Discussion 1 308

DATE DOWNLOADED: Tue May 25 15:43:48 2021 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:

Bluebook 21st ed. Christopher M. Donner, Lorie A. Fridell & Wesley G. Jennings, The Relationship between Self-Control and Police Misconduct: A Multi-Agency Study of First-Line Police Supervisors, 43 CRIM. Just. & BEHAVIOR 841 (2016).

ALWD 6th ed. Donner, C. M.; Fridell, L. A.; Jennings, W. G., The relationship between self-control and police misconduct: A multi-agency study of first-line police supervisors, 43(7) Crim. Just. & Behavior 841 (2016).

APA 7th ed. Donner, C. M., Fridell, L. A., & Jennings, W. G. (2016). The relationship between self-control and police misconduct: multi-agency study of first-line police supervisors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(7), 841-862.

Chicago 17th ed. Christopher M. Donner; Lorie A. Fridell; Wesley G. Jennings, "The Relationship between Self-Control and Police Misconduct: A Multi-Agency Study of First-Line Police Supervisors," Criminal Justice and Behavior 43, no. 7 (July 2016): 841-862

McGill Guide 9th ed. Christopher M Donner, Lorie A Fridell & Wesley G Jennings, "The Relationship between Self-Control and Police Misconduct: A Multi-Agency Study of First-Line Police Supervisors" (2016) 43:7 Crim Just & Behavior 841.

AGLC 4th ed. Christopher M Donner, Lorie A Fridell and Wesley G Jennings, 'The Relationship between Self-Control and Police Misconduct: A Multi-Agency Study of First-Line Police Supervisors' (2016) 43(7) Criminal Justice and Behavior 841.

MLA 8th ed. Donner, Christopher M., et al. "The Relationship between Self-Control and Police Misconduct: A Multi-Agency Study of First-Line Police Supervisors." Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 43, no. 7, July 2016, p. 841-862. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed. Christopher M Donner and Lorie A Fridell and Wesley G Jennings, 'The Relationship between Self-Control and Police Misconduct: A Multi-Agency Study of First-Line Police Supervisors' (2016) 43 Crim Just & Behavior 841

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at

https://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:

Copyright Information

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT

A Multi-Agency Study of First-Line Police Supervisors

CHRISTOPHER M. DONNER Loyola University Chicago

LORIE A. FRIDELL

WESLEY G. JENNINGS University ofSouth Florida

Prior research has identified several individual, organizational, and community-level correlates of police misconduct, but

studies based on theoretical explanations have only recently emerged in the literature. The purpose of the current study was

to examine the potential relationship between self-control and police misconduct using both Gottfredson and Hirschi's

original version of self-control theory and Hirschi's revised version of the theory. Data from a multi-agency sample of 101 first-line police supervisors demonstrated that self-control, as measured by both conceptualizations of the theory, was sig-

nificantly related to self-reported prior engagement in police misconduct as well as the likelihood of future misconduct. The

results are discussed in terms of theoretical and policy implications, as well as in terms of study limitations and directions for

future research.

Keywords: self-control; police misconduct; policing; police discretion; control theory

By societal mandate, the police are responsible for enforcing laws and maintaining pub-

lic order. Moreover, they are entrusted to carry out those functions in accordance with policy and law. However, not all police personnel abide by the rules; thus, it is important to investigate why some police officers engage in various forms of occupational deviance or abuse of their authority, so that useful strategies can be developed and implemented to reduce police misconduct. Early police behavior studies (e.g., Black & Reiss, 1970;

AUTHORS' NOTE: This work was performed under a subcontract to the University of South Florida from the University ofIllinois at Chicago and made possible by Grant 2008-DN-BX-0005 from the National Institute of Justice. Contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Justice. The authors would like to express their appreciation to Ojmarrh Mitchell

and Max Bromley for their earlier contributions to this research, and to the three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This version has been considerably improved because of their efforts. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher M Donner Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Loyola University Chicago, 820 N. Michigan Ave., LT 926, Chicago, IL 60611; e-mail: [email protected].

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEIAVIOR, 2016, Vol. 43, No. 7, July 2016, 841-862.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854815626751

© 2016 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

841

842 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Sherman, 1980), as well as more recent research (e.g., Kane & White, 2009; Lersch & Kunzman, 2001; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011) identify a number of individual and organiza- tional correlates of police misconduct. The findings from this line of research help police administrators create and implement policies to deal with problem officers, reduce the prev- alence of misconduct, and build or rebuild police-community relations. Although these studies have improved the knowledge base in policing research, large gaps remain in our understanding of police deviance. According to Wolfe and Piquero (2011), one important deficiency of the police misconduct literature is the largely atheoretical nature of this schol- arship. Although some recent research has begun to close this gap (e.g., Chappell & Piquero, 2004; Donner & Jennings, 2014; Kane, 2002; Pogarsky & Piquero, 2004), the relationship between self-control and police misconduct remains an under-studied topic in the larger criminological literature.

The concept of self-control was introduced in Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) general theory of crime. Their theory has received a great deal of theoretical and empirical scrutiny, and research, for the most part, has provided support for the link between low self-control and deviance (e.g., Pratt & Cullen, 2000). In 2004, Hirschi reconceptualized self-control theory by broadening the definition of self-control and suggesting the utilization of social bond elements as a measurement strategy. Empirical examinations of the revised theory have also demonstrated general support for the relationship between self-control and anti- social behavior (e.g., Brown & Jennings, 2014; Higgins, Wolfe, & Marcum, 2008; Intravia, Jones, & Piquero, 2012; Morris, Gerber, & Menard, 2011). Both versions of the theory are "general" in the sense that they purport to explain all forms of antisocial behavior for all populations. Thus, both theoretical conceptualizations should be able to predict occupa- tional misconduct among police personnel.

The current study adds important contributions to both the policing and self-control lit- eratures in several ways. First, this study builds on previous police misconduct research by further exploring the direct relationship between self-control and police misconduct because the one previous examination (Donner & Jennings, 2014) only considered the original ver- sion of self-control theory. Second, this study adds to the misconduct literature by measur- ing police deviance with self-report methodology. Although many studies have measured police misconduct with official records (e.g., Donner & Jennings, 2014; Kane & White, 2009; Lersch & Kunzman, 2001), with peer-report measures (e.g., Martin, 1994; Son & Rome, 2004), and with perceptions of misconduct seriousness (e.g., Klockars, Ivkovic, Harver, & Haberfeld, 1997; Vito, Wolfe, Higgins, & Walsh, 2011), very few studies have directly asked police personnel to report their own deviant behavior.' Third, this is first study to empirically examine Hirschi's (2004) revised theory within the general context of occupational deviance and within the specific context of police misconduct. Fourth, while almost all of the previous police misconduct research has explored the topic utilizing a single-agency sample of police officers, the current study adds to the body of knowledge by exploring the topic among a multi-agency sample of first-line police supervisors.

In the several decades since Travis Hirschi (1969) wrote Causes of Delinquency, in which he outlined a social control theory of crime, Hirschi has devoted much of his atten- tion to creating (and revising) a theory of general deviance based on one's level of self- control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 2004). The following section presents a review of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) original self-control theory, and Hirschi's (2004) revision of self-control theory.

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 843

SELF-CONTROL THEORY

Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) general theory of crime utilizes the concept of self- control as a way of explaining all types of antisocial behaviors. They suggest that crime does not require any special motivation, and that it is simply an expression of one's natural predisposition to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Gottfredson and Hirschi further contend that although those with low self-control can easily recognize the immediate benefits of criminal and deviant behavior, they have substantial difficulty calculating the potential long-term costs. Because those with low self-control fail to fully appreciate the long-term costs of their behavior, they are more likely to engage in criminal or deviant acts when pre- sented with an opportunity to do so.

Specifically, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that those lacking self-control act impulsively, prefer simple tasks over complex ones, have a proclivity for risk-seeking activ- ities, prefer physical tasks over mental tasks, are self-centered, and easily lose their temper. Moreover, they suggest that, once developed, self-control remains relatively stable through- out life and that the socialization to form self-control must take place by late childhood. The general theory of crime has received considerable attention since its inception, and empiri- cal research has generally supported the relationship between low self-control and crime and analogous deviant behaviors (e.g., Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993; Higgins, 2004; Jones & Quisenberry, 2004; Pratt & Cullen, 2000).

To address some of the concerns regarding the conceptualization and measurement of self-control, Hirschi (2004) proposed a revised version of self-control theory. In his recon- ceptualization, Hirschi (2004) redefined self-control, not as the tendency to consider the long-term costs of a behavior, but as the tendency to consider the full range of potential costs of a behavior. The new definition retains a focus on one's ability to calculate the likely costs of their actions, but it acknowledges that a larger range of factors exists, which influ- ences one's decision-making. This reconceptualization suggests that self-control refers to an internal set of inhibitions, which are the factors that individuals think about when they are contemplating whether or not to engage in deviant behavior.

Hirschi (2004) argued that inhibitions are best described in the elements of the social bond because " . . . social control and self-control are the same thing" (p. 543). Borrowing from his earlier social control theory, Hirschi (2004) argued that the elements of the bond create an internal value system, which guides one's behavior. He postulates that social bonds (e.g., attachment, commitment) are the central inhibitors one considers before engag- ing in antisocial behavior, and the inhibitors, in turn, influence the cognitive evaluation of all potential costs to committing a deviant act. Furthermore, Hirschi (2004) contended that these inhibitions (i.e., potential costs) can vary in both their number and salience: The more pro-social bonds one has, as well as the importance/strength one ascribes to those bonds, the greater weight one will place on all costs (both immediate and long-term) of offending.

Similar to the original version of the theory, the revised theory has also faced empirical scrutiny and the findings have generally been supportive (e.g., Bouffard & Rice, 2011; Brown & Jennings, 2014; Higgins, Wolfe, & Marcum, 2008; Hirschi, 2004; Intravia et al., 2012; Jones, Lynam, & Piquero, 2015; Morris et al., 2011; Piquero & Bouffard, 2007; Rocque, Posick, & Zimmerman, 2013). Although this body of research has not examined deviance in the workplace, the empirically supported generality hypothesis of self-control theory suggests that low self-control is predictive of all forms of crime and antisocial

844 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

behavior (e.g., Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Therefore, it stands to reason that police supervisors' awareness of the potential consequences of their behavior coupled with a desire to preserve their social bonds could have a significant impact on their willingness to engage in occupa- tional misconduct. The next section briefly reviews the topic of police misconduct.

POLICE MISCONDUCT

Police misconduct is a complex phenomenon. The law acts as a constraint on human behavior, and that constraint also applies to those who enforce the law. Thus, it is somewhat ironic that police officers sometimes act outside of the law and, by doing do, abuse the trust that society has bestowed upon them. Police misconduct is a general term, which encom- passes the violation of legislatively enacted laws and/or departmental policies. Champion (2001), for example, defined police misconduct as " . . . any inappropriate behavior on the part of any law enforcement officer that is either illegal or immoral or both" (p. 2). Similarly, Barker and Carter (1986) conceptualized police misconduct as "a generic description of police officer activities which are inconsistent with the officers' legal authority, organiza- tional authority, and standards of ethical conduct" (pp. 1-2). Examples of deviance/miscon- duct include, but are not limited to the following: accessing police records for personal use, abusing sick leave, lying to supervisors, perjuring on reports and in court, falsifying over- time reports, using excessive force, accepting bribes or gratuities, failing to report miscon- duct of a fellow officer, violating traffic laws when no emergency exists, and sleeping while on duty. The consequences of such behaviors reach far beyond the individual police officer as research demonstrates that acts of police deviance can result in the loss of confidence in, and legitimacy of, the police organization (e.g., Goldsmith, 2005; Lersch, 2002).

Beginning with some of the early police behavior studies (Black & Reiss, 1970; Reiss, 1971; Sherman, 1980), a large body of research has since identified numerous individual and organizational correlates of police misconduct. These factors include, but are not lim- ited to, age (Fyfe & Kane, 2005), gender (Brandl, Stroshine, & Frank, 2001), race (Kane & White, 2009), education (Lersch & Kunzman, 2001), length of service (Donner & Jennings, 2014), prior employment problems (Kane & White, 2009), personality (Girodo, 1991), recruitment and selection processes (Sechrest & Bums, 1992), and police culture (Weisburd, Greenspan, Hamilton, Williams, & Bryant, 2000).

Only in the last 10 years or so, has research been conducted on police misconduct using criminological theory. Nevertheless, important strides have been made in this literature, including the examination of police misconduct utilizing several criminological theories, such as social learning theory (Chappell & Piquero, 2004), strain theory (Arter, 2007), con- trol balance theory (Hickman, Piquero, Lawton, & Greene, 2001), social disorganization theory (Kane, 2002), deterrence theory (Pogarsky & Piquero, 2004), and self-control theory (Donner & Jennings, 2014). Although prior research has assessed personality correlates of police misconduct (e.g., Girodo, 1991; Weiss, Rostow, Davis, & DeCoster-Martin, 2004), and Pogarsky and Piquero (2004) used one dimension (i.e., impulsivity) of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) self-control concept to examine police misbehavior, only one study to date has directly examined the effect of Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory on police deviance. Donner and Jennings (2014) utilized data from a sample of 1,935 Philadelphia police officers and found that low self-control is significantly related to officer misconduct. In this study, the authors constructed a nine-item behavioral measure of low self-control (e.g., ever involved in a vehicle accident, ever dismissed or fired from a job) and utilized official measures of

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 845

misconduct from the department (e.g., citizen complaints). The findings demonstrated that low self-control is positively related to having a history of physical abuse complaints, verbal abuse complaints, internal affair investigations, and general misconduct. These results pro- vide support for Gottfredson and Hirschi's original theory, but this study is limited by its measures of both self-control and police misconduct and limited in that it was not able to address Hirschi's (2004) revised version of self-control theory.

THE CURRENT STUDY

The current study contributes to the literature by addressing the above limitations using a sample of first-line police supervisors, which is an under-studied group of police person- nel within police misconduct research. Based on theory and prior research, this study had three main hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Self-control, as a measure of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) original theory, will significantly predict police misconduct and the likelihood of future police misconduct. Hypothesis 2: Revised self-control, as a measure of Hirschi's (2004) reconceptualization of self- control, will significantly predict police misconduct and the likelihood of future police misconduct. Hypothesis 3: In a full regression model, both measures will significantly and independently predict police misconduct and the likelihood of future police misconduct.

In regard to the last hypothesis, Hirschi (2004) contended that the proper measurement strategy should be based on his reconceptualization of self-control. In theory, this should mean that a revised theory measure of self-control (i.e., Cost x Salience) would render an original theory measure of self-control (i.e., Grasmick scale) non-significant in a complete regression model. However, several empirical investigations, incorporating measures from both versions of the theory, demonstrate that both measurement strategies yield significant and independent effects (e.g., Higgins, Wolfe, & Marcum, 2008; Intravia et al., 2012).

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

To examine the relationship between self-control and police misconduct, data were col- lected from a geographically diverse, multi-agency sample of 101 first-line police supervisors in the United States who were participating in the National Police Research Platform.2 The Platform project, a series of studies funded by the National Institute of Justice, is a long-term project designed to collect systematic data about police professionals and police organizations in an effort to advance translational, policy-relevant research. The sample of police supervi- sors was, on average, 40.61 years old (SD = 7.22) with a minimum age of 29 and a maximum age of 65. Similar to national statistics, the sample predominately consisted of White males (76.20% White; 87.10% male). The sample is further described in the sections below.

PROCEDURE

The current study utilizes cross-sectional survey data from the three police organizations that participated in the police supervisor component of the Platform project. In compliance with institutional review board protocols, both written and electronic informed consent

846 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

were obtained. The participants completed online surveys through Qualtrics, and the study variables incorporated previously validated measures and methods from the self-control (Grasmick et al., 1993; Piquero & Bouffard, 2007) and police misconduct literatures (Knowles, 1996; Martin, 1994; Son & Rome, 2004). For the current study, email solicita- tions were sent to the subset of supervisor subjects who had at least 0.5 years of experience in the role of first-line supervisor. At the time of survey solicitation, the respondents had been participating with the Platform project between 0.5 and 3.5 years. Of the 475 who were contacted, 101 supervisors fully completed the survey instrument.3

MEASURES

Police Misconduct

In this study, police misconduct is defined as any action that utilizes one's authority as sworn police personnel to engage in behavior that is contrary to the law, agency policy, and/ or ethical codes of conduct (see Barker & Carter, 1986). To operationalize police miscon- duct, this research used a modified version of a set of items developed by Martin (1994). The original items asked police officers to report on their peers' deviance, and these items have been used in other policing research (e.g., Knowles, 1996; Son & Rome, 2004). The items utilized here were reworded in such a way as to capture the respondent's self-reported previous behavior and their intention for future misbehavior.4 As opposed to only asking about prior behavior, this methodology was chosen to potentially assuage the fear that some respondents might have about answering honestly to these acts of misconduct. If given the opportunity to state that they are not going to do it in the future, this may lessen their appre- hension to report they have done it in the past.5 This methodology provided a past behavior measure and an inclination for future behavior measure of police misconduct, both of which have been previously utilized in self-control research (e.g., Langton, Piquero, & Hollinger, 2006; Simpson & Piquero, 2002; Tibbetts & Myers, 1999).

For brevity, only 10 of Martin's 34 items were used: fix a ticket, conduct an unauthorized record check, fail to arrest or ticket a friend or relative, display your badge to avoid a traffic ticket, sleep while on duty, speed when no emergency exists, fail to report an excessive force incident, illegally stop and frisk a suspect, illegally search a suspect, and falsify an arrest report.6 A count-variable, Prior Misconduct, was created by summing the 10 prior misconduct items together. A second count-variable, Future Likelihood ofPolice Misconduct, was created by recoding each of the 10 original items into dichotomous outcomes, 0 = not likely (combining not at all likely and not very likely), 1 = likely (combining somewhat likely, likely, and very likely). A summative index (e.g., variety scale) was then created by summing the 10 recoded future misconduct items together, and this measure had a theoreti- cal minimum of 0 and maximum of 10.7 Descriptive statistics for the misconduct variables, as well as the independent and control variables, are provided in Table 1.

Self-Control

Self-control was the explanatory construct in this study. Two independent variables measuring the two versions of self-control theory were utilized in the analyses. Given its popularity and consistency in predicting deviant behavior, the Grasmick et al. (1993) scale was employed to capture Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) concept of self-control.

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 847

TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics

Variables MI% (SD) Minimum Maximum

Independent variables Self-control (Grasmick et al. scale) Revised self-control (Costs x Salience)

Control variables Age (in years) Sex (0 = female; 1 = male) Race (0 = non-White; 1 = White) Education

HS/GED Some college Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Some graduate school Graduate degree

Length of service 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26+ years Agency A (0 = no, 1 = yes) Agency B (0 = no; 1 = yes) Agency C (0 = no; 1 = yes)

Dependent variables Prior police misconduct (1 = yes) Future police misconduct (1 = somewhat likely/likely/very likely)

3.15 (0.34) 365.63 (133.39)

40.61 (7.22) 87.10% 76.20%

08.10% 34.20% 11.70% 33.30% 05.40% 07.20%

0.90% 9.90%

42.30% 33.30% 09.00% 02.70% 01.80% 20.00% 12.00% 68.00%

2.20 (2.00) 2.05 (1.75)

Note. HS = high school; GED = General Educational Development.

This measure is a 24-item scale, which taps into the six self-control dimensions outlined by Gottfredson and Hirschi: impulsivity (e.g., "I'm more concerned about what happens to me in the short run than in the long run"), preference for simple tasks (e.g., "The things in life that are the easiest to do bring me the most pleasure"), risk-seeking (e.g., "Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it"), preference for physical tasks (e.g., "I like to get out and do things more than I like to read or contemplate ideas"), self-centeredness (e.g., "If things I do upset people, it's their problem, not mine"), and temper (e.g., "I lose my temper pretty easily"). The full scale, with a 4-point Likert-style rating, was used to cap- ture one's level of agreement or disagreement with the 24 items (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree somewhat, 3 = agree somewhat, and 4 = strongly agree). A summative scale, Self-Control, was constructed to represent a measure of Gottfredson and Hirschi's origi- nal version of the theory, which produced a measure with a theoretical minimum of 1.00 (a subject selecting strongly agree on all 24 items) and maximum of 4.00 (a subject selecting strongly disagree on all 24 items). Higher values on the individual items and the computed scale indicated higher self-control, and the scale demonstrated reliable internal consistency (Cronbach's a = .84).

2.17 3.00

29.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

3.88 500.00

65.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00

10.00 7.00

848 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Revised Self-Control

Consistent with prior research (e.g., Higgins, Wolfe, & Marcum, 2008; Piquero & Bouffard, 2007), this study used an inhibition-based measure of self-control to assess Hirschi's revised self-control theory. Conceptually, this measurement strategy is a more theoretically consistent approach because Hirschi (2004) suggested that the number and salience of inhibitors that an individual considers when making decisions to offend is the optimal measure of that individu- al's self-control. Theoretically, individuals with a greater number of inhibitors and who attri- bute more importance to those inhibitors are presumed to perceive more potential consequences of deviant behavior. As such, police personnel who are cognizant of the potential costs of their behavior (e.g., getting fired or suspended, losing credibility for oneself or one's agency) and who attribute importance to those costs should be less likely to engage in harmful behaviors.

Following Piquero and Bouffard (2007), the current research utilized an approach through which participants were presented with a single example of misconduct ("Illegally search a suspect") and then a text box table for them to list up to five of their own inhibitors (i.e., conse- quences) and the salience of those inhibitors.8 After listing any relevant costs, participants were asked to indicate how important each one of their listed inhibitors would be when making the decision whether or not to illegally search a suspect using a scale of 0 (not important) to 100 (very important). A variable, Number of Costs, was generated by counting the number of con- sequences each participant listed. A second variable, Average Salience, was produced by add- ing the importance given to each cost for each participant and then dividing by the number of consequences provided by that participant. Consistent with Piquero and Bouffard's measure- ment strategy, the final variable, Revised Self-Control, was computed by multiplying Number of Costs by Average Salience. This methodology produced a multiplicative measure of self- control based on the number and salience of inhibition factors.9 This variable had a theoretical minimum of 0 and maximum of 500. Here, higher scores are indicative of higher self-control, and this scale also yielded reliable internal consistency (Cronbach's a = .80).

Control Variables

Based on theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 2004) and prior research (e.g., Donner & Jennings, 2014; Kane & White, 2009; Lersch & Kunzman, 2001; Weisburd et al., 2000), the current study also utilized six control variables: age, sex, race, education, length of service, and agency. Age was a ratio-level variable. Sex was a dichotomous variable (0 = female, 1 = male). Race was a nominal variable with seven original categories in the survey. This variable was recoded into a dichotomous variable (0 = non-White, 1 = White) for sim- pler interpretation of the correlation and regression coefficients. Education was an ordinal variable with six categories and Length of Service was an ordinal variable with eight cate- gories. Finally, three dichotomous Agency variables were utilized indicating the supervi- sors' employment in Agency A, B, or C. Agency A is a large-sized police organization in the western United States, Agency B is a large-sized police organization in the mid-west United States, and Agency C is a medium-sized police organization in the southern United States.

ANALYTIC PLAN

The analyses for the current study take place in three stages. First, descriptive analyses are provided to illustrate the degree of misconduct among the participants. Second, bivari- ate correlations are examined to assess the potential associations among the independent,

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 849

TABLE 2: Prevalence of Misconduct Among Study Participants

Prior misconduct Likelihood of future misconduct

Variables Yes % Somewhat likely/likely/very likely %

Fix a ticket 35.60 23.60 Conduct unauthorized record check 25.70 11.80 Fail to arrest or ticket a friend or relative 24.80 25.20 Display your badge to avoid a traffic ticket 51.50 52.30 Sleep while on duty 49.50 17.10 Speed when no emergency exists 82.20 64.00 Fail to report an excessive force incident 07.90 01.80 Illegally stop and frisk a suspect 04.00 02.70 Illegally search a suspect 07.90 03.60 Falsify an arrest report 01.00 01.00

control, and dependent variables. Third, a series of four negative binomial regression mod- els are estimated to explore the predictive utility of self-control on self-reported occupa- tional misconduct and the likelihood of future misconduct among police supervisors.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics were conducted to explore the extent to which police supervisors engaged in prior misconduct and anticipated committing future misconduct. As can be seen in Table 2, police supervisors reported that they had engaged in several forms of police misconduct. Across the 10 acts of misconduct, the three most prevalent misbehaviors are speeding when no emergency exists (82.20%), displaying one's badge to avoid a traffic ticket (51.50%), and sleeping while on duty (49.50%). With respect to the likelihood of future misbehavior, somewhat likely was the modal category for speeding when no emer- gency exists and not at all likely was the modal category for the other nine acts of miscon- duct. In addition, frequencies were conducted on recoded future behavior, individual-act variables. This procedure involved recoding the ordinal-response variables into dichoto- mous-outcome variables (1 = somewhat likely/likely/very likely). Across the 10 acts of mis- conduct, the three most likely misbehaviors to occur in the future are sleeping while on duty (64.00%), displaying one's badge to avoid a traffic ticket (52.30%), and failing to arrest or ticket a friend or relative (25.20%).

Table 3 illustrates the bivariate relationships among the study variables. Of particular interest are the significant correlations between both measures of self-control and both mea- sures of police misconduct. Specifically, Self-Control, is negatively correlated with prior misconduct (r = -. 23, p < .05) and the likelihood of future misconduct (r = -. 21, p < .05). In addition, Revised Self-Control, is also negatively associated with prior misbehavior (r = -. 20, p < .05) and intentions for future misbehavior (r = -. 24, p < .05). The results also reveal that age is negatively correlated with prior misconduct, being White is positively associated with both measures of misconduct, being employed by Agency A is negatively correlated with both misconduct measures, and being employed in Agency C is positively associated with prior misconduct.

While the bivariate correlations provide measures of association between the study vari- ables, it is important to consider these variables within a multivariate framework to assess the predictive utility of self-control on police misconduct (see Tables 4 and 5). 10 Following

850 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

TABLE 3: Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Prior police - misconduct

Future police .55** - misconduct

Self-control -. 23* -. 21* - Revised self-control -. 20* -. 24* .07 - Age -. 20* -. 15 -. 06 .15 - Sex -. 06 -. 02 .16 -. 07 .03 - Race .23* .24* -. 06 -. 09 -. 15 .07 - Education -. 08 -. 01 -. 27** -. 05 -. 28** -. 09 .11 - Length of service -. 10 -. 14 -. 08 .02 .36** .13 -. 11 -. 13 - Agency A -. 32** -. 26** .05 -. 02 .01 .09 -. 44** .03 .23* - Agency B .05 .14 -. 23* -. 13 -. 06 -. 35** .06 -. 08 -. 04 -. 16 - Agency C .25* .16 .08 .11 -. 01 .09 .34** -. 09 -. 30** -. 60** -. 45** -

*p < .05. **p < .01.

the analytic strategy of Piquero and Bouffard (2007), the multivariate analyses proceeded in four steps: Regression Model 1 examines how the control variables relate to police miscon- duct; Regression Model 2 incorporates Self-Control to determine if Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) self-control theory has any predictive value on police misconduct; in Regression Model 3, Self-Control is removed and Revised Self-Control is entered to evalu- ate whether Hirschi's (2004) revision of self-control has any predictive value. Finally, Regression Model 4 includes both measures of self-control to examine whether the self- control measures have independent effects net of each other and control variables." Due to the count-based nature of the dependent variable, negative binomial regression was used. Negative binomial regression models are designed to modify the Poisson regression model if the equidispersion assumption (i.e., mean = variance) does not hold (MacDonald & Lattimore, 2010). These models are designed for over-dispersed count dependent variables meaning that the conditional mean does not equal the conditional variance.12

With respect to prior misconduct, none of the control variables in the first model demon- strated significant effects at the conventional .05 level (see Table 4). Results from the sec- ond model specified support for the first hypothesis as Self-Control was negatively related to prior misbehavior (b = -. 70, SE= .19,p <.001). Findings also indicated that higher levels of education were predictive of a lower prevalence of prior misconduct (b = -. 10, SE = .04, p < .05), whereas being employed in Agency B was positively related to the outcome vari- able (b = .62, SE= .30, p <. 05). Results from the third model yielded support for the second hypothesis as Revised Self-Control was negatively related to workplace deviance (b = -. 01, SE = .00, p < .05) net of control variables. In the fourth and full model, both independent measures demonstrated predictive utility. Specifically, Self-Control (b = -. 75, SE= .22, p < .01) and Revised Self-Control (b = -. 01, SE = .00, p <.05) were both negatively related to police misconduct. This final model also indicated that education was negatively related to occupational misconduct (b = -. 12, SE = .05, p < .05), whereas being employed in both Agencies B (b = .75, SE = .32, p < .05) and C (b = .48, SE = .24, p < .05) were positively related to prior misconduct.

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 851

TABLE 4: Negative Binomial Regression Models Predicting Prior Misconduct

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

b SE Wald 72 b SE Wald ' 2 b SE Wald72 b SE Wald72Variables

Self-control - - - -. 70*** .19 12.74 - - - -. 75** .22 10.97 Revised self-control - - - - - - -. 01 .00 3.76 -. 01* .00 3.96 Age -. 02 .01 2.83 -. 02 .02 1.54 -. 01 .01 1.62 -. 01 .01 1.01 Sex .22 .21 1.12 .21 .42 0.63 .18 .21 0.67 .15 .21 0.50 Race .08 .17 0.22 .07 .17 0.15 .04 .04 0.06 .06 .18 0.12 Education -. 03 .04 0.49 -. 10* .04 4.23 -. 05 .05 1.06 -. 12* .05 5.35 Length of service -. 03 .06 0.15 -. 06 .06 0.82 -. 04 .07 0.24 -. 06 .06 0.93 Agency A -. 50 .27 3.28 -. 43 .27 2.50 -. 22 .30 0.53 -. 19 .30 0.38 Agency B .30 .28 1.10 .62* .30 0.12 .48 .31 2.31 .75* .32 5.30 Agency C .27 .22 1.42 .41 .23 3.18 .42 .24 2.86 .48* .24 3.76

Likelihood ratio y 2

26.98** 39.75*** 21.47** 32.53*** Pseudo-R

2 .06 .09 .05 .08

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

TABLE 5: Negative Binomial Regression Models Predicting the Future Likelihood of Misconduct

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variables b SE Wald y 2 b SE Wald y 2 b SE Wald y2 b SE Wald y 2

Self-control - - - -1.05** .41 6.40 - - - -0.80* .41 6.39 Revised self-control - - - - - - -0.01** .00 6.68 -0.01** .00 6.93 Age -0.03 .02 2.25 -0.02 .02 1.20 -0.02 .02 0.55 -0.02 .02 0.38 Sex 0.53 .41 1.67 0.45 .42 1.15 0.67 .59 1.30 0.47 .61 0.61 Race 0.39 .36 3.14 0.70 .36 3.75 0.47 .47 0.97 0.49 .47 1.08 Education -0.02 .08 0.09 -0.15 .09 2.66 -0.07 .13 0.27 -0.13 .12 0.88 Length of service -0.10 .12 0.59 -0.14 .12 1.28 -0.06 .18 0.09 -0.06 .19 0.11 Agency A -0.29 .37 0.04 -0.29 .38 0.31 -0.39 .70 0.30 -0.35 .70 0.25 Agency B 0.94 .53 1.99 1.27* .56 5.14 1.14 .81 1.96 1.38 .84 2.70 Agency C 0.48 .45 1.37 0.53 .45 1.35 0.68 .62 1.19 0.64 .62 1.07

Likelihood ratio y 2

13.29 19.49** 19.82** 26.26** Pseudo-R

2 .04 .07 .09 .11

*p <.05. **p <.01.

The results reported above demonstrated that self-control is an important predictor of self-reported police misconduct among police supervisors. The current study also asked the respondents to indicate their intentions for future misbehavior if given the opportunity to do so, and the findings are substantively similar (see Table 5). Findings from the second model specified support for the first hypothesis as Self-Control was negatively related to the likeli- hood of future workplace deviance (b = -1.05, SE = .41, p < .01). In this model, it was also shown that being employed in Agency B was predictive of a higher prevalence for future misconduct (b = 1.27, SE = .56, p < .05). Results from the third model demonstrated support for the second hypothesis as Revised Self-Control was negatively related to the likelihood of future police misconduct (b = -. 01, SE = .00, p < .05). Finally, in the full model, both independent measures again yielded predictive utility. Here, Self-Control (b = -. 80, SE = .41, p < .05) and Revised Self-Control (b = -. 01, SE = .00, p < .01) were both negatively related to intentions for future misbehavior.

852 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

To assess the relative strength of both theoretical versions, standardized regression coef- ficients were compared within Model 4 for both past and future misconduct. With respect to past police misconduct, it is clear that Revised Self-Control (P = -. 67, p < .05) is a stron- ger measure as it yields a larger standardized coefficient than Self-Control (P = -. 13, p < .0 1). In regard to intentions for future misconduct, Revised Self-Control (P = -. 76, p < .01) again yields a larger standardized coefficient than Self-Control (P = -. 16, p < .01). As evinced by these findings, the analyses suggest that revised self-control is the superior theo- retical version within the context of police deviance.'3

DISCUSSION

The current study examined whether self-control-reflecting Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) original theory and Hirschi's (2004) revised theory-is significantly related to police supervisors' self-reported police misconduct and their likelihood of future misconduct. This study contributes to the literature by further examining the direct relationship between self- control and police misconduct by measuring occupational deviance with self-report meth- odology, by exploring Hirschi's (2004) revised theory within the general context of occupational deviance and within the specific context of police misconduct, and by explor- ing the police misconduct among a multi-agency sample of police supervisors.

Through the use of a series of multiple regression models, the results provide support for the three study hypotheses. First, Self-Control, as a measure of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) original version of self-control theory, was found to have predictive utility with both prior occupational misbehavior and the likelihood of future police misconduct. Specifically, a 1 standard deviation increase in Self-Control was associated with a 0.13 standard devia- tion decrease in prior police misconduct and a 0.16 standard deviation decrease in future police misconduct. The above findings are consistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi's theo- retical proposition that low self-control is the underlying predictor of individual-level devi- ant behavior and also consistent with a large body of research supporting Gottfredson and Hirschi's theoretical formulation (see, for example, Pratt & Cullen, 2000). In addition, this study, which examines police supervisors and their workplace deviance, is consistent with previous empirical investigations that yield support for the relationship between low self- control and occupational deviance (e.g., Langton et al., 2006), impulsivity and police mis- conduct (Pogarsky & Piquero, 2004), and low self-control and police misconduct (Donner & Jennings, 2014).

Second, Revised Self-Control, as a measure of Hirschi's (2004) revised version of self- control theory, was also found to be significantly related to both prior police misconduct and the future likelihood of misconduct. The results demonstrate that a 1 standard deviation increase in Revised Self-Control was associated with a 0.67 standard deviation decrease in past police misconduct and a 0.76 standard deviation decrease in the future likelihood of police misconduct. These findings are consistent with theory and prior research. Recall that Hirschi (2004) moved away from a personality-based construct toward a bond-based con- struct that assumes that the four components of the social bond act as inhibiting factors on behavior. More specifically, Hirschi argues that individuals with a greater number of poten- tial costs and who attribute greater importance to those costs are more likely to control themselves from engaging in behaviors that have short- and/or long-term consequences. Accordingly, the current findings demonstrate support for Hirschi's (2004) theoretical

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 853

propositions, and they are generally consistent with prior research investigating Hirschi's revised version of self-control theory (e.g., Brown & Jennings, 2014; Higgins, Wolfe, & Marcum, 2008; Hirschi, 2004; Intravia et al., 2012; Morris et al., 2011; Piquero & Bouffard, 2007). Third, when both measures of self-control were included in a full regression model, each measure retained its predictive strength and statistical significance. The findings from the full models, while perhaps inconsistent with theory, are consistent with prior research, which tends to demonstrate that measurement strategies of both theoretical conceptualiza- tions yield independent effects (e.g., Higgins, Wolfe, & Marcum, 2008; Intravia et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2011).14

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

The above findings are consistent with both theoretical propositions. As previously stated, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) contended that low self-control is the underlying cause of individual-level crime and analogous behavior and that individuals who have low levels of self-control are more likely to pursue the immediate pleasure of deviant behavior when presented with an opportunity to do so. The results of this research demonstrate sup- port for Gottfredson and Hirschi's original version of self-control theory. That is, police supervisors who have higher levels of self-control are less likely to engage in occupational misconduct.

In his 2004 reconceptualization of self-control, Hirschi moved toward a bond-based con- struct that assumes that the four components of the social bond act as inhibiting factors on one's behavior. The revised theory indicates that self-control is best epitomized by the ques- tions, "Do I care what X thinks of me?" and "Will X know what I have done?" If the answers to these questions are "yes," then it is reasonable to think that these individuals have carefully considered the full range of potential costs of their behavior. Hirschi argues that these costs vary in terms of both number and salience. In theory, an individual with a greater number of potential costs and who attributes greater importance to those costs is more likely to control himself from engaging in behaviors that have short- and/or long-term consequences. This type of individual, according to Hirschi, who has high levels of self- control, is less likely to pursue the benefits of deviant behavior. The data from the current study are also consistent with Hirschi's (2004) revised version of self-control theory.15

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Police misconduct, from sleeping on duty to perjury, is a major source of concern for police administrators, government leaders, and society in general. Occupational deviance in the policing profession can lead to a host of problems, including poor police-community relations, distrust in police and the larger government, violations of civil rights and due process, and liability lawsuits. The findings from this study yield meaningful policy impli- cations for how police administrators can reduce misconduct knowing that self-control has an impact on occupational deviance. To reduce misconduct, low self-control must be detected and dealt with. Within the context of occupational management, there are two pri- mary avenues for detecting low self-control: (a) pre-hiring detection and (b) post-hiring detection. Specifically, administrators can minimize the potential for police misconduct by detecting low self-control through pre-employment procedures, which closely examine a candidate's suitability to serve in the policing profession and that culminates in the

854 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

applicant being disqualified for employment. Workplace deviance also can be minimized by the detection of low self-control on the part of current employees through integrity test- ing, which can culminate in training to increase one's level of low self-control.

The most salient policy implication for administrators garnered from these results is that police applicants with low self-control should not be hired. Strategies for pre-hiring detec- tion include better pre-employment screening of police recruits through the use of more stringent hiring (i.e., disqualification) criteria (Palmiotto, 2001; Sechrest & Bums, 1992), the use of more judicious background investigations (Palmiotto, 2001), and an increased use of psychological exams and interviews (Arrigo & Claussen, 2003; Cochrane, Tett, & Vandercreek, 2003). Within pre-employment screening, there are two key indicators of low self-control: past deviance in all aspects of life and psychological testing. Recent research suggests that police recruits with a history of problematic behavior (e.g., poor work history; Donner & Jennings, 2014; Kane & White, 2012) and police recruits with negative personal- ity traits (e.g., egocentricity; Weiss et al., 2004) are more likely to engage in police misconduct.

Background investigations are important because they help to confirm if a candidate pos- sesses the attributes necessary for employment. In any occupation, and especially policing, employers wish to hire employees who are honest, hard-working, and honorable. When strong background investigations are conducted, there is a smaller likelihood that a candi- date with undesirable characteristics will be hired. For example, there have been occasions when police departments across the United States did not conduct rigorous background investigations when their respective city councils mandated large hiring periods (Carlson, 1993; Palmiotto, 2001). This practice led to the hiring of some police officers who had seri- ous histories with crime, drugs, and other deviance, and many of these hires are the employ- ees who go on to engage in occupational misconduct. In fact, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2012), more than two fifths of municipal departments have allowed the consideration of applicants whose personal history included prior credit-related problems, marijuana use, a misdemeanor conviction, a suspended driver's license, job- related problems, DUI convictions, and the use of illegal drugs other than marijuana. Thus, it is reasonable to surmise that more judicious background investigations would produce police personnel less likely to commit occupational deviance.

Beyond background investigations, police departments should also make use of pre- employment psychological testing. Personality inventories, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) and structured interviews with trained psychologists can be helpful in detecting both behavioral and attitudinal indicators of low self-control (Arrigo & Claussen, 2003; Cochrane et al., 2003). The MMPI-2 includes several items, which tap into Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) six dimensions of low self-control (e.g., impulsivity, temper, thrill- seeking), and prior research has established that these behavioral and personality factors predict police misconduct (e.g., Sarchione, Cuttler, Muchinsky, & Nelson-Gray, 1998; Weiss et al., 2004). It is a well-known fact in criminology that Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that self-control is relatively stable beyond childhood, and a significant amount of research has, to varying degrees, shown support for this assumption (e.g., Beaver & Wright, 2007; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Turner & Piquero, 2002). Having said this, more recent research has documented changes (improvements and/or declines) in self-control over the life-course as well (Higgins, Jennings, Tewksbury, & Gibson, 2009; Mitchell & Mackenzie, 2006;

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 855

Muraven, 2010; Na & Paternoster, 2012; Piquero, Jennings, & Farrington, 2010; Ray, Jones, Loughran, & Jennings, 2013), some of which can be attributed to evidence-based interven- tions (Na & Paternoster, 2012; Piquero et al., 2010). Nevertheless, it is certainly logical to consider utilizing self-control assessments in pre-employment screening as markers of applicants who may not necessarily be the most suitable candidates for police work. Where the "no hire" threshold or cut point should be is open for debate, and future research is encouraged to evaluate the relationship between various cut points on the distribution of self-control as it relates to police misconduct to be able to effectively speak to where these cut points may need to be. Nevertheless, as is the case for any risk assessment-informed decision-making, it would be important for police administrators to make use of the totality of the information that can be drawn from pre-employment screening mechanisms when ultimately determining the suitability of applicants for policing, rather than just solely focusing on their "self-control score."

Inevitably, some police applicants with low self-control will slip through the cracks and be hired. In these cases, police administrators should focus on maintaining an organization that is committed to (a) fairness and (b) training. Consistent with Hirschi's (2004) theoreti- cal reconceptualization, police agencies should seek to improve their employees' bonds and connectedness with the organization through organizational justice policies and practices. Recent research demonstrates that employees who perceive higher levels of organizational fairness (e.g., procedural, distributive, and interpersonal justice) within their workplace are more committed to their organization, are more satisfied with their job, and are less likely to engage in occupational misconduct (e.g., Farmer, Beehr, & Love, 2003; Huiras, Uggen, & McMorris, 2000; Ivkovic & Shelley, 2010; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Thus, police manag- ers can minimize the likelihood of their employees committing misconduct by engaging in workplace practices such as treating employees with respect and fairness, giving employees a voice in decision-making, making clear the expectations that management has for its employees, fairly compensating and rewarding employees for their time and efforts, and making decisions that are based on objective information.

In addition, and in an effort to hopefully correct problem behavior, police administrators should rely on post-employment (i.e., in-service) training. Ethics training, in particular, is one such intervention that police administrators can utilize to correct problem behavior in personnel with low self-control. Although ethics training should (and typically does) occur in the police academy at the beginning of an officer's career, this type of training should persist throughout the officer's career. Within ethics training, the current study implies that a strong emphasis needs to be placed on the consequences of misbehavior (e.g., Meine & Dunn, 2012; Pollock, 2005). Recall that Hirschi's (2004) revision of self-control theory suggests that inhibitors (i.e., costs) influence the choices that people make. Accordingly, police training should highlight the potential costs of a failure to adhere to the rules (Meine & Dunn, 2012).

For police supervisors, specifically, ethics training should focus on new consequences due to being a supervisor and the importance of creating a good role model for subordinates regarding ethical behavior. Results from the current research demonstrate that police super- visors commonly consider (and place a high importance) a few key costs: getting fired or suspended, getting sued, and losing the respect of their family and friends. Ethics trainers should firmly discuss the formal and informal penalties for engaging in misconduct and share real-life stories of police personnel who have "lost" something because of

856 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

misconduct. If this is done in an effective way, it could make police personnel more aware of their decision-making and make them more cognizant of what is at stake if they were to engage in occupational misconduct.

Moreover, as part of training, administrators should also implement strategies to strengthen employees' levels of self-control, as research suggests that self-control can be improved through training (e.g., Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006; Dixon & Holcomb, 2000; Muraven, 2010) and these improvements can also lead to reduced involve- ment in deviance (Piquero et al., 2010). Similar to a muscle in the body, this line of research demonstrates that self-control can also be strengthened through repeated exercise. Therefore, police administrators could utilize these findings to implement self-control improvement exercises in their training programs. However, it is important to recognize that there is a noteworthy line of research that documents relative stability of self-control over the life- course (e.g., Beaver & Wright, 2007; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Higgins et al., 2009; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2010), so any available training initiatives need to incorporate other components (e.g., diversity training, reduction of bias training, stress management, etc.) to increase their potential for effectiveness, especially if there are individuals who are high in low self-con- trol and may be unresponsive to self-control improvement training specifically.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

This study is an important contribution to the self-control, police supervision, and police misconduct literatures. However, a few limitations are worth discussing. First, the validity of any self-report study hinges on whether respondents respond honestly (Mosher, Miethe, & Hart, 2011). Although in one sense, respondents' own reported behavior can be seen as a positive in this emerging body of research, it is possible that some participants were less than fully frank in divulging their own deviant activities even with multiple confidentiality assurances. Second, only "minor" forms of police misconduct were utilized for the depen- dent variable.16 Because only "minor" forms of misconduct are utilized, it is possible that this study misses more egregious acts of occupational deviance committed by police offi- cers. However, the results of the study should still generalize to more serious forms of misconduct due to the empirically supported generality hypothesis of self-control theory (e.g., Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Third, the participating agencies reflect a convenience sample; thus the generalizability of the results may not infer to the larger population of police super- visors as the characteristics of the sample may not necessarily match the characteristics of the population. Fourth, unfortunately, the data did not permit the regression analyses to control for measures from competing criminological theories, which have been shown to be related to police misconduct, such as social learning (Chappell & Piquero, 2004) and strain (Arter, 2007). Therefore, the relationships observed in this study may be artificially inflated or could be rendered non-significant by the inclusion of other relevant criminological vari- ables. Future research is encouraged to investigate these relationships when data permit. Fifth, it is possible that the police supervisors, who chose to participate in this survey research, were systematically different than the police supervisors who chose not to partici- pate or were lost due to attrition. Although data limitations prevented means-difference tests between the participant and non-participant groups for the independent and dependent vari- ables of interest, several t-test and ANOVA analyses confirm that respondents and non- respondents were not significantly different across a range of variables such as age, sex,

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 857

race, service length, education, career goals, procedural justice, organizational commit- ment, and agency cynicism.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite the study limitations, the current study adds to both the policing and criminologi- cal theory literatures by examining the relationship between two versions of self-control theory and police misconduct among a sample of 101 police supervisors. There are several avenues for future research that can further expand what researchers know about self-con- trol theory and police misconduct. Future researchers should continue to examine Hirschi's (2004) reconceptualization of self-control theory and continue to refine its measurement. As indicated in Table 3, the variables used in this study to measure self-control were not significantly correlated, which indicates that one or the other might not be measuring the concept of self-control.'7 It is possible that a Cost x Salience measurement approach, as first suggested by Piquero and Bouffard (2007), does not adequately capture one's social bonds and, therefore, one's level of self-control. Or, contrary to Hirschi's (2004) reconceptualiza- tion, it could indicate that social control and self-control are not one and the same. Accordingly, future research should continue to investigate what self-control is and how to accurately measure it.

Future research should attempt to replicate the current findings within different police personnel ranks, time shifts, assignments, and units. This line of research would help in advancing the knowledge about policing and may help to delineate other potential explana- tions for police misconduct, such as the role of opportunity. For example, it stands to reason that a patrol supervisor has differential opportunity to engage in various types of miscon- duct (e.g., illegally searching a suspect) as compared with an academy instructor, and a supervisor working graveyard shift has differential opportunity to engage in various forms of misconduct (e.g., sleeping while on duty) as compared with a supervisor working day shift. Thus, opportunity to engage in workplace deviance should be further explored.

Future research should also consider a prospective longitudinal study wherein police can- didates are screened for indicators of low self-control (e.g., background investigations and psychological testing) and then followed over their careers to see which ones become involved in misconduct. By focusing on pre-employment behaviors and personality characteristics (as identified through the screening process) as indicators of one's level of self-control, the researcher(s) could help establish a low self-control cutline so that hiring standards and dis- qualifiers could be set by police administrators for future applicant pools. Finally, to help combat omitted-variable bias, researchers should undertake a comprehensive investigation, which collects data on several theoretical constructs. This type of study might ask participants about their deviant peers, their levels of self-control and strain, their prior experiences with departmental discipline, and their routine work activities. This type of examination, poten- tially, would be able to tease out the "true" criminological explanations of police misconduct, which could then have an important impact on policy recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The police have an integral role in society, and they are entrusted to carry out their duties with integrity; unfortunately, not all police personnel live up to this standard. Police

858 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

misconduct, which can have far-reaching effects on the individual employee, the agency, the community, and the profession, can result in federal oversight, distrust on the part of the citizenry, poor police-community relations, and lawsuits. The current study utilized data from a geographically diverse, multi-agency sample of 101 first-line police supervisors in an effort to improve our understanding of police deviance. Specifically, the study examined the relationship between two versions of self-control theory and police misconduct. Both theoretical frameworks (and measurements thereof) demonstrated predictive utility as both versions of the theory were found to be related to self-reported police misconduct and the likelihood of future misbehavior in multivariate regression models. In sum, the results sug- gest that police supervisors with higher levels of self-control are less likely to misbehave while on the job. The current study offers insight into why police officers engage in occu- pational deviance. The results yield key policy implications for police administrators, who have a vested interest in combating occupational deviance, and the findings generate con- ceptual implications for researchers who will continue to advance our understanding of this important topic.

NOTES 1. For example, Kaariainen, Lintonen, Laitinen, and Pollock (2008) used self-report measures to assess officer mis-

conduct among a sample of Finnish police officers, and Bishopp and Boots (2014) utilized self-report measures to examine

suicide ideation among a sample of Texas police officers.

2. A reviewer inquired about the statistical power of the analyses given the sample size and number of variables. A power

analysis was conducted using the "powerreg" command in Stata. To begin, a review previous research (e.g., Higgins, Wolfe, & Marcum, 2008; Piquero & Bouffard, 2007) indicated that the average R

2 for a full model (r2f) is .20 and that the average R2

for a model without self-control (the reduced model, r2r) is .12. Thus, adding self-control into the model adds approximately

0.08 to the R 2 . The power analysis suggests, based on the generally established explanatory power of comparable models pre-

viously reported in the literature, that the sample size is well within the accepted range of statistical power (between .80 and .90), which demonstrates that the current sample size is large enough to detect true and meaningful effects (Britt & Weisburd, 2010; Cohen, 1988). Specifically, the results indicated sample sizes of at least 64 (power = .70; a = .05), 80 (power = .80;

a= .05), or 107 (power = .90; a= .05) participants. A subsequent analysis revealed that a sample size of 101 yielded statistical power of .882 (a= .05).

3. Low-to-moderate response rates are not uncommon in longitudinal policing research, especially given the online

methodology and the sensitive nature of some of the survey items (e.g., Bishopp & Boots, 2014; Gould, 2000; Klockars, Jvkovic, Harver, & Haberfeld, 1997; Van Maanen, 1975).

4. Previous behavior: "Have you engaged in any of the following behaviors?" Response options were yes and no.

Intentions for future behavior: "If given the opportunity to engage in this set of behaviors in the future, how likely are you to engage in these behaviors?" Response options were not at all likely, not very likely, somewhat likely, likely, and very likely.

5. A reviewer astutely questioned whether participants would respond honestly to the "future intentions" survey items or

might possibly use them as an avenue to mitigate past behavior. However, similar to what was also suggested by the reviewer, we feel that the similarity of the results (for past and future behavior) lends credence toward the validity of both the past and

future misconduct variables. In addition, we do not feel that the respondents were primed by the ordering of the misconduct

items. Given the sensitive nature of the questions and the inherent suspicious nature of police personnel, we feel that the

question ordering did not matter. Police misconduct is a serious topic that police are already reluctant to self-report. However, survey item counterbalancing is an important empirical question for future research to consider.

6. The key criterion for deciding which 10 of the 24 original misconduct items would be used was based on recognition of the time allotted for the survey, an assessment of which items police personnel would respond to most honestly, and with

recognition of the fact that the most serious and egregious of police misconduct behaviors are statistically rare and may not

produce many (if any) affirmative responses to ensure variability in the outcomes. Acknowledging these issues and based on

Martin's (1994) research concerning the seriousness of the items, 10 of the least serious items were selected for inclusion.

7. Self-control theory assumes that correlates of crime incidence are also correlates of crime prevalence. In other words, the "causes of criminal acts are the same regardless of the number of such acts" (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 241).

8. The example, "illegally search a suspect," was selected from among the 10 items in the survey used to assess miscon-

duct because it reflected the mid-point in terms of seriousness of misconduct. In Martin's (1994) research, she asked Illinois

officers to rate the seriousness of her 34 items of unethical police behavior. To measure seriousness, each respondent was

asked to rate each item on a scale from 0 (not at all serious) to 15 (extremely serious). According to Martin's results, the most

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 859

serious of the 10 items in this research is "Falsify an arrest report" with a seriousness mean of 11.7 and the least serious of

the 10 items is "Display your badge to avoid a traffic ticket" with a seriousness mean of 2.6. Because there is an even number of items (10), a true median item cannot be established. The two items that surround the median are "Illegally stop and frisk

a suspect" (seriousness mean of 7.6) and "Illegally search a suspect" (seriousness mean of 6.9). For this measure, the "less

serious" item of the two choices was selected.

9. "Costs only" measures (Higgins, Ricketts, & Vegh, 2008) and "Salience only" measures (Bouffard & Rice, 2011) have

been used in prior research. However, the multiplicative measure is a more theoretically consistent construct.

10. According to Long (1997), R 2 values cannot be established in logistic, ordinal, and Poisson-based regression. Unlike

an R 2

value in ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, which indicates the explained variance in the dependent variable by

the independent variables in the model, pseudo-R 2

values indicate model fit, with higher R 2 values indicating better model fit.

Nevertheless, the pseudo-R 2

values in our analyses range from .04 to .11, so caution is needed when interpreting the results in light of these statistics.

11. Multicollinearity was not a problem in the models as the highest Variance Inflation Factor statistic was 1.34 for prior

misconduct and 1.33 for future misconduct. 12. A reviewer noted that outliers within the sample could exert a disproportionate effect on the results. As such, the full

distributions of both misconduct outcomes were analyzed. There were two supervisors at the tail end of the past misconduct

distribution who reported nine and 10 misconduct activities (one reported nine and one reported 10), and these two supervi- sors represented only 2% of the total sample. There were three supervisors at the tail end of the future misconduct distribu-

tion who reported six and seven misconduct activities (one reported six and two reported seven), and these three supervisors

represented only 3% of the total sample. To explore the sensitivity of the analysis to these few outliers, the negative binomial regression models were reestimated without these supervisors/outliers included, and the results of these analyses yielded

substantively similar results to those that were obtained when these supervisors/outliers were included in the original analysis.

Therefore, we opted to retain these cases in the analyses presented herein. Moreover, likelihood-ratio alpha tests confirmed

the use of negative binomial regression.

13. Standardized regression coefficients were calculated by the following formula: p = b(sx / sy), where P is the standard- ized coefficient, b is the unstandardized coefficient, sx is the standard deviation of the independent variable, and sy is the standard deviation of the dependent variable (Gau, 2013).

14. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) posited that, if correctly measured, low self-control is the individual-level predictor of

crime and that other explanations (including social bonds) are spurious. Because this research found that a Costs x Salience

measure was related to deviance while controlling for the Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) scale, the findings

are theoretically inconsistent. Moreover, Hirschi (2004) argued that his revised theory is the "correct" conceptualization (and

measurement) of self-control. Thus, a revised self-control measure should render an original self-control measure insignifi-

cant in a full regression model.

15. The findings reveal that both measures of self-control have an important role in understanding police misconduct.

Specifically, when examined together, both measures of self-control statistically predicted engagement in past misbehavior

and intentions to engage in future misbehavior. This suggests that the relationship between self-control and police miscon-

duct is multifaceted and that multiple measures of self-control may be needed to more fully understand police misconduct.

It should be noted that the significant and independent findings from Model 4 may indicate that Self-Control and Revised

Self-Control are measuring two different things. The former is an attitudinal-based measure and may, in fact, be measuring a

personality concept; whereas, the latter is a consequence-based measure and may, in fact, be measuring one's bond to society.

16. With respect to the "sleeping while on duty" act of misconduct, it should be noted that the data did not allow for shift time to be used as a control variable. This is important because police personnel who work regular daytime hours are less

likely to violate this policy (Vila, 2006).

17. Prior research has also demonstrated that variables measuring both versions of self-control theory are not statistically associated with each other (see, for example, Higgins, Wolfe, & Marcum, 2008).

REFERENCES

Arrigo, B. A., & Claussen, N. (2003). Police corruption and psychological testing: A strategy for pre-employment screening. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 272-290.

Arter, M. L. (2007). Stress and deviance in policing. Deviant Behavior, 29, 43-69.

Barker, T., & Carter, D. L. (1986). Police deviance. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions

increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal ofPersonality, 74, 1773-1802.

Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2007). The stability of low self-control from kindergarten through first grade. Journal of

Crime & Justice, 30, 63-86.

Bishopp, S. A., & Boots, D. P. (2014). General strain theory, exposure to violence, and suicide ideation among police officers: A gendered approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 538-548.

Black, D. J., & Reiss, A. J. (1970). Police control of juveniles. American Sociological Review, 35, 63-77.

860 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Bouffard, J. A., & Rice, S. K. (2011). The influence of the social bond on self-control at the moment of decision: Testing

Hirschi's redefinition of self-control. American Journal ofCriminal Justice, 36, 138-157. Brandl, S. G., Stroshine, M. S., & Frank, J. (2001). Who are the complaint-prone officers? An examination of the relationship

between police officers' attributes, arrest activity, assignment, and citizens' complaints about excessive force. Journal

of Criminal Justice, 29, 521-529. Britt, C. L., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Statistical power. In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook ofquantitative crimi-

nology (pp. 313-332). New York, NY: Springer.

Brown, W., & Jennings, W. G. (2014). A replication and an honor-based extension of Hirschi's reconceptualization of self- control theory and crime and analogous behaviors. Deviant Behavior, 35, 297-3 10.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2012). Hiring and retention of state and local law enforcement officers, 2008-Statistical tables.

Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manualfor administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Carlson, T. (1993). D.C. blues: The rap sheet on the Washington police. Policy Review, 63, 26-33. Champion, D. J. (2001). Police misconduct in America. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Chappell, A. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Applying social learning theory to police misconduct. Deviant Behavior, 25, 89-108.

Cochrane, R. E., Tett, R. P., & Vandercreek, L. (2003). Psychological testing and the selection of police officers. Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 30, 511-537.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dixon, M. R., & Holcomb, S. (2000). Teaching self-control to small groups of dually diagnosed adults. Journal ofApplied

Behavior Analysis, 33, 611-614.

Donner, C. M., & Jennings, W. G. (2014). Low self-control and police deviance: Applying Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory to officer misconduct. Police Quarterly, 17, 203-225.

Farmer, S. J., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. (2003). Becoming an undercover police officer: A note on fairness perceptions, behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 373-387.

Fyfe, J. J., & Kane, R. (2005). Bad cops: A study of career-ending misconduct among New York City police officers.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Gau, J. M. (2013). Statistics for criminology and criminal justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Girodo, M. (1991). Drug corruption in undercover agents: Measuring the risk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9,361-370.

Goldsmith, A. (2005). Police reform and the problem of trust. Theoretical Criminology, 9, 443-470.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gould, L. A. (2000). A longitudinal approach to the study of the police personality: Race/gender differences. Journal ofPolice

& Criminal Psychology, 15, 41-5 1.

Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Ameklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal ofResearch in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29.

Hay, C., & Forrest, W. (2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory's stability thesis. Criminology, 44, 739-774.

Hickman, M. J., Piquero, A. P., Lawton, B. A., & Greene, J. R. (2001). Applying Tittle's control balance theory to police

deviance. Policing: An International Journal ofPolice Strategies & Management, 24, 497-519.

Higgins, G. E. (2004). Can low self-control help with the understanding of the software piracy problem? Deviant Behavior, 26, 1-24.

Higgins, G. E., Jennings, W. G., Tewksbury, R., & Gibson, C. L. (2009). Exploring the link between low self-control and

violent victimization trajectories in adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1070-1084. Higgins, G. E., Ricketts, M. L., & Vegh, D. T. (2008). The role of self-control in college student's perceived risk and fear of

online victimization. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 223-233.

Higgins, G. E., Wolfe, S. E., & Marcum, C. D. (2008). Digital piracy: An examination of three measurements of self-control. Deviant Behavior, 29, 440-460.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hirschi, T. (2004). Self-control and crime. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 537-552). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Huiras, J., Uggen, C., & McMorris, B. (2000). Careerjobs, survival jobs, and employee deviance: A social investment model

of workplace misconduct. The Sociological Quarterly, 41, 245-263. Intravia, J., Jones, S., & Piquero, A. P. (2012). The roles of social bonds, personality, and perceived costs: An empirical inves-

tigation into Hirschi's "new" control theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1182-1200.

Ivkovic, S. K., & Shelley, T. 0. (2010). The code of silence and disciplinary fairness: A comparison of Czech police supervi-

sor and line officer views. Policing: An International Journal ofPolice Strategies & Management, 33, 548-574.

Donner et al. / SELF-CONTROL AND POLICE MISCONDUCT 861

Jones, S., Lynam, D. R., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Substance use, personality, and inhibitors: Testing Hirschi's predictions

about the reconceptualization of self-control. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 538-558. Jones, S., & Quisenberry, N. (2004). The general theory of crime: How general is it? Deviant Behavior, 25, 401-426.

Kaariainen, J., Lintonen, T., Laitinen, A., & Pollock, J. (2008). The code of silence: Are self-report surveys a viable means for

studying police misconducts? Journal ofScandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 9, 86-96. Kane, R. J. (2002). The social ecology of police misconduct. Criminology, 40, 867-896.

Kane, R. J., & White, M. D. (2009). Bad cops: A study of career-ending misconduct among New York City police officers.

Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 735-767. Kane, R. J., & White, M. D. (2012). Jammed up: Bad cops, police misconduct, and the New York City Police Department.

New York: New York University Press.

Klockars, C. B., Jvkovic, S. K., Harver, W. E., & Haberfeld, M. R. (1997). The measurement ofpolice integrity. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Knowles, J. J. (1996). Ohio police behavior study: An assessment from the officers. Columbus: Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services.

Langton, L., Piquero, N. L., & Hollinger, R. C. (2006). An empirical test of the relationship between employee theft and low

self-control. Deviant Behavior, 27, 537-565.

Lersch, K. M. (2002). Policing and misconduct. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Lersch, K. M., & Kunzman, L. L. (2001). Misconduct allegations and higher education in a southern sheriffs department.

American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 162-172.

Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. MacDonald, J. M., & Lattimore, P. K. (2010). Count models in criminology. In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook

of quantitative criminology (pp. 683-698). New York, NY: Springer.

Martin, C. (1994). Illinois municipal officers 'perceptions of police ethics. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Meine, M. F., & Dunn, T. P. (2012). Policing the police: Using ethics education and training to combat official deviance.

Journal of US-China Public Administration, 9, 1069-1075. Mitchell, 0., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2006). The stability and resiliency of self-control in a sample of incarcerated offenders.

Crime & Delinquency, 52, 432-449.

Morris, R. G., Gerber, J., & Menard, S. (2011). Social bonds, self-control, and adult criminality: A nationally representative assessment of Hirschi's revised self-control theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 584-599.

Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Hart, T. C. (2011). The mismeasure ofcrime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Muraven, M. (2010). Building self-control strength: Practicing self-control leads to improved self-control performance.

Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 46, 465-468.

Na, C., & Paternoster, R. (2012). Can self-control change substantially over time? Rethinking the relationship between self-

and social control. Criminology, 50, 427-462. Palmiotto, M. J. (2001). Can police recruiting control police misconduct? In M. J. Palmiotto (Ed.), Police misconduct: A

reader for the 21st century (pp. 344-354). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Piquero, A. R., & Bouffard, J. A. (2007). Something old, something new: A preliminary investigation of Hirschi's redefined self-control. Justice Quarterly, 24, 1-27.

Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). On the malleability of self-control: Theoretical and policy impli-

cations regarding a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 27, 803-834. Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Studying the reach of deterrence: Can deterrence theory help explain police miscon-

duct? Journal ofCriminal Justice, 32, 371-386.

Pollock, J. M. (2005). Ethics and law enforcement. In R. G. Dunham & G. P. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (pp. 280-303). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta-

analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964. Ray, J., Jones, S., Loughran, T., & Jennings, W. G. (2013). Testing the stability of self-control: Identifying unique develop-

mental patterns and associated risk factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 588-607.

Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rocque, M., Posick, C., & Zimmerman, G. M. (2013). Measuring up: Assessing the measurement properties of two self-

control scales. Deviant Behavior, 34, 534-556.

Sarchione, C. D., Cuttler, M. J., Muchinsky, P. M., & Nelson-Gray, R. 0. (1998). Prediction of dysfunctional job behaviors among law enforcement officers. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, 904-912.

Sechrest, D. K., & Burns, P. (1992). Police corruption: The Miami case. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 294-313.

Sherman, L. W. (1980). Causes of police behavior: The current state of quantitative research. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 17, 69-100.

Simpson, S. S., & Piquero, N. L. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law & Society Review, 36, 509-548.

862 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Son, I. S., & Rome, D. M. (2004). The prevalence and visibility of police misconduct: A survey of citizens and police officers.

Justice Quarterly, 7, 179-204. Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating. American Journal of

Criminal Justice, 23, 179-200.

Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 457-471. Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207-228.

Vazsonyi, A., & Huang, L. (2010). Where self-control comes from: On the development of self-control its relationship to deviance over time. Developmental Psychology, 46, 245-257.

Vila, B. (2006). Impact of long work hours on police officers and the communities they serve. American Journal ofIndustrial

Medicine, 49, 972-980. Vito, G. F., Wolfe, S., Higgins, G. E., & Walsh, W. F. (2011). Police integrity: Rankings of scenarios on the Klockars scale

by management cops. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 152-164.

Weisburd, D., Greenspan, R., Hamilton, E. E., Williams, H., & Bryant, K. A. (2000). Police attitudes toward abuse ofauthor- ity: Findings from a national survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Weiss, W. U., Rostow, C., Davis, R., & DeCoster-Martin, E. (2004). The Personality Assessment Inventory as a selection

device for law enforcement personnel. Journal ofPolice and Criminal Psychology, 19, 23-29. Wolfe, S. E., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). Organizational justice and police misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38,

332-353.

Christopher M. Donner is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology at Loyola University Chicago, and he received his doctorate in criminology from the University of South Florida. His current research focuses on

police misconduct, with a particular emphasis on the etiology of such behavior. His recent publications have appeared in peer-

reviewedjournals such as the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Police Quarterly, Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies & Management, and the Journal of Criminal Justice.

Lorie A. Fridell is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida. She earned

both her MA and PhD in social ecology at the University of California, Irvine. Her key research areas are police use of force, violence against police, supervision, and police deviance. She has written books, articles, and chapters on these topics. Her

research and training activities have been supported by over US$8 million in grants and contracts.

Wesley G. Jennings is an associate professor, associate chair, and undergraduate director in the Department of Criminology, has a courtesy appointment in the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, and is a faculty affiliate of the Florida Mental

Health Institute in the College of Behavioral and Community Sciences at the University of South Florida. In addition, he also

has a courtesy appointment in the Department of Health Outcomes & Policy and is a faculty affiliate of the Institute for Child Health Policy in the College of Medicine at the University of Florida. He received his doctorate degree in criminology from

the University of Florida.