class2

What is your general opinion about the author's research findings? 

This research was done in 1966, do you think its findings still apply today?

What is your opinion about the methodology used to conduct this research?

How would you improve on the author's research?

A substantial amount of policing research has focused on the behavior of police officers. Beginning in the 1960s, researchers started to examine various types of police conduct (both proper and improper) and decision-making. One of the earliest observations was that the attitudes and behaviors of police officers were different from other citizens. Two competing perspectives have been offered to explain these differences. According to the first perspective, policing as an occupation attracts individuals with particular attitudes, characteristics, and beliefs. Any observed differences between the police and general public are due to personality traits that existed before the individual became a police officer. Others believe that the differences are attributed to the unique characteristics of the police occupation itself. Individuals become socialized into a profession and through their work experiences develop cer-tain characteristic attitudes and traits. This socialization includes both formal and informal processes. Formal socialization consists of the recruitment, selection, and training of police, while the informal processes include the interactions between new recruits and more experienced officers (Roberg et al. 2011). The three studies included in this section each support the socialization perspective and have significantly advanced our understanding of police behavior. In 1966, Jerome Skolnick offered insight into how the occupational environment shaped the “working personality” of police. James Q. Wilson (1968) created the first typology of police behavior by examining the different functions of police in our society. Finally, John Van Maanen (1973) explored the early socialization of police by conducting an observational study of recruits as they entered their profession. Police PeRsonality: aRe Police officeRs DiffeRent fRom the Rest of Us? Skolnick, J. (1966). Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. New York: Wiley. Background One of the inherent conflicts in our criminal justice system is the attempt to maintain social order within the limits proscribed by law. It is in this context that the police are expected to perform their duties as law enforcement officers and peacekeepers. We authorize the police to stop and question citizens on the street nd in their cars, to conduct searches of their person and property, and to take them into custody. In each of these situations, the police are infringing upon an individual’s freedom and liberty. While this infringement may be permissible, the police are required to follow certain procedures designed to protect an individual’s constitutional rights. This apparent contradiction was noted by Herbert Goldstein in 1977 when he wrote, “The police, by the very nature of their function, are an anomaly in a free society” (p. 1). In the early 1960s, the courts took a more active role in examin-ing police behavior in response to concerns that the police were overstepping their authority and abusing their power. The US Supreme Court redefined the police function in our society during the due process revolution (1953–1969) by handing down several rulings that favored the rights of individuals over the tactics traditionally used by police to fight crime. In 1966, sociologist Jerome Skolnick published an empirical assessment of the conflict between law and order based on his observations of the daily activities of police officers. The police were faced with organizational pressures to enforce the law, yet there were procedural restraints that interfered with this objective. Skolnick believed that police developed their patterns of behavior within this context. the study Data for the study were derived from Skolnick’s (1966) observations of police officers employed in a medium-sized police department located in California. The department consisted of 616 police officers that served the city of Westville (a fictitious name to keep the identity of the department confidential). Westville’s population was around 400,000 with a 30 percent nonwhite popula-tion. The department was well respected and maintained a good reputation in the community. Skolnick also collected data from Eastville—a comparison city (also fictitiously named) of the same size and with similar demographics. There were, however, a few important differences between the police departments. Eastville spent more money on its police services than Westville, but Westville officers were paid higher salaries and had better benefits. Both departments had experienced recent decreases in the number of officers but the decline was more dramatic in Westville. The departments also differed in their organizational structure. Administration was much more centralized in Westville. The entire police force was contained in one building and functioned under the authority of a single police chief. In Eastville, officers were divided among five precincts, each with its own police captain. Gaining access to the police department turned out to be an easy task. Permission was obtained from a gatekeeper. In observational or ethnographic research, a gatekeeper has the authority to grant access for a researcher. For this study, the gatekeeper was the Westville police chief. The chief welcomed the opportunity to participate in the study. He was proud of his depart-ment’s accomplishments over the past decade. The department had previously been known as “tainted,” but now had a reputation of being well organized and trustworthy. The chief assigned one Lieutenant Doyle to assist with the introductions and to help familiarize Skolnick with the department. The first observations took place with the patrol division. These officers patrolled in one-officer vehicles and held one of three ranks: patrolman, sergeant, or supervising detec-tive. Skolnick observed officers for a total of eight shifts. The observations took place mostly on the weekends and all were during the second shift (7:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.). The objective of the study was to gain firsthand knowledge of the police officers’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Skolnick also interviewed each of the officers he rode with. Interviews are sometimes used to supplement information collected through direct observation. Using an unstructured interview format, Skolnick questioned the officers’ about their actions, encounters with the public, and their attitudes and perceptions about work and home life. In addition to observing patrol officers, Skolnick also spent about a week with officers from the traffic division and 6 weeks with the vice squad. The detectives working vice were espe-cially accommodating. Skolnick was allowed to observe interrogations and conversations with informants. Detectives would even call him at home when an important development in a case occurred. Skolnick’s role as observer turned into that of participant-observer on more than one occasion. As a participant-observer, Skolnick became an active participant in the daily activi-ties of the police. He accompanied officers on “raids” and was even mistaken for a detective by suspects and officers from neighboring police departments. He also provided assistance to the officers by helping them locate suspects or by gaining access to a private location. Skolnick also administered a survey to the police officers working for the Westville Police Department. Surveys are ideal for gathering information not subject to direct observation, such as officers’ attitudes and opinions. The questionnaire was distributed to patrol officers during their “pre-duty briefing.” The detectives were called to a special meeting and asked to complete the questionnaire. A total of 285 policemen answered the survey. Questions were asked about the offi-cers’ demographic characteristics, family backgrounds, job satisfaction, attitudes, and beliefs. Most of the responses came from officers who had been working for the department for 9 years or more. Ninety-four percent of the officers had graduated from high school and 45 percent had some col-lege education. Most of the officers were married and considered themselves to be middle-class. There are several ethical considerations that arise when a researcher becomes a participant in the activities of the individuals under observation. Skolnick addressed these concerns in his book. First, there was a concern that Skolnick’s participation might somehow influence the outcome of the encounters between police and suspects. For example, the police might have responded more harshly with suspects in an attempt to impress an observer with their authority, or (conversely) the police might have been more laid back and informal. During the study period, there were times when a detective would ask Skolnick for his opinion on information received from an informant. Skolnick offered his opinions and justified doing so on the grounds that detectives regularly solicit advice from their partners and offering a second opinion might have been beneficial to the detec-tive. He also signed confessions as a witness for the detectives. The suspects Skolnick encountered during the study naturally assumed he was a detective and they were never informed otherwise. The suspects never gave their consent to be studied, which violates one of the ethical principles of research. When a researcher becomes a participant-observer, one of the difficult decisions to make is how much to become involved in the activities of those being observed. Skolnick relied on his own professional and moral judgment in making that decision. He did not believe that his partici-pation resulted in any unfair or differential treatment of the suspects by the police. Skolnick’s role as a researcher and the purpose of the study were never kept secret from the participating officers. Skolnick was reporting on their activities, but some of these activities were illegal and could have had adverse consequences for the officers involved. Researchers have an obligation to make sure that their study does not inflict harm upon the participants. In his report-ing, Skolnick protected the officers’ confidentiality by never revealing their names (just as he kept the names of the departments confidential). Skolnick also solicited feedback from the officers before publishing his findings. For the most part, the study participants indicated that Skolnick’s description and assessment of their behavior was fair and accurate. conclusions Based on his observations of police officers at work (particularly their enforcement patterns) and the officers’ responses to his survey, Skolnick offered a description of the police officers’ “working personality.” There were certain characteristics of police work that influenced how the police did their job that could be observed in their interactions with the public. The charac-teristics that shaped the “working personality” included danger and authority. The police were continually aware of the potential danger in their associations with violent suspects and law-breakers. This awareness caused the police to act in a manner that was “suspicious.” The police were trained to be on constant lookout for suspicious activity. Individuals outside of the policing occupation perceived the police as apprehensive and always on guard. These traits assisted the police in identifying probable threats of danger while on duty; however, they isolated the police from the general public. Police tended to use this “perceptual shorthand” in identifying poten-tial sources of danger. Prior experience and the socialization they received from other officers equipped them with “danger cues.” Police were frequently put into situations where they had to make quick assessments of danger so they relied upon cues that were readily available, such as a citizen’s demeanor, mannerisms, language, dress, and appearance. Citizens became “symbolic assailants” to the police regardless of their actual potential for violence or even past violent behav-ior. Interestingly enough, when questioned about the dangers of police work, most officers deem-phasized their risk of being injured or killed in the line of duty, and many expressed a preference for dangerous assignments. One-half of the police officers surveyed indicated that their ideal job assignment within the department was that of detective. The police are given the authority to enforce laws including those that the public does not necessarily want enforced (e.g., speeding and public drinking). According to Skolnick, in these situations the public often refused to acknowledge the officers’ authority and pressured the police to focus their attention instead on dangerous threats. The public expected the police to enforce the laws but challenged their authority to do so when those laws were enforced against them. This situation further isolated the police from the public. The police were acutely aware of the distance between them and the communities in which they worked. When asked what the most serious problem facing the police was, most officers indicated a problem with public relations (i.e., the publics’ disrespect of police, mistrust, and lack of cooperation and understand-ing). Nearly three-fourths of the police officers responded that the public ranked the status of the police as “fair” or “poor.” The police felt rejected, alienated, and taken for granted by the very people they were trying to serve. Skolnick observed a high level of solidarity among police officers. Coworkers in all occupa-tions tend to be united by their common work experiences and problems, but for police officers this solidarity was much more intensified. The loyalty among fellow police officers is referred to as the “blue wall” or “thin blue line.” Police officers spent more time engaged in social activities with other police officers. Over half of the officers surveyed had participated in three or more police social functions during the past year. The characteristic traits of danger and authority rein-forced this solidarity. The public failed to appreciate the daily risks of being a police officer, and only the police understood the dangers of their work. There was also an unwillingness of the public to assist the police in their law enforcement duties, leaving the police to rely only on each other for support. Efforts to enforce minor law violations (i.e., traffic laws) were frequently met with resistance and resentment by the public. The police were often required to meet organiza-tional demands of performance that tended to result in more aggressive law enforcement tactics. Skolnick used the example of departments setting quotas for traffic citations. While some police preferred to issue warnings to speeders, they were faced with pressures to conform to department standards that required them to write tickets. In addition, the police found themselves enforcing laws that they themselves had broken, such as speeding and public intoxication. The police were aware of this hypocrisy as were the citizens accused of these offenses. This situation generated a considerable amount of public criticism of the police. As a result, police solidarity increased as the police sought approval and acceptance from other officers. In his interviews with police officers, Skolnick discovered that most officers were conservative in their beliefs and political ideologies. He attributed these beliefs to their suspicious personalities. Police found comfort in maintaining the status quo and aligned themselves with conventional values and norms. Skolnick examined several instances of discretionary justice during his observations. Police were charged with enforcing the law but used discretion to determine which laws were enforced and against whom. The organizational pressures to be efficient and productive influenced the officers’ use of discretion. Officers used the threat of an arrest to gather information on sus-pects, informants were rewarded with reduced or dropped charges, and suspects were often pressured into confessing to multiple crimes only to have most of them subsequently dismissed. What mattered to the department was that the police maintained adequate clearance rates, which were determined by the number of arrests (not convictions). Skolnick also witnessed the police using their discretion in ways that had adverse effects on minorities. Most of the officers openly expressed their dislike of blacks although very few believed that their attitudes resulted in dis-parate treatment. It was noted that the negative attitudes of police officers were similar to those articulated by other whites in the community. Skolnick pointed out that the biased treatment of blacks also stemmed from factors other than race. For example, Skolnick observed that traffic police were more likely to arrest drivers with outstanding warrants who were on welfare. The police perceived these suspects as “bad risks,” yet a large proportion of welfare recipients were black, resulting in harsher treatment for black suspects. criticisms Skolnick provided one of the first empirical analyses of police behavior. He observed and sur-veyed police officers from two California police departments. One of the major limitations of his research is the generalizability of his findings to police in other jurisdictions. Most of the data came from Westville, a police department described as more efficient and professional than most departments in the United States. The department also enjoyed a high amount of public trust and confidence after cleaning up the corruption that was prevalent a decade before. Skolnick spent two weeks collecting data from the comparison city of Eastville but because of time con-straints and limited resources he was not able to provide a complete case study of this department (Skolnick 1966). Skolnick based most of his conclusions on his observations and surveys of police detectives, a group he credits with having the greatest responsibility for law enforcement. He minimized the patrol function and described patrol officers as “peace” officers. Patrol officers play an important role when it comes to maintaining order within the community, however. In some neighborhoods the police spend more time maintaining order than enforcing the law, so the work of a patrol officer is significant to understanding how the police function in our society (Bordua 1967). Skolnick’s observations were made at a time when most people believed that detectives were primarily responsible for solving crimes. This assumption would be refuted several years later. Roger Hood (1967) took issue with the validity of Skolnick’s findings that were based upon observations of police behavior. One of the major concerns with observational research is that the presence of an observer can influence the behavior of the study participants. Hood believed this to be true in Skolnick’s study, particularly when he reported witnessing only one incident of police violence. This is a criticism of several observational studies of the police (Spano 2005). In addition, the findings were based upon the observations of a single observer. Having only one observer limited the number of subjects and settings selected for observation. Using multiple observers not only increases the number of observations, but it allows the researcher to identify any observer bias (Reiss 1971). Observer bias is the tendency of an observer to pay too much attention to expected behaviors and not enough attention to those not perceived as relevant to the study. Skolnick believed that the behavior of the police was shaped primarily by their occupa-tional experiences. Police officers were socialized in their occupations in similar ways. The ele-ments of “danger” and “authority” influenced the interactions between the police and the public. Organizational pressures to issue tickets and make arrests influenced police decision-making. An alternative explanation for police behavior suggests that the characteristics, values, and opinions officers bring with them to their jobs are better predictors of behavior. Police work may attract certain types of people whose behaviors are more a product of their general personality, not of any “working personality” formed on the job. A study of experienced police officers working for the Denver, Colorado Police Department revealed that officers were actually less authoritar-ian than a control sample of individuals outside of police work (Bayley and Mendelsohn 1969). Research by Milton Rokeach, Martin Miller, and John Snyder (1971) supported this perspec-tive. They administered the Rokeach Value Survey (a well-known value classification system developed by psychologist Milton Rokeach) to 153 white male police officers who worked for a medium-sized midwestern police department in 1968. The same survey instrument was admin-istered to a group of American citizens aged 21 and older by the National Opinion Research Center. A total of 561 white male citizens and 93 black male citizens completed the survey con-sisting of questions assessing end goals, terminal values, and instrumental values. The values held by police officers were similar to several end values held by the general public (e.g., fam-ily security and freedom). No significant differences were found between the police and the public on half of the terminal values (e.g., comfortable life, pleasure, self-respect) or on 6 of the 18 instrumental values (e.g., courageous, loving, polite). To determine the source of any differ-ences between the groups, researchers matched the sample of police officers with members of the general public on characteristics such as age and education. Matching is a technique used when a researcher is unable to randomly assign cases to experimental and control groups. The procedure helps to control for preexisting differences between cases that may influence the results of a study. A comparison of values among the matched sample revealed that police differed from the general public on eight values. In addition, the values held by older police officers were similar to those held by younger officers. According to Rokeach et al. (1971), these findings suggested that social backgrounds and preexisting personality traits were better predictors of police behavior than on-the-job socialization of officers. significance and subsequent Research Justice Without Trial was one of the first comprehensive studies of police behavior, and its con-tents remain relevant to our understanding of police behaviors today. Skolnick’s book remains the second most highly cited work in the policing literature (Wright and Miller 1998). His descrip-tion of the “working personality” provides valuable insight into the daily activities of police. Skolnick believed that the occupational elements of danger and authority influence the encoun-ters between the police and the public. Jonathan Rubinstein (1973) provided a description of police work consistent with Skolnick. Based on his observations of the police in Philadelphia, Rubinstein reported that officers were taught to be suspicious as part of their academy training, but the on-the-job socialization provided officers with the knowledge to identify potential sources of danger. Subsequent research offered support for the contention that police officers developed certain personality characteristics as a result of their experiences on the street. Arthur Niederhoffer (1967) found that police officers were also cynical. He developed a 20-item scale to measure levels of cynicism among police and administered the instrument to over 200 New York City police officers. Results showed a curvilinear relationship between degree of cynicism and years of experience. Cynicism was lowest among police recruits, progressively increased for offi-cers until about year 10, and then declined with additional years of service. Despite the decline in cynicism for officers with considerable experience, levels never fell back to those of police recruits. William Westley (1970) identified an additional personality trait based on his observa-tions of police officers in Gary, Indiana. Westley found that police officers were secretive about their daily activities primarily because of their perception that the public did not support them. Police experienced feelings of alienation and believed that the public could not be trusted. Suspicion is an integral part of police work. Police are trained to be on constant lookout for suspicious activity. While the public may perceive this to be an unfavorable personality trait, it helps the police to identify possible sources of danger. The courts have also recognized the legiti-macy of police suspicion. In the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio (1968), the US Supreme Court upheld the stop and frisk of a suspect based on the “reasonable suspicion” of the officer. This decision was reaffirmed in the 1989 case of U.S. v. Sokolow and with the Court’s decision in U.S. v. Arvizu (2002). In Arvizu, the Court ruled that permitting an officer to use reasonable suspicion to stop a person or vehicle “ . . . allows officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available” (U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 2002). Skolnick’s concept of the “symbolic assailant” becomes particularly relevant in light of recent discussions of racial profiling by police. Skolnick believed that certain citizens became “symbolic assailants” and were perceived as dangerous to the police based on little or no information as to their actual potential for violence. According to Skolnick, “The patrolman in Westville, and prob-ably most communities, has come to identify the black man with danger” (p. 49). Furthermore, most of the officers studied expressed negative attitudes toward blacks in their community (Skolnick 1966). Little appears to have changed 40 years later. In a recent article, Delores Jones–Brown (2007) wrote “ . . . the police are conditioned to suspect blacks, and black males in par-ticular, of wrong-doing even in the absence of actual criminality” (p. 103). Gregory Alpert, John MacDonald, and Roger Dunham (2005) observed police officers in Savannah, Georgia in an effort to understand how officers form their suspicions. Over an 8-month period, observers recorded officers forming suspicions a total of 174 times. Suspicions were categorized by researchers as “behavioral” or “nonbehavioral.” When the police became suspicious because of some specific action by a citizen, the suspicion was considered behavioral. Nonbehavioral suspicion was based on an “ . . . individual’s appearance, the time and place, and descriptive information provided to an officer” (p. 419). The results showed that police were four times more likely to form “nonbe-havioral” suspicions of black suspects compared to white suspects. The practice of stopping and frisking suspects based upon reasonable suspicion has become a matter of routine police strategy for some departments and has brought criticism from civil liberties groups who believe the police unfairly target minorities with this approach. The most common police–citizen interaction involves traffic stops. As part of a large-scale study of racial profiling carried out in conjunction with the Miami–Dade County Police Department, Michael Smith, Matthew Makarios, and Geoffrey Alpert (2006) examined police sus-picion in the context of traffic stops. Between April and October 2001, patrol officers were required to fill out a citizen contact card for every traffic stop. Over 66,000 cards were completed that included information on reasons for the stop as well as suspects’ demographics. Researchers found police to be more suspicious of black motorists. In addition, the police were more suspi-cious of male drivers and drivers of older vehicles. The police were also more suspicious during nighttime hours. Evidence of disparate treatment by police results in negative attitudes by citizens toward the police, particularly among minority groups. Christopher Huggins (2010) analyzed over 6,000 citizen reports of traffic stop interactions with the police and found that blacks are more likely to report improper police behavior compared to white citizens. Skolnick’s analysis of police behavior helped generate considerable interest among scholars in explaining the manners and customs of police officers. Understanding the underlying influences on police behavior has significantly improved our knowledge of the police function in our society. The policing litera-ture today contains a wealth of information identifying the various individual, situational, orga-nizational, and neighborhood influences on police behaviors. This field of study has benefited from several different academic disciplines including sociology, political science, geography, and psychology. References Alpert, G., J. MacDonald, and R. Dunham (2005). “Police Suspicion and Discretionary Decision Making During Citizen Stops.” Criminology 43:407–34. Bayley, D., and H. Mendelsohn (1969). Minorities and the Police. New York: Free Press. Bordua, D. (1967). “Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society, Book Review.” American Sociological Review 32:492–93. Goldstein, H. (1977). Policing a Free Society. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Hood, R. (1967). “Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society, Book Review.” British Journal of Sociology 18:109–10. Huggins, C. (2012). “Traffic Stop Encounters: Officer and Citizen Race and Perceptions of Police Propriety.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 37:92–10. Jones-Brown, D. (2007). “Forever the Symbolic Assailant: The More Things Change, The More They Remain the Same.” Criminology and Public Policy 6:103–22. Niederhoffer, A. (1967). Behind the Shield. New York: Doubleday. Roberg, R., K. Novak, G. Cordner, and B. Smith (2011). Police and Society (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Rokeach, M., M. Miller, and J. Snyder (1971). “The Value Gap Between Police and Policed.” Journal ofSocial Issues 27:155–71. Rubinstein, J. (1973). City Police. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Smith, M., M. Makarios, and G. Alpert (2006). “Differential Suspicion and Gender Effects in the Traffic Stop Context.” Justice Quarterly 23:271–95. Spano, R. (2005). “Potential Sources of Observer Bias in Police Observational Data.” Social Science Research 34:591–617. Westley, W. (1970). Violence and the Police. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wright, R., and J. Miller (1998). “The Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Police Studies.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 21:240–54.