofit or for-profit. Examples of utilitarian organizations include universities and business organizations. Utilitarian organizations are a type of formal organization.

Bibliography

Andersen, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2002). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2012). Inmate misconduct and the institutional capacity for control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 270–288.

Hepburn, J. R. (1985). The exercise of power in coercive organizations: A study of prison guards. Criminology, 23, 145–164. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17060215&site=ehost-live

Schnittker, J., & Massoglia, M. (2011). Social psychological concepts for understanding the long-term effects of incarceration. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, 1801. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85659329

Thomas, C. W. (1977). Prisonization and its consequences: An examination of socialization in a coercive setting. Sociological Focus, 10, 53–68. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11645960&site=ehost-live

Zimbardo, P. (2009[1971]). The Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved March 18, 2002 from: www.prisonexp.org.

Suggested Reading

Chamberlain, A. (2012). Offender rehabilitation: Examining changes in inmate treatment characteristics, program participation, and institutional behavior. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 29, 183–228. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71860145

Hyman, J. M. (1977). Alienation and prisonization. Criminology, 15, 263–265. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18528393&site=ehost-live

Useem, B., & Kimball, P. A. (1987). A theory of prison riots. Theory and Society, 16, 84–120. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10755595&site=ehost-live