Exploring Police Legitimacy Through Procedurally Just Policing Practices in Agencies Using Screen-In and Screen-Out Procedures

Exploring Police Legitimacy Through Procedurally Just

Policing Practices in Agencies Using Screen-In and

Screen-Out Procedures

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

The origin of police legitimacy can be traced back to the authorship of 19th

century British prime minister Sir Robert Peel when he crafted his nine principles of

policing, in which he emphasized the enhancement of legitimacy and the public’s

acceptance of his newly created coercive arm of the government (Noppe, Verhage, & Van

Damme, 2017). Nearly two centuries after Peel’s introduction of the concept of a

professional policing arm of the government, which was designed to effectively function

through the consent and cooperation of the public, the concept of police legitimacy has

been subjected to decades of empirical study. The recent attention to policing, spurred on

by civil disturbances chiefly experienced in the United States, has served to highlight the

critical importance of the consent and cooperation of the citizens policed to both the

scientific community and governmental officials (Tyler, Goff, & MacCoun, 2015).

American policing has evolved considerably from its 17th- and 18th-century roots

of tax collecting sheriffs and the reactionary night watch and constables in larger cities

(Dunham & Alpert, 2015). The 19th century ushered in industrialization, massive

immigration, and exploding urbanization. By the 1830s, America’s major cities were

faced with civil disorder and rising crime rates (Dunham & Alpert, 2015; Lawrence,

2014). American cities, in light of this growing crisis, eventually adopted the English

model of policing, creating an organized, uniformed presence patrolling problematic city

streets. However, the American version of an organized police force was mired in the

political machinations of the city in which it formed, leading to police corruption and a

lack of public trust (Dunham & Alpert, 2015; Miller, 1999). This problem was

exacerbated by the police being appointed and promoted by the political entity governing

at that moment (Lawrence, 2014).

The early 20th century witnessed American policing reform in the move towards

professionalization. Championed by August Vollmer and O. W. Wilson, American

policing began shifting away from political cronyism and ineffective policing and toward

a model based on education, discipline, candidate selection based on qualifications, and

professional personnel management (Dunham & Alpert, 2015; Lawrence, 2014). Despite

the improvements brought about by the professionalization of the American police force,

major social changes that sparked the riots of the 1960s exposed another shortcoming of

policing. Communities of color, which had experienced decades of unequal treatment

under the law, exploded in protests and rioting, which to a large extent, was mismanaged

by law enforcement, exposing to the nation its inequality of treatment.

The 1967 Kerner Commission cited poor supervision, abuse of power by the

police, strained police-community relations, and a lack of minority representation in law

enforcement as factors that led to the riots experienced earlier in the decade (Dunham &

Alpert, 2015; Lawrence 2014). Academics from public and private organizations began to

study policing, fueled by newly created public funding (Dunham & Alpert, 2015). As a

result of this scrutiny, the concept of community-oriented policing emerged as a way to

combat rising crime rates and the strained relationship between the police and the

communities they serve. Although this concept appeared to be logically sound, after

widespread adoption by law enforcement did not improve the quality of policecommunity

relationships, it was apparent that something more was confounding this issue.

The community-policing push to encourage law enforcement’s interaction with

the public exposed the reality that all police-citizen interactions are not equal. As

demonstrated in the literature, the mere act of interaction is not sufficient to repair

policecommunity relations; rather, it is the quality of the interaction that matters (Blader

Tyler, 2003; Lawrence, 2014; Jonathan-Zamir, Mastrofski, & Moyal, 2015; Mastrofski,

Jonathan-Zamir, Moyal, & Willis, 2016; Tyler et al., 2015). Repairing the

policecommunity relationship requires the police to be seen as a legitimate authority, and

for law enforcement to achieve this goal, it is necessary that police-citizen interactions be

regarded by the citizens as procedurally fair. In other words, by policing in a procedurally

just manner, law enforcement will be more likely to be viewed as a legitimate authority

and thus repair their relationship with the communities they serve.

While research findings have shown great support for procedural justice theory as

a framework from which to view the public’s perceptions of the police and their

subsequent behaviors, much less research has been conducted on how to successfully

incorporate this model of policing into American law enforcement (Nix, Pickett, Wolfe,

& Campbell, 2017). Researchers have explored training police officers in the academy as

well as part of in-service training. Skogan, Van Craen, and Hennessy (2015) examined

the effectiveness of in-service procedural justice training for altering officer behavior in

both the short- and long-term. Schulhofer, Tyler, and Huq (2011) stressed the importance

of a police agency’s executive leadership setting the tone by stressing the importance of

community support for the attainment of law enforcement goals as well as the

incompatibility of zero tolerance enforcement policies and officer misconduct with

procedurally just policing. One aspect that is strongly supported is the importance of

officer buy-in to the procedurally just model of policing for it to be successful in creating

police legitimacy. During my review of the literature, I noted a gap in research on the

differences between the methods of using psychological assessments to screen police

applicants for a predisposition to procedurally just policing.

In this chapter, I discuss the background of the study, detail the purpose and

problem statements as well as the research problem and methodology. The research

questions is stated, as is the theoretical framework guiding the study. The definitions of

key terms are listed to ensure clarity of meaning for the reader. I additionally discuss the

relevancy of the study and its impact on social change.

Background of the Study

Recently, several high-profile confrontations between police and minority citizens

have called to attention the eroding perceived legitimacy of the police in the United States

(Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Noppe et al., 2017; Tyler et al., 2015). These encounters

have ranged from the use of offensive language by the police up to the use of deadly force

against unarmed citizens. When the actions of the police are seen as being unfair or

biased, they undermine the perceived legitimacy and authority of law enforcement

(Trinkner, Jackson, & Tyler, 2018). In the era of news/information being streamed live as

it happens, which allows for instantaneous judgment by the viewer, it is more critical now

than ever that the actions of the police are such that upon viewing, the actions are judged

as being fair, unbiased, and respectful.

These incidents underscore the importance of police agencies policing in a

procedurally just manner and ensuring that their policies and practices are designed,

implemented, and evaluated against the criterion of procedural justice and particularly

focused on the quality of police-citizen contacts at the individual level (Tyler & Jackson,

2014). Although there has been much support in the literature of the concept of

procedurally just policing restoring the legitimacy of the police, how best to implement

the policies and procedures in police agencies and how to instill procedurally just

antecedents in each officer has proven to be much more elusive. A considerable amount

of research has addressed training and leadership modeling as methods of altering officer

behavior to that consistent with procedural justice (Antrobus, Thompson, & Ariel, 2018;

Murphy & Tyler, 2017; Owens, Weisburd, Amendola, & Alpert, 2018; Posick and

Hatfield, 2017; Skogan et al., 2015; Van Craen and Skogan, 2017). While these methods

of transforming behavior have shown some success, a less researched method is to

control who enters the police service by using administered psychological examinations

to identify applicants who have a psychological predisposition to behave in a manner

consistent with the tenants of procedurally just policing (Lawrence, Christoff, &

Escamilla, 2017; Masood, Rafique, Qaisar, & Musarat, 2017). The time has come for the

psychological assessment of police applicants not only for their potential to engage in

problematic behaviors but for their ability to police in a way that fosters trust and

legitimacy in the community. It has, therefore, become necessary to not only use

psychological assessments to exclude undesirable applicants but examine their ability to

reliably and validly predict the likelihood that applicants will police in a procedurally just

manner.

Problem Statement

There is a problem in communities across the United States as evidenced by

expressions of their distrust of police. That problem, specifically, is low levels of

perceived police legitimacy (Mastrofski et al., 2016). Currently, law enforcement

agencies rely on post-offer personality assessments to profile for the future performance

of police applicants (Annell, Lindfors, & Sverke, 2015). However, there has been no

empirical evidence correlating psychological assessment results with the levels of

perceived police legitimacy in the community (Davis, Ortiz, Euler, & Kuykendall, 2015).

Citing the results from their 2015 Police-Citizen Interaction Survey, Rosenbaum

et al. (2017) concluded that the problem of low levels of perceived legitimacy impacts

every level of law enforcement because, without the ability to prescreen applicants for a

predisposition to policing in a respectful, fair manner that promotes trust, police

legitimacy will continue to erode, which in turn will reduce citizen cooperation and

compliance. A law enforcement agency’s policy of screening-out police applicants, as

opposed to accepting-in, may contribute to low levels of perceived legitimacy. No

literature could be discovered on levels of perceived police legitimacy and the manner in

which patrol officers interacted with citizens in agencies that screen-out applicants and

agencies that screen-in applicants. This study addressed the identified gap in the literature

and contributed to the body of knowledge used to confront the problem of community

distrust of police by providing data that public policy decision-makers may use to

formulate policies governing the use of psychological assessments to screen applicants

for their likelihood of policing in a procedurally just manner.

Purpose

The purpose of this mixed methods research study was to explore the manner in

which officers who have been selected by agencies using two different psychological

screening methodologies (screen-in or screen-out), interact with citizens as they deliver

police patrol services and to discern any difference between the patrol officers’

procedurally just behaviors of the different agencies. This study involved reviewing

publicly available body-worn camera video recordings of the patrol activities of police

officers and conducting ride-alongs from two similar Midwest police departments.

Citizens attribute the antecedents of procedural justice to the style of policing with which

they are served through direct interaction with or observed interaction of police-citizen

encounters (Hamm, Trinkner, & Carr, 2017; Tyler, 2017). The viewed police-citizen

interactions were qualitatively evaluated using predetermined and observable officer

behaviors to understand how policing services are delivered by the screen-in and

screenout agencies and to assess citizen satisfaction. These data were then quantitatively

analyzed to determine whether a statistically significant and meaningful difference exists

between agencies employing different methods of psychologically screening applicants

and the procedurally just policing services these agencies deliver to the communities they

serve.

Research Questions

The research questions and hypotheses examined in this mixed methods research

study were as follows:

RQ1: In a Midwest screen-in police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on dispatched calls for service contribute to the level of community trust/police

legitimacy during interactions with citizens?

RQ2: In a Midwest screen-out police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on dispatched calls for service contribute to the level of community trust/police

legitimacy during interactions with citizens?

RQ3: In a Midwest screen-in police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on self-initiated runs contribute to the level of community trust/police legitimacy

during interactions with citizens?

RQ4: In a Midwest screen-out police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on self-initiated runs contribute to the level of community trust/police legitimacy

during interactions with citizens?

H1: There is a statistically significant and meaningful difference in patrol officer

behaviors which contribute to citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy in one Midwest

screen-in police agency and one Midwest screen-out police agency.

H0: There is no difference in the procedurally just behaviors of patrol officers

during interactions with citizens of screen-in and screen-out police agencies.

Theoretical Framework

Suchman (1995) defined legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption

that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially

constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (pp. 574). Suchman further

contended that legitimacy is socially constructed as it reflects a balance between the

legitimated entity’s behaviors and the shared beliefs of the affected social group.

Additionally, legitimacy theory argues that it is through citizens’ perceptions of the

state’s legitimacy that allows the state to employ force to compel compliance and in fact

acts as a stabilizing force in the maintaining of social order (Nivette, 2014). Therefore,

legitimacy is purported to be the social acceptance of an organization’s perceived normal

behaviors despite the observance of singular behaviors not perceived to be the norm.

Extending this thinking, Tyler (2017) adds that police legitimacy is created through

citizens’ perceptions of procedural fairness during police-citizen interactions which in

turn is supportive of social perceptions of the law enforcement agency's legitimacy within

that community.

Procedural justice theory is based on Rawls’s (1971) theory of justice. Rawls’s

theory was expanded by Thibaut and Walker’s (1978) theory of procedure and later

refined by Lind and Tyler (1988) as the formal theory of procedural justice from which

this study proceeds. Procedural justice theory sets out to explain the importance of a

social procedure’s quality of process over the resultant outcome. The theory provides a

framework from which police-citizen interactions and the subsequent procedures can be

evaluated for their justness and fairness. It is the perceptions of those who participate in

and experience the police-citizen procedure and process that drive their attitudes and

behaviors (Lind & Tyler, 1988) and concomitantly influence perceptions of police

legitimacy (Tyler, 2017). It is, therefore, imperative that police agencies craft their

policies and practices in ways that serve to reinforce procedurally just policing (Tyler,

2017). Hence, as part of police policy and procedure, in this study I explored the

nationally accepted policy of using psychological assessments as part of an evaluative

process of determining who is an acceptable candidate for the position of police officer in

relation to their likelihood of policing in a procedurally just manner. This is evidenced by

an officer’s behaviors when interacting with citizens that are supportive of perceptions of

procedurally just policing, which in turn allows for socially construed perceptions of the

police organization’s legitimacy (Suchman, 1995; Tyler, 2017).

Nature of the Study

The nature of this mixed methods research study was an initial exploration of the

observed behaviors (procedurally just or unjust) of officers assigned to patrol duties as

they interact with citizens with whom they come into contact as well as an assessment of

the citizens’ satisfaction. The data gathered were then used to quantitatively determine if

a statistically significant and meaningful difference exists in how the two agencies

delivered procedurally just police services to their respective communities. It involved the

study of two similar law enforcement agencies in the Midwest, one of which follows a

policy of using psychological assessments to screen-out undesirable applicants and one of

which uses a policy of screening-in police applicants possessive of personality traits in-

line with a philosophy of procedurally just policing.

O’Sullivan, Rassel, Berner, and Taliaferro (2017) stated that in exploratory

research, nonprobability samples may be used particularly when the samples represent the

populations of interest well. As such, I systematically sampled two small/medium

Midwest law enforcement agencies: one that screens-in police applicants and one that

screens-out police applicants. A random sample of 12 (n = 24) police officers assigned to

patrol will be taken from each agency. I collected data collection using a

researcherdeveloped observation checklist to record specific predetermined and

observable behaviors of the law enforcement officer from each agency of interest. A

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was used to gather 7 days of body-worn

camera/cruiser video, all performance evaluations, citizen complaints, citizen

compliments, and awards for each selected patrol officer. Generally, records retention

laws require a minimum of 90 days storage for all video data captured by the body-worn

camera and cruiser video. In light of this, 7 days of video were randomly sampled from

the most recent 90-day period.

The theory of procedural justice provides a framework which allows recordings of

police-citizen interactions taken by police body worn camera/cruiser camera to be

explored for the presence of behaviors which reinforce citizen perceptions of police

legitimacy. Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015) argued that a formative observational instrument

is needed to measure procedural justice as the police wield it in the natural setting of their

encounter with the public. The researchers contended that the specific behaviors that

construe procedural justice do not reflect an underlying singular construct but rather form

one (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). The researchers have developed and validated an

observational instrument, the Systematic Social Observation of Police-Citizen Encounters

(SSOPCE), capable of applying explicit, intersubjectively transmissible standards about

the exercise of fair treatment and its outcomes (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). The

SSOPCE is used to estimate the fairness of a police-citizen interaction by combining all

of the procedurally just behaviors of the officer (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). A

composite index was created from four indices of specific procedural justice elements,

those being; dignity, trustworthy motives, participation, and neutrality (Jonathan-Zamir et

al., 2015). The researchers demonstrated that the composite index captured every aspect

of the four elements and that each element contributes uniquely to the index and that a

strong, statistically significant relationship exists between the overall procedural justice

index and the displayed satisfaction with the police handling of the observed encounters

(Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). This instrument was therefore well suited for use in this

observational study of procedurally just behaviors in police-citizen interactions.

This mixed-methodology research study added to the understanding of how

procedurally just policing services are provided by police agencies with differing methods

of psychologically screening their applicants. I envisioned the qualitative portion of this

research study most closely resembling an exploratory case study. Yin (2017) stated that

case studies are particularly relevant when the research questions require in-depth

description and exploration of a social phenomenon. Case study research questions

should ask “how” and “why” a contemporary phenomenon of which the researcher has

little or no control and the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not

clearly defined operates (Yin, 2017). As such, an exploratory case study design

complemented this study because of its in-depth approach to understanding the delivery

of police services from law enforcement agencies with differing policies of determining

who is acceptable for the position of police officer. Lastly, this study was the initial

exploration of the specific context in which the phenomenon operates and consequently

ventured to define the questions and hypotheses that will form the basis of future inquiry

(Yin, 2017).

The quantitative component of this study was used to analyze the relationship

between a police agency’s psychological assessment policy of screening-in or screening

out (independent variables) applicants and the manner in which police services are

delivered to the community served as measured by the dependent variables quality of

treatment and quality of process. Frankfort-Nachmias and Leon-Guerrero (2015) stated

that hypotheses are tentative explanations to questions posed in a research study that must

be tested and empirically verified. The themed data gathered from the qualitative process

were used to test the alternative hypothesis that the observed procedurally just policing in

screen-in, and screen-out police agencies are not equal therefore leading to a difference in

citizen satisfaction. The null hypothesis states that no difference exists between screen-in

and screen-out police agencies and the procedurally just police services delivered to the

communities they serve.

Definition of Terms

Police legitimacy: A reflection of the societal belief that the police ought to be

allowed to exercise their authority to maintain social order, manage conflicts and solve

problems in their communities (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015).

Procedural justice: A means of attaining legitimacy whereby citizens are given

the opportunity to explain their story, decisions made by authorities are based upon

evidence and legal standards without bias, respectful and dignified treatment by

authorities, authorities act in a benevolent, sincere and caring manner demonstrative of

trustworthiness (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015).

Systematic Social Observation of Police-Citizen Encounters (SSOPCE): A

validated instrument for measuring procedural justice using systematic observations of

patrol officers’ interactions with the public (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015).

Preemployment psychological evaluation: An examination used to determine if a

public safety candidate meets the minimum requirements for psychological suitability

mandated by jurisdictional statutes and regulations, and any other criteria established by

the employing agency (International Chiefs of Police, 2014).

Screen-out psychological assessment: A process of screen-out unsuitable police

applicants with inabilities to tolerate stressful situations, systemic biases against special

interest groups, poor judgment or impulse control, or other psychological problems

(Metchik, 1999).

Screen-in psychological assessment: A selection process used to identify desired

personality characteristics as compared to demonstratively successful groups of

individuals within a specific occupation for which the applicant is applying (Diecidue,

1993).

Assumptions

The major assumption made for this research study was that factors other than the

type of psychological assessment screening used by police agencies do not influence the

behavior of officers when interacting with citizens. Variables unaccounted for are

training, organizational culture, and homogeneity of the community served. It is likely

that these factors also influence the dependent variables. This study also assumes that my

observations of police-citizen interactions and consequent analysis of the interaction

reflect the perceptions of citizens regarding procedurally just policing. These assumptions

were necessary due to the lack of resources available to me to account for all confounding

variables as well as identify citizens from police-citizen interactions recorded on police

video to administer the SSOPCE.

Scope and Delimitations

This study was conducted to explore the differences in the amount of procedurally

just policing delivered to the communities in police agencies using screen-in and

screenout police applicant psychological assessments and to assess citizens’ satisfaction.

The study was limited to full-time sworn law enforcement officers assigned to patrol

duties employed by two municipal agencies in the Midwest. Eight patrol officers (N = 16)

were randomly sampled from both the screen-in and screen-out police agency. From the

randomly sampled patrol officers in the screen-out agency, 10 police-citizen interactions

recorded on body-worn camera video was randomly sampled from the previous 60

working days. I conducted 12-hour ride-alongs with eight randomly sampled officers

from the screen-in agency.

The unit of analysis was the observed interaction of the selected patrol officer

with citizens as the officer responds to both dispatched and self-initiated runs. Each

recorded interaction was evaluated and scored for procedurally just behaviors and citizen

satisfaction using the SSOPCE. The observed difference in procedurally just police

behaviors between the screen-in and screen-out agencies was quantitatively analyzed for

statistical significance.

Limitations

Any study, no matter how well designed, has limitations. One limitation of this

research study lies in the inability to draw a causal relationship between the independent

and dependent variables. The likelihood of confounding and intervening variables

influencing the dependent variables limits the conclusions drawn to observations of a

correlation between variables. Likewise, without measuring citizens’ perception of

procedurally just policing and police legitimacy, it is unknown if my analysis accurately

reflects the societal belief insofar as one community experiencing more procedurally just

policing than another. To control for researcher bias, reflexivity was used. This process

documented the reasoning used to develop codes and themes from the observation of

officers’ behavior and citizens’ satisfaction and allow for reassessment of

biasedinfluenced decisions.

In my study, many of the threats to internal/external validity were controlled for

through the use of police-citizen interactions that had been previously recorded in their

natural settings without influence from anything other than those influences that would

occur in nature. The instrument I chose to use, the SSOPCE, had already been validated

as a tool capable of measuring the antecedents of procedural justice and was easily

adapted for my intended use.

Generalizability was an issue with my study given the small sample size, N = 16,

but given the nature of this study being primarily an exploratory study, generalizability

was not an intended goal. Additionally, the constructs used in my study were grounded in

the literature, as was the tool to measure the constructs. Conclusion validity was

addressed by the performance of a statistical analysis of the data to establish a

relationship between the variables and the phenomenon to ensure any conclusions

reached were supported by the data.

As noted by Ravitch and Carl (2016), while qualitative research can maintain

fidelity to participants and their experiences which allows for an emergent approach to

design and implementation, it must nonetheless have a solid research design. Research

design must show rigor, that is to say, it must apply the appropriate research methods to

meet the stated research objectives. This may be accomplished by demonstrating

trustworthiness in qualitative research. Shenton (2004) stated that trustworthiness is the

equivalent to quantitative research’s validity. The difference being that qualitative

research maintains fidelity to the experiences of participants while quantitative research

maintains fidelity to the specific methodology (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). This means that

the lens used in qualitative research is based on the views of people who conduct,

participate in, and read and review the study as opposed to a lens based on scores,

instruments, and research designs (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

In qualitative research, trustworthiness of a study can be demonstrated using four

concepts. The approaches used must align with the goals, research questions, and context

of the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Ravitch and Carl (2016) stated that the four concepts

are confirmability, credibility, transferability, and dependability. Additionally, Ravitch

and Carl discuss Maxwell’s (1992) five categories of qualitative validity, those being;

descriptive validity, interpretive validity, theoretical validity, generalizability, and

evaluative validity.

Credibility is the ability of the researcher to account for all of the complexities

that present themselves in a study and deal with not easily explained patterns (Ravitch &

Carl, 2016). By structuring the research design to be recursive, it is possible to achieve

credibility. Specifically, this may be accomplished by using random sampling, the correct

operational measures of the concepts being studied, triangulation, ensuring participant

honesty, negative case analysis, iterative questioning, debriefing sessions, researcher’s

reflective commentary, member checks, peer scrutiny, and thick description of the

phenomenon of study (Shenton, 2004). In my study, I used triangulation to help establish

credibility. I also used other data to confirm observational data coded from observations

of police-citizen interactions.

The term transferability means that qualitative research is inexorably linked to the

context in which the data are gathered (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Findings are only

transferable to another context when the research contains detailed descriptions of the

context and data so that research audiences can make comparisons to other contexts and

determine their applicability (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Dependability demonstrates that the

data are gathered and analyzed reasonably and are consistent with the researcher’s

argument (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Dependability shows the consistency and stability of

data over time, which may be accomplished by methods of triangulation and sequencing

and articulating the rationale for the use of methods as being appropriate for the

collection of data to answer the research question (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Lastly,

confirmability is a reference to the researcher’s effort to remain unbiased and maintain

neutrality in their results (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Confirmability may be achieved

through researcher reflexivity, triangulation, and using external audits (Ravitch & Carl,

2016).

To satisfy dependability in my research study, it was essential that the manner in

which data were themed and coded were consistent and that rich examples were given to

support the codes and themes. Using other data sources, triangulation also supported the

dependability of the analysis. In order to achieve confirmability, I documented my efforts

to remain unbiased and neutral throughout the study. Reflexivity and triangulation was

used to help satisfy this threat. Transferability, much like generalizability, was more

difficult to overcome. It is difficult to compare one police agency to another due to many

factors beyond the scope of control for in this particular study. This was compensated for

by providing abundant, rich detail of the data and context so that consumers of this

research can decide if the findings are applicable to other contexts.

Significance

This research fills a gap in understanding whether psychological assessments

administered to police applicants can be used to screen for an applicant’s predisposition

for procedurally just policing. This study is unique because it addresses the need for

police agencies to screen for qualities that build positive community relationships

between the police and the citizens they serve, thereby restoring police legitimacy.

Lawrence et al. (2017) argued that police agencies would be better served by ensuring

recruits are predisposed to the constructs of procedural justice and a community-oriented

approach to policing rather than screening out undesirable applicants. Tyler (2017)

argued that policing in a manner consistent with the concepts of procedural justice creates

trust in the community and strengthens perceptions of police legitimacy. By addressing

the law enforcement policies of screening-out and screening-in police applicants using

psychological assessments and the quality of procedurally just policing services rendered

to the community, this study contributes additional data to the body of knowledge.

This study creates several opportunities for social change. When police agencies

can select personnel based on a predisposition to procedurally just policing, they can

create a police service designed to police the community in a manner that restores and

maintains police legitimacy. When a law enforcement agency is viewed by the public as

being legitimate, the agency benefits in that the community will not only obey officers

but also assist law enforcement in the attainment of the goal of crime reduction (Tyler,

2017). It can also be expected that when citizens obey the police, there is less opportunity

for conflict escalation, thereby reducing police use of force and diminishing injuries to

the police and the public.

Summary

In this chapter, I introduced the topic providing a brief history of policing as it

relates to the identified problem. The research problem and purpose statements were

articulated, as was the research methodology. The research questions and hypotheses to

be tested were listed, and the theoretical framework used to guide the study was

discussed. The nature of the study detailed the reasoning for selecting a

mixedmethodology design as well as using the SSOPCE instrument. Definitions of key

terms were listed to remove any ambiguity of meaning. In concluding this chapter, I

described the scope, delimitations, limitations, and the significance of the study.

In Chapter 2, I provide an exhaustive review of the extant literature to show

mastery of the knowledge of procedural justice and its function in the restoration of

police legitimacy. Other aspects of these topics are also reviewed for their relevance

when discussing the model of procedurally just policing and its role in improving police

legitimacy. Relevant literature is also reviewed for psychological screening of police

applicants and police personality.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The literature outlined in this chapter was used to guide the exploration of patrol

officers’ behaviors from different police agencies and the theoretical framework on which

this study is based. The purpose of this mixed methodology study was to explore the

manner in which police officers who have been selected by agencies using two different

psychological screening methodologies (screen-in and screen-out) interact with citizens

as they deliver patrol services and to discern any differences between the procedurally

just behaviors of the different agency’s officers. The problem I explored in this research

is the low levels of perceived police legitimacy in American communities. The research

specifically addressed whether how police agencies prescreen applicants through the use

of psychological assessments (screen-in and screen-out) affects the amount of

procedurally just behaviors of their patrol officers, which ultimately may serve to increase

or decrease the level of perceived police legitimacy in the observed communities.

This chapter will begin with a synopsis of the literature research strategy

employed, followed by the reasoning behind the selection of the theoretical framework

used to guide this study. The historical development of the selected theory (procedural

justice theory) will also be outlined as it relates to the research problem and purpose of

this study. Furthermore, this chapter provides an analysis of the research literature

regarding the development and current state of psychological assessment tools for use in

screening police applicants. Given the limited research pertaining to police applicants’

psychological assessments as a valid predictor of procedurally just behaviors, a wide

variety of concepts and variables will be explored related to personality constructs,

methods of training police in procedurally just policing, the four tenants of procedurally

just policing, distributive justice, and police performance measurement.

Literature Search Strategy

The literature review for this study was guided by qualitative, quantitative, and

mixed methodology peer-reviewed literature on the usefulness of police applicants’

postoffer psychological assessments in predicting procedurally just policing behaviors.

Included in this literature review are articles related to personality traits, distributive

justice, and police performance measurement. For the purpose of this literature review,

the Walden University online library and subscription to Springer’s Journal of

Experimental Criminology were used. The following databases were accessed to search

for scholarly, peer-reviewed articles for my research: Academic Search Complete,

Criminal Justice Database, Thoreau multi-database, SAGE Journals, SocINDEX, Google

Scholar, ProQuest Central, PsycArticles, Psychology Databases Simultaneous Search,

PsycINFO, LexisNexis Academic, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Directory of Open Access

Journals and Books, EBSCO ebooks, and Emerald Insight. I have searched using the

phrases police performance, measuring police performance, police screening, police

assessment, psychological assessment, police personality assessment, procedural justice,

constitutional policing, police performance evaluation, performance evaluation,

citizenpolice interaction, personality traits, teaching procedural justice to police,

measuring procedural justice, measuring procedurally just behaviors in police, and

predicting police behavior. Additionally, the phrase law enforcement was substituted for

police in each applicable search.

Theoretical Foundation

Procedural justice theory served as the theoretical lens for this study. The

theoretical framework is the foundation on which all knowledge is constructed for a

research study (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). The theoretical framework provides the

structure and support for the rationale for the study, the problem statement, purpose, and

its significance (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Without a clearly defined theoretical

framework, it is possible that the reader may not be able to identify clearly the

researcher’s intended structure and purpose (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Additionally, the

framework reflects important personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of

knowledge and reality (Grant & Osanloo, 2014).

The procedural justice theory is an appropriate framework for this study as it

demonstrates how when the behaviors of police are perceived as being fair and honest,

they can enhance their legitimacy (Huq, Jackson, & Trinkner, 2016; MacQueen &

Bradford, 2015; Rosenbaum, Lawrence, Hartnett, McDevitt, & Posick, 2015; Tyler, 1988,

2004). The theory further states that when police are perceived as being fair and

trustworthy, citizens will alter their behavior to obey and cooperate with the police when

dealing with crime and disorder (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Tyler, 2012). The criminal

justice literature is replete with the theory of procedural justice being used as the pathway

to enhancing police legitimacy (Madon, Murphy, & Sargeant, 2017; Murphy, Sargeant, &

Cherney, 2015; Nix, 2017; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Predominately, the literature

examines the four elemental constructs of procedural justice relating to the quality of

treatment and quality of the decision-making process (Jonathan-Zamir & Harpaz, 2018;

Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Tyler, 1988; Van Damme, 2017), which when demonstrated

by police behavior during interactions with citizens, serves to enhance perceptions of

police legitimacy.

A police-citizen interaction is broken down into two parts: the relationship that

emerges from the exhibited behaviors of the police officer and the citizen involved during

the interaction and the citizen’s perception of the police resultant from the interaction. A

citizen’s perception of police legitimacy is based upon the police behaviors of

participation or voice, neutrality, dignity and respect, and trustworthy motives

(Rosenbaum et al., 2017). Participation or voice refers to allowing citizens the

opportunity to present their version of events and be part of the solution/resolution (Tyler

et al., 2015). The concept of neutrality incorporates the notion of transparency insofar as

the decision-making process is based on facts gathered from all parties and the outcome is

reached in a neutral, unbiased manner (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). Dignity and respect

simply phrased means a police officer’s behaviors demonstrate an acknowledgment of an

individual’s rights and that they are worthy of respect (Van Damme, 2017). Finally, an

officer’s trustworthy motives are perceived by citizens through an officer’s behavior

when it demonstrates care and concern for the well-being of the citizen (Van Damme,

2017).

Procedural Justice Theory Roots

John Rawls’s (1971) theory of justice is the foundation of the procedural justice

theory. Rawls is a well-known political and ethical philosopher and is widely considered

the most important political philosopher of the 20th century (Duignan, 2018). The major

contribution of Rawls’s theory to procedural justice theory is in its conceptualization of

justice as fairness (p. 25). It is in this conceptualization in which people in their original

position (p. 15) under a veil of ignorance (p. 17) choose that “each person has an equal

right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (p.

266) and that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

(a) to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions

open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity” (p. 266). Rawls’s theory

directly implies a justice of distribution of good and opportunity for each member of

society.

Extending Rawls’s theory of justice to an equality of distribution in conflict

resolution, Thibaut and Walker (1978) theorized that distributive justice is realized when

outcomes are distributed to conflicting parties directly in proportion to their level of

investment to the circumstances giving rise to the dispute. Therefore, the procedure with

the greatest certitude of producing justice is the one which optimizes “the fullest possible

report of inputs prior to the determination of the distribution” (Thibaut & Walker, 1978,

p. 542). Thibaut and Walker further theorized that the objective of justice attainment is

best served by a procedure that allows the disputants the maximum amount of control

over the process of dispute resolution while control of the decision process is controlled

by a neutral third party. As intended by the authors, this model of procedure fits well

within the entire legal system of the United States in its goal of attaining distributing

justice in instances of disputes entailing a high conflict of interest.

Prior to their 1978 work, Thibaut and Walker (1975) conducted a series of

laboratory experiments designed to compare two systems of justice and their actual and

perceived abilities to achieve procedural justice. These experiments hinged on Rawls’s

(1971) assumption that principles of justice are standards preferred by disinterested

participants who do not know their own advantages and disadvantages and are unaware of

their own opportunity for gain thereby shielding their sense of fairness from bias. The

experiments of Thibaut and Walker demonstrated the preference of a diverse sampling of

individuals to perceive the procedure of having an unbiased third party deliver a fair

resolution after having weighed all available facts from the involved parties in high

conflict disputes. This experimentation was the groundwork for the presumption of

procedural justice theory in that perceptions of justice depend less on outcomes than on

the procedures used by those charged with dispensing justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988).

Procedural Justice Theory

Building on the works of both Rawls’s (1971) book A Theory of Justice, and

Thibaut and Walker’s Procedural justice: A Psychological Analysis (1975), Lind and

Tyler’s The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (1988) is the seminal work in the

theory of procedural justice. Lind and Tyler carried the sterile results of the laboratory

work of Thibaut and Walker into the real-world in order to test their findings. Lind and

Tyler’s work focused on people’s “evaluations of social experiences and relationships as

being largely influenced by the form of social interaction” (p. 1). This counterintuitive

idea served to redirect the thinking and research of social psychologists from

outcomebased evaluations to process based evaluations in regards to people’s satisfaction

with their social experiences.

The foundational works by Thibaut and Walker (1975) and Lind and Tyler (1988)

were focused on the American adversarial system of justice and people’s satisfaction with

the legal process when they were able to have their interests expressed to a detached,

third-party decision maker. Realizing the application of procedural justice theory beyond

the court system, Tyler (1988) began examining citizens’ contacts with the police as the

vast majority of citizens’ contact with the legal system begins and ends with that contact.

Tyler examined what specifically about the treatment by legal authorities, chiefly the

police, creates the perception in the involved citizen that the treatment they received was

fair. Tyler deduced that there are two categories of the underlying dimensions of

procedural justice. The first category addresses the quality of the process, whereas the

second category is concerned with the quality of the treatment by legal authorities (Tyler,

1988). It is this deduction from which a wealth of procedural justice research has sprung.

Tyler (1988), extending the work of Leventhal (1980), examined six hypothesized

dimensions of procedural justice pertaining to the categories of the quality of treatment

and the quality of the process, those being, control/representation, consistency,

impartiality, decision accuracy, correctability, and ethicality. The results of Tyler’s study

confirmed the importance of procedural justice as being more influential in an

individual’s assessment of the fairness of a legal process than that of distributive justice

and that there is little independent effect of the favorability of outcomes or the procedures

used. Further, Tyler demonstrated the importance to citizens that the actions of legal

authorities be perceived as being fair and unbiased and that interpretations of the meaning

of procedural justice and the values used in its evaluation were consistent across

ethnicities and locations. Lastly, Tyler opined that the “common values facilitate the

efforts of officials by suggesting the public concerns they ought to focus on to gain

citizen acceptance of their efforts” (p. 132), thus making an initial connection between

procedural justice and citizen’s perceptions of police legitimacy.

In the years that have followed the foundational works of Thibaut and Walker and

Lind and Tyler, procedural justice theory has been studied by researchers in the fields of

psychology, political science, organizational behavior, sociology, and public health

(Hagan & Hans, 2017). Procedural justice theory has been explored for its use in offering

solutions to problems ranging from sociolegal conflict resolution to policy reform

(MacCoun, 2005). Researchers have empirically tested the theory of procedural justice in

a wide range of applications such as the behavior of organizations, obedience to the law,

and dispute resolution (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992; Tyler, 1990, 1997;

Tyler & Huo, 2002). As applied to the field of policing, the causal links posited by the

theory have been used to examine the perceptions of just police behaviors and practices,

citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy, and obedience to the law (Hagan & Hans,

2017). Despite the volumes of literature demonstrating correlations, researchers continue

to work towards establishing a strong causal link between procedural justice perceptions

and compliance with and legitimacy of the police (Nagin & Telep, 2017).

When examining the psychology of legitimacy, three theoretical perspectives are

commonly used to explain how it is that people evaluate their social experiences those

being, social exchange theories, distributive justice theories, and procedural justice

theories (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Social exchange theories are constructed around the idea

that human behavior is motivated by self-interest in their interactions with others (Cook

& Rice, 2003; Homans, 1961; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Perceptions of police legitimacy

would, therefore, rely greatly upon favorable outcomes. The literature has repeatedly

shown that perceptions of police legitimacy are more strongly correlated to the quality of

treatment and the quality of the process as opposed to the favorability of the outcome

(Gau, 2015; Huq et al., 2016; Mastrofski et al., 2016; Murphy, 2009; Tyler, 1994, 2006,

2017). The theory of distributive justice is focused upon the concern individuals have

with the fairness of outcomes. Within the theory, there are two differing principles of

justice addressed by equity theories (equality of outcomes) and the other by relative

deprivation theory (inequality of outcomes; Tyler & Lind, 1992). The work of Sunshine

and Tyler (2003) demonstrated that while distributive justice does influence judgments of

legitimacy (β = 0.21, p < 0.001), procedural justice (β = 0.35, p < 0.001) has a

significantly greater influence. The findings of Sunshine and Tyler have been duplicated

throughout the body of literature (Donner, Maskaly, & Fridell, 2015; Hough, Jackson, &

Bradford, 2013: Reisig, Tankebe, and Mesko, 2014; Tankebe, Reisig, and Wang, 2016).

Procedural Justice Theory and Policing

Tyler and Lind (1992) was one of the first studies to focus on the role of

procedural justice and its ability to shape public support for and evaluation of the police

(Elliot, Thomas, and Ogloff, 2011). Evaluations of procedural justice in a policing

context have been made through the measurement of an individual’s perceived obligation

to obey and/or their trust in the police, commonly used separately or in combination as

the conceptualization of police legitimacy (Nix, Wolfe, Rojek, and Kaminski, 2015;

Sargeant, Murphy, and Cherney, 2014; Tyler, 2004; Tyler and Jackson, 2014; Wolfe, Nix,

Kaminski, and Rojek, 2016). Tyler and Jackson (2014), identified four dimensions of

procedural justice, which will be used to guide this study in the measurement of

procedurally just policing behaviors. The four identified dimensions of procedurally just

policing are, giving citizens a voice, treating people with dignity and respect, being

neutral and unbiased, and trustworthy motives (Aiello and Lawton, 2018; JonathanZamir,

Mastrofski, and Moyal, 2015; Lawrence, Christoff, and Escamilla, 2017; Noppe,

Verhage, and Van Damme, 2017; Tyler and Jackson, 2014).

The 2015 study by Jonathan-Zamir et al. was used to guide this study for its

examination of police behaviors that contribute to citizens’ perceptions of police

legitimacy. Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015), define procedural justice as “the fairness of the

process by which the police exercise their authority: the way that police treat citizens and

how they decide what to do” (p. 846). The researchers argued that the more citizens

observe police demonstrating behaviors indicative of procedurally just policing, the

greater the likelihood that the citizens would perceive the police to be a legitimate

authority. Therefore, procedural justice is seen to be a formative index as opposed to a

reflective index as it has been more widely construed in previous research. A reflective

index is so named as it believed to be reflective of an underlying construct and in the case

of procedural justice viewed as a single latent variable. Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015)

argue that fairness in police interactions must be estimated through the process of

combining officer behaviors that are not intercorrelated, nor are they interchangeable.

By labeling procedural justice as a formative construct, it becomes possible for a

detached observer to “apply explicit, intersubjectively transmissible standards” (p. 846),

to the behaviors of the police during police-citizen interactions. The observer is able to

note the varied officer behaviors which are thought to resonate with different facets of the

construct and when combined provide an estimate the fairness of the police treatment

(Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). By looking at all behaviors displayed by the police during

interactions with citizens, it is hoped that the full concept of procedural justice can be

captured.

Worden and McLean (2017) point out that procedurally just policing “creates”

legitimacy resultant from individual police-citizen encounters. The process leading from

the police-citizen encounter to legitimacy is dependent upon each citizen making

judgments based on their interpretations of the actions of the police officer with whom

they interact (Worden and McLean, 2017). Following this thinking, Jonathan-Zamir et al.,

(2015) and Van Damme (2017) demonstrate that through the observation of police

behaviors as they interact with citizens a quantifiable amount of procedurally just police

behavior can be empirically demonstrated. It is, therefore thought that the more behaviors

that are perceived by the citizen to be fair, the more procedural justice the citizen receives

(Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). The procedurally just policing behaviors are those which

demonstrate giving citizens the ability to voice their interpretation of the events and offer

explanations, make decisions in a neutral, transparent, unbiased fashion, are polite and

demonstrate respect for the rights of citizens, and demonstrate concern for the wellbeing

of citizens (Jonathan-Zamir et al. 2015, Van Damme, 2017).

Cultivating Procedurally Just Policing

There has been a rush for politicians and police policymakers to single out

procedural justice as the “silver bullet” to the restoration of citizens’ perceptions of the

police as a legitimate authority. While the policy of policing in a procedurally just manner

to restore perceived legitimacy appears to be a straightforward cause-and-effect scenario,

the problem of how to transform police organizations and their sworn employees into its

practitioners is not as clear. Framed by the work of Suchman (1995) and his definition of

legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are

desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially construed system of norms, values,

beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574), the sparse body of research in this topic is examined.

Suchman (1995) states that legitimacy is a reaction that individuals who are

external to an organization have in reaction to the behavior of that organization. Thus

legitimacy is something that is possessed objectively but created subjectively (Suchman,

1995). The legitimacy of an organization is socially constructed in that members of

society observing the behaviors of the legitimated organization and perceiving the

behaviors to fall within the parameters of some held societal belief, judge the

organization to be legitimate (Suchman, 1995). This may hold true despite the

observations and judgments of any single observer. Suchman opines that organizations

seek out legitimacy as it enhances the stability and comprehensibility of organizational

behaviors and actions. An organization that is perceived to be legitimate can expect to

receive cooperation from individuals and groups external to the organization (Suchman).

This is echoed in the work of Tyler (2003, 2004, 2017) in his assumption that when

police are perceived as being legitimate, they can expect public cooperation and

deference to their commands.

Suchman (1995) acknowledges the difficulties in managing legitimacy, stating

that organizational management must rely on communication to both internal and external

constituents. Organizations must be skilled at gaining, maintaining and repairing their

perceived legitimacy through the use of strategic responses to organizational actions and

behaviors which appeal to the pragmatic, moral, and cognitive levels of their audience

(Suchman, 1995). It is also imperative that an organization be cognizant of cultural

support, both internal and external to the organization. Without the support of the

members within the organization, it is not possible to maintain the support of those

external to the organization to an extended period of time (Suchman, 1995). Likewise, if

an organization is unaware that their actions and behaviors are no longer supported by

groups external to the organization, it cannot sustain its externally perceived legitimacy

(Suchman, 1995). Framed in a policing context, the issue is, how do police organizations

create internal and external legitimacy in ways that create, sustain, and repair their

perceived legitimacy in society?

When addressing issues of police legitimacy and the use of procedural justice to

create, sustain, and repair it, the traditional police culture (TPC) must be taken into

account. The TPC has been defined as a set of attitudes and values that serve to insulate

officers from the stresses and strains inherent to police work as well as supplying an

interpretive lens from which to evaluate the behaviors and intentions of others (Crank,

2014; Silver, Roche, Bilach, & Ryon, 2017). Research has demonstrated that support for

the use of force and support for procedural justice have strong linkages to TPC

endorsement among both officers and supervisors/management (Silver et al., 2017). TPC

instills distrust of and isolation from citizens, a crime-fighting orientation, motivation to

avoid managerial oversight of behavior, loyalty to fellow officers, intense focus on officer

safety, and lack of desire to report office misconduct (Crank; Silver et al., 2014). This is

an important factor as it can act to impede procedurally just policing behaviors depending

on the degree to which TPC is internalized by officers and their managers.

Research into the degree to which officers endorse TPC has taken one of three

directions, those being, individual characteristics, organizational characteristics, and

social contextual characteristics. Researchers have acknowledged that differences at the

individual level amongst police officers may contribute to the degree to which they

endorse TPC (Silver et al., 2017). Studies have examined the variables of officer

race/ethnicity, sex, educational level, and years of service (Ingram and Terrill, 2014; Pew

Research Center, 2017; Paoline, Terrill, and Rossler, 2015) but found only modest

associations between these variables and endorsement of TPC (Silver et al., 2017). The

examination of organizational characteristics that influence an officer’s endorsement of

TPC has traditionally looked at, organizational justice and the manner in which police

managers use procedural justice when interacting with frontline officers (Bradford &

Quinton, 2014; Myhill & Bradford, 2013), increasing diversity in law enforcement and

the shifting of norms and values due to decreasing homogeneity (Paoline, 2004), and

agency size and type (Nowacki, 2015). Research has yet to show any definitive pattern in

TPC endorsement across agencies (Silver et al., 2017).

The final organizational characteristic examined in the literature is the social

contextual characteristics in which the officers and agencies function. Social contextual

factors are the political environment, geographical location, and socioeconomic level to

name but a few (Silver et al., 2017). The 2017 study by Silver et al., demonstrates that

TPC is most strongly associated with organizational factors among line-officers than their

managers and that the various individual, organizational, and social contextual factors

impacted officers’ occupational attitudes, were weak predictors of occupational attitudes

across samples. Silver et al. (2017), reaffirm previous findings that TPC may function as

an impediment to procedurally just policing reform requiring organizational commitment

to overcome. Most importantly, for my study, this research demonstrated that individual

factors were an important indicator for the endorsement of procedurally just policing

among line-officers. Secondly, it highlights the research gap in that the individual factors

included in the research literature are not individual personality traits.

The literature contains few studies examining the effects of training at the recruit

and/or incumbent officer level on police officers’ use of procedural justice when

interacting with citizens. Hence, there is little in the way of evidence-based guidance for

police agencies to train their officers in a way that will influence patrol behaviors so that

they are consistent with the goals of procedurally just policing (Owens et al., 2018;

Skogan et al., 2015; Worden & McLean; 2017). This problem is highlighted by

Rosembaum and Lawrence (2017) in their evaluation of Chicago’s Quality Interaction

Program (QIP) designed to focus on procedural justice, interpersonal communication,

decision-making, cultural awareness, and stress management during citizen interactions.

This training was given to Chicago recruit officers and used applied case studies,

roleplaying scenarios, repetitive opportunities for practice, and individualized feedback

(Rosenbaum and Lawrence, 2017). The researchers’ findings demonstrated the (QIP)

training did not change recruits’ attitudes toward procedural justice, nor did it improve

recruits’ self-reported interpersonal communication skills. Bayley (2018) goes as far to

say that in the effort to reshape the behavior of officers during citizen encounters, a series

of “short, one-off programs of top-down advice” (p. 126) was developed which ultimately

proved to be flawed in that they failed to address that changing behavior requires on-

going training in real-life scenarios. The current body of research demonstrates a lack of

effectiveness of training methods in the attempt to instill procedurally just policing

behaviors as well as a gap in accounting for individual personality trait differences

between police officers and how those differences influence these behaviors.

Psychological Screening of Police Applicants

Police psychology has been defined as the application of psychological principles

and methods to law enforcement in the areas of screening and hiring, specialty

assignment screening, fitness-for-duty evaluations, investigations, hostage negotiator

training, and stress counseling (Kitaeff, 2011). The first record of psychological testing of

police applicants has been acknowledged as the 1916 testing of San Jose Police

Department police applicants by Lewis Terman, the developer of the Stanford-Binet

Intelligence Test (American Board of Police and Public Safety Psychology, 2014). In

1917, Terman published his report stating that intelligence tests had the potential to be of

great value as a selection tool (American Board of Police and Public Safety Psychology).

For the next 40 years, the efforts to create and use personality instruments for police

applicant selection reflected the work of academic and experimental psychologists

applying developing methodologies and assessment tools to the policing world

(American Board of Police and Public Safety Psychology). It was not until the 1973

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals concluded that

every police agency establish a formal process of personnel selection to include, written

aptitude tests, oral interview, psychological examination, and a thorough background

investigation that the federal government lent support for the development of police

psychology moving the field ahead (Cochrane, Tett, and Vandecreek, 2003).

The most commonly used tests are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and the California Psychological Inventory

Police and Public Safety Report (CPI-PPSR) for the purpose of testing for abnormal

psychological functioning (Craig, 2005; Roberts, Tarescavage, Ben-Porath, and Roberts,

2018; Tarescavage, Brewster, Corey, & Ben-Porath, 2015). To assess personality traits,

the main tests administered are the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R), the

Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI), the Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI), and the

16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) (Barrett, Miguel, Hurd, Lueke, and Tan,

2003). The use of the MMPI-2-RF and CPI has been well-supported in its use for

screening police applicants for varying degrees of psychopathy which may present

themselves as obstacles in an applicant’s pursuit of a successful law enforcement career

(Corey, Sellbom, & Ben-Porath, 2018; Craig, 2005; Roberts et al.,2018; Tarescavage et

al., 2015). The primary purpose of conducting psychological assessments has traditionally

been to screen for absenteeism and lateness, behavior which could lead to harm to

citizens or other officers, career longevity, and behavior that could lead to poor publicity

and costly litigation (Cochrane et al., 2003; Roberts et al., 2018; Tarescavage et al.,

2015).

The research literature has demonstrated these tests to be valid and reliable

predictors of an applicant’s likelihood of engaging in problematic behaviors. The results

of these assessments have also been linked to positive supervisor ratings when the

performance of police is measured by the number of cases closed, abuse of sick/injury

leave, number of tickets written, and number of complaints generated (Corey et al.;

Falkenbach, Glackin, & McKinley, 2018; Tarescavage et al., 2015). The tests of

psychopathy are effective in determining who should not be considered as a candidate for

the position of police officer. The practice of screening-out police applicants has been

beneficial and is appropriate when the primary mission of the majority of law

enforcement agencies across the United States is to combat crime aggressively and

present an image of professionalism. However, as demonstrated by the work of Meier,

Farmer, and Maxwell (1987), the screen-out police applicant selection process fails to

identify the applicants who possess the personality characteristics most conducive to

policing in a manner aligned with the philosophies of the hiring agency.

In the early 1990s, police reformers propelled forward by the research into police

legitimacy and procedural justice, began the push for change in the manner in which

policing services were delivered from that of warriors enforcing “zero tolerance” policies

to aggressively combat crime to that of guardians seeking community acceptance and

engagement. The effort to reform policing became known as Community Oriented

Policing and was met with varying degrees of acceptance and implementation (Zhao,

Thurman, & Lovrich, 1995). Over the course of several decades, community-oriented

policing evolved into a program focusing on educational programs and officers working

in schools. But that changed on August 9, 2014, when Michael Brown Jr. was fatally shot

in Ferguson, Missouri by a white police officer, sparking protests and riots across the

country. Once again, reformers became intensely focused on police legitimacy by

changing the very manner in which police delivered their services through the use of

procedurally just policing.

The work of Lawrence et al. (2017) was used to guide this study in an

examination of how police agencies can use psychological screening instruments to

identify police applicants who have a predisposition to the behaviors and qualities that are

needed to police in a procedurally just manner. Lawrence et al. (2017), highlight the

problem with psychological examinations as being attuned to predicting performance

measures that are much less relevant post-Ferguson than in the decades prior.

Psychological assessment measures do not account for the quality of police work during

police-citizen interactions, which are when, according to procedural justice theory, police

legitimacy can be gained. Police agencies must use psychological assessment instruments

to screen-in police applicants who demonstrate alignment with the constructs of

community policing and procedural justice (Lawrence et al., 2017; Morison, 2017). In an

effort to make the initial exploration into which psychological measures have the greatest

potential of predicting positive community engagement and procedurally just policing,

the researchers measured communication styles as well as five constructs of personality.

Lawrence et al., (2017) posit that when police engage in effective

communication, both the citizen and the police are likely to experience a positive

interaction. Lawrence et al., base their hypothesis on the communication accommodation

theory which states that when speakers adjust their behavior while interacting with others,

they can reduce the social distance between them and those with whom they are

interacting. The researchers cite previous studies which support this theory in its

application to police-citizen interactions due to the observed improvements in citizens’

perceptions of trust and attitudes when the police communicated more robustly.

Furthermore, the researchers citing Tyler (1990), noted that components of the

communication accommodation theory aligned with procedural justice theory,

specifically when a police officer communicates robustly with a citizen, they improve the

citizen’s perception of the quality of process and quality of treatment which leads to

perceptions of procedurally just policing. The researchers examined six dimensions of

communication styles, which included active listening, empathy, comfort when

communicating with strangers, controlling emotions when upset, being argumentative,

and controlling the conversation. The six communication dimensions were associated

with either the quality of treatment or the quality of procedure dimension of procedural

justice.

Much of the research literature on police performance and personality traits has

focused on the theory of the Big Five personality traits (Annell et al., 2015; Detrick &

Chibnall, 2006, 2013; Lokhande & Dongre, 2013; Masood et al., 2017; Niñerola et al.,

2014), and accordingly Lawrence et al., (2017) chose the Big Five theory for their

research study. The researchers examined the personality traits of agreeableness,

conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness. A total of 44 items were used

to measure the five personality dimensions, which were again either associated with the

procedural justice dimensions of the quality of treatment or the quality of the procedure.

In the study by Lawrence et al., (2017) it was demonstrated that the variables of

officer gender, age, educational level, minority race status, previous law enforcement

experience and military experience were non-significant predictors of procedurally just

policing. The researchers found that the communication styles of empathy and emotional

control were significantly related to the procedural justice dimension of the quality of

treatment and that empathy was also predictive of the quality of procedure dimension as

well. The researchers also found that the personality dimension of neuroticism was

predictive of both procedural justice dimensions. The results from this study lend initial

support for the use of communication style and personality dimension in police applicant

prescreening to identify applicants most likely to police in a procedurally just manner.

Defining and Measuring Police Performance

Traditionally, police performance has been measured quantitatively through the

determination of arrest rates, crime rates, response times, abuse of sick leave, and citizen

complaints. As the role of the police has become more complex, incorporating the

creation of police-community partnerships, serving as frontline mental health

professionals, and establishing relationships with immigrant populations, we can no

longer limit the measurement of police performance with crude quantitative markers

(Davis et al., 2015). De Maillard and Savage (2018) define two categories of performance

management in police organizations, traditional, which is target-based, top-down and

short-term, and advanced, which is process-based, more deliberative, and creative and

long-term. These researchers describe police management and performance as a

contradictory world where elements of both categories exist in constant flux with

cascading pressures and an overreliance on the quantitative measurements of

performance.

Kelling, in his 1992 seminal work, states that the traditional formal measures of

police work have little to do with the needs of the communities they serve. This sentiment

is carried on by Davis et al. (2015) and Rosenbaum et al. (2017) in their calls for

measuring police performance in new ways. With the advent of community policing and

the theory of procedural justice, there is an absolute need to measure police performance

with metrics that can discern police behaviors which are indicative of the quality of

service rendered to the community (Davis et al.; Kelling; Rosenbaum et al., 2017).

Rosenbaum et al. state that what an organization measures as a performance measure

matters to the extent that employees will direct their activities to that metric to improve

the appraisal of their performance. Hence, if police organizations were to measure the

quality of police-citizen interactions, frontline officers would improve the quality of their

interactions with citizens to improve their performance appraisals which would likewise

act to improve citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice and improve their legitimacy.

Rosenbaum et al. (2017) advocated measuring the officer behaviors of

conversational etiquette, emotional control, use of force, neutrality, respectfulness,

empathy, helpfulness, and officer competence as determinates of the quality of police

service rendered to the community. By redefining the metrics of how police performance

is measured and therefore defined, it is, therefore, necessary to alter the applicant

screening process to ensure the candidates accepted possess the skills required to police in

a manner consistent with procedurally just policing (Lawrence et al., 2017). In order to

test this, a comparison of the quality of policing services rendered to citizens must be

undertaken to explore and quantify procedurally just policing in screen-in and screen-out

police agencies. It is this gap in the literature that my study shall address.

My review of the literature demonstrates a paucity of research on police applicant

personality assessments and their use to improve police-community relations through the

application of procedurally just policing practices. Using NVivo 12 Pro, I conducted a

word query for the 10 most frequently used words in the current literature on procedural

justice, police legitimacy, and police psychological assessments which have been

illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Results of an NVivo word query (Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy &

Police Applicant Psychological Assessment). The word cloud was created using the 10

most frequent words in the reviewed literature. The words “police” and “justice” were the

highest frequency words.

Summary

In this chapter, I reviewed the literature research strategy used and outlined the

historical development of the theoretical framework (procedural justice theory) on which

my study is based. I then detailed and analyzed the key concepts and variables on police

legitimacy, procedural justice, how to get the police to police in a procedurally just

manner, psychological assessments of police applicants, and police performance. There is

scarce literature on the use of psychological assessments to screen-in police applicants for

the likelihood of policing in a procedurally just manner; therefore, I reviewed and

synthesized important elements of this topic in this literature review. To demonstrate

mastery of knowledge of police legitimacy and psychological assessments of police

applicants, an exhaustive review of the extant literature was explained. In the ensuing

chapter, research method (Chapter 3), I will discuss in detail the historical roots and

traditions of mixed methodology research, my role as researcher, the methodology of my

study, and address issues of trustworthiness, validity, and reliability.

Conclusions

Policing in America has undergone several evolutionary periods throughout its

history; from the days of political cronyism and nepotism to professional crime-fighting

organizations. By the 1960s, it had become widely accepted that police would be

perceived as legitimate (people will obey the law and cooperate with the police) if they

exuded professionalism and were aggressive with their crime-fighting tactics, but when

crime rates fell, and the police were still struggling with their perceived legitimacy, it was

evident that perceptions of legitimacy relied on more than a professional image and low

crime rates. In 1988, Lind and Tyler made the first effort to extend the theory of

procedural justice to policing and citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy. Procedural

justice has been examined in the literature by researchers across the globe, testing its

constructs and generalizability to other cultures. While some researchers have questioned

the theory’s causal link to legitimacy (John F. Finn Institute of Public Safety, 2015;

Worden & McLean, 2017), the literature shows a strong relationship between procedural

justice and police legitimacy.

With a general acceptance in the literature of procedural justice theory as a means

to restoring police legitimacy, police policymakers and politicians have publicly endorsed

procedurally just policing in America. Where the literature is lacking is in the exploration

and examination of methods to transform American police into procedurally just police

force. A limited number of studies have examined the effects of procedural justice

training on recruits, and even fewer have looked at in-service training as a venue of

instruction. However, there is no clear method that has been demonstrated in the literature

as being effective in instilling the principles of procedurally just policing in the long-

term. Even more critical is a need to explore and examine the methods used to select

police applicants for the position of police officer. Lawrence et al. (2017) make the initial

look at using psychological examinations given to police applicants as a means to screen

for those applicants who possess the personality characteristics essential to policing in a

procedurally just fashion. Following this initial step, an exploration and examination of

the quality and quantity of procedurally just policing behaviors by current officers in

agencies who employ different screening methods are warranted.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to explore the manner in which

officers who have been employed by law enforcement agencies using two different

psychological screening philosophies (screen-in or screen-out), interact with citizens as

they deliver police patrol services and identify any differences between the procedurally

just policing behaviors delivered to the communities served and citizens’ satisfaction with

the encounter. In this chapter, I provide the history and a description of mixed

methodology research focusing on a QUAL→quan design. The research design and

rationale, the role of the researcher, methodology, threats to reliability and validity, issues

of trustworthiness, and the ethical procedures will be explained in this chapter.

Research Design and Rationale

As a mixed methods study, both qualitative and quantitative methods were

employed. Plano-Clark and Ivankova (2016) defined a mixed methods design as one in

which qualitative and quantitative methods are mixed in specific ways so that the purpose

of the research study is thoroughly addressed. The qualitative method portion was

comprised of multiple case studies consisting of pick-up and dispatched runs and the

resultant police patrol officers’ interactions with citizens. Ravitch and Carl (2016) stated

that a case study may be the researcher’s unit of analysis, which it is in this study. Yin

(2017) described case studies as being comprised of timely, real-life events, while

Creswell (2007) added that case studies are bounded by time and place. Gutterman and

Fetters (2018) have proposed a mixed-method – case study design in which a parent

mixed methods study includes a nested case study for the qualitative component. An

exploratory case study design complemented this study because of its in-depth approach

to understanding the delivery of police services from law enforcement agencies with

differing policies of determining who is an acceptable police officer candidate.

Additionally, this inquiry was the initial exploration of this specific context in which the

phenomenon operates and consequently aimed to define the questions and hypotheses that

will form the basis of future inquiry (Yin, 2017).

Research Questions

RQ1: In a Midwest screen-in police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on dispatched calls for service contribute to the level of community trust/police

legitimacy during interactions with citizens?

RQ2: In a Midwest screen-out police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on dispatched calls for service contribute to the level of community trust/police

legitimacy during interactions with citizens?

RQ3: In a Midwest screen-in police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on self-initiated runs contribute to the level of community trust/police legitimacy

during interactions with citizens?

RQ4: In a Midwest screen-out police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on self-initiated runs contribute to the level of community trust/police legitimacy

during interactions with citizens?

H1: There is a statistically significant and meaningful difference in patrol officer

behaviors which contribute to citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy in one Midwest

screen-in police agency and one Midwest screen-out police agency.

H0: There is no difference in the procedurally just behaviors of patrol officers

during interactions with citizens of screen-in and screen-out police agencies.

Role of the Researcher

In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection,

and as such, the role the researcher plays must be carefully considered (Ravitch & Carl,

2016). The researcher identity components of positionality and social location must be

acknowledged at each stage of the research process in order to understand the role of the

researcher (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Ravitch and Carl (2016) stated that positionality refers

to the many roles and relationships that exist between the researcher and the research

participants in relation to the research setting, whereas social location is a researcher’s

“gender, social class, race, sexual identity, culture, and ethnicity as well as the

intersections of these and other identity markers such as national origin, language

communities and so on” (p. 12). To account for these factors, the process of reflexivity

was practiced in a critical, systematic manner to account for researcher subjectivities and

biases.

Data were gathered in my study using the systematic social observation (SSO)

tool tested and validated by Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015). Observations were made of

police patrol officers interacting with citizens on calls for service and self-initiated runs.

The interactions were coded for police behaviors that are supportive of a procedurally just

manner of policing, and when possible, the behaviors and words of the citizens were

coded for their level of satisfaction with the interaction. As the researcher and a current

law enforcement officer, I understand that the research design contains potential for bias,

so I used the process of researcher reflexivity to ensure the coding of behaviors of both

the officers and citizens reflects the actual intentions and experiences of the interactions

(see Thurairajah, 2019).

Methodology

The following subsections outline the methods used for the selection of

participants, data collection, researcher bias reduction strategies, credibility, analysis of

data, and ethical considerations.

Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

The participants for this study consisted of law enforcement officers assigned to

patrol duties in two different police departments in the Midwest. The police patrol

officers were frontline officers and did not include any police officers of rank. The police

agencies chosen differed primarily in the method of psychological screening used to

select from their lists of police applicants. One agency used the screen-in method of

applicant selection while the other agency used the screen-out method. It was hoped that

the agencies chosen would be as similar as possible, with the exception being the

screening methods used.

The overwhelming majority of police agencies use the screen-out method of

psychological screening for their applicants. Therefore, once I had identified a screen-in

police agency, I selected an agency with similar characteristics from the screen-out

agencies. Using the FOIA, a list of all officers assigned to patrol duties was obtained from

each department. Using a random number generator, eight patrol officers were randomly

selected from each agency (N = 16). After the 16 officers were selected, I made an FOIA

request for 10 police-citizen interactions from the screen-out agency and ridealongs for

the screen-in agency. Public records law requires police agencies to maintain body-worn

camera video for a minimum of 60 days. Using a random number generator, 10 days

(from Days 1-60) were randomly chosen from which a randomly sampled citizen contact

was made during a dispatched call for service or self-initiated run was reviewed and

coded with the Jonathan-Zamir et al.’s (2015) SSO tool. The rationale for selecting a

sample size of 16 participants is in the estimation that the unit of analysis, police-citizen

interactions, should result in approximately 8 officers × 10 days of video × 1

interactions/day = 80 (units of analysis) plus 8 officers × 9 contacts/day = 72 interactions

= 152, providing an adequate sample size and sufficient power.

To test the null hypothesis that H0 ≠ H1, Frankfort-Nachmias and Leon-Guerrero

(2015) state the chi-square test is designed to test for significant relationships between

two nominal level variables in a bivariate table. The chi-square test requires no

assumptions about the shape of the population distribution but does assume the use of

random sampling (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2015). The obtained chi-square

test statistic is a summary of the differences between the observed and expected

frequencies in a bivariate table, χ2 = Σ (fo – fe)2/fe (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero,

2015). The obtained chi-square test statistic will be used along with a level of significance

set at α ≤ .05 and df = ∞ to determine if the null hypothesis can be rejected and the results

interpreted to mean there is a statistically significant difference between the amount of

procedurally just behaviors of police officers in screen-in and screen-out police agencies.

To preserve confidentiality, no identifying information were disclosed.

Additionally, participant identity was revealed as each participant was identified

numerically (1 – 16). It was not anticipated that any information pertaining to citizen

identity would be available but to safeguard citizen identity, no identifying information

was used and all references to citizens was by officer number and interaction number

(e.g., the citizen viewed in Officer #2 interaction #8).

Historical artifacts were also obtained from the selected agencies. Using an FOIA

request, I obtained participant officers’ personnel files to extract awards, compliments,

complaints, disciplinary action, and supervisor reviews. Saldaña (2016) stated that

qualitative data may come from interview transcripts, participant observation, field notes,

journals, documents, open-ended survey responses, drawings, artifacts, photographs,

video, and so on. These data were coded to symbolically capture the essence of what each

datum contributes to the understanding of the procedurally just behavior of each patrol

officer. The process of data triangulation entails gathering as many data sources as

possible that bear upon the phenomenon under study seeking a convergence to form

themes or categories (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). In my study, observational data were used

along with these other data sources to accomplish the task of triangulation.

Instrumentation

The data collection instruments for this study were the SSO instrument developed

and validated by Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015). Mastrofski, Parks, and McCluskey (2010)

defined SSO as observations and recordings of human behaviors and settings “done

according to explicit procedures which permit replication and … permit the use of the

logic of scientific inference” (p. 226). SSOs have been used recently in the literature to

measure procedurally just behaviors as well as procedurally unjust behaviors (Dai, Frank,

& Sun, 2011; Van Damme, 2017; Worden & McLean, 2015). The SSO instrument

developed by Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015), was shown to have good construct, internal,

and external validity and showed support that the composite index captures the full

content of the separate elements and that each element makes a unique contribution to the

index, making it an excellent choice for use in this study.

Data Analysis Plan

Using the data collection method of researcher observation, it is possible to apply

explicit, intersubjectively transmissible standards to real-life police-citizen interactions

and assess police behaviors in terms of procedurally just policing and qualitatively assess

the citizens’ perceptions of the justness of the encounter (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015).

The behavior of the police officers were qualitatively assessed for each recorded

policecitizen interaction (unit of analysis) for the presence of the four elements of

procedural justice (i.e., treating citizens with dignity and respect, giving the citizen a

voice, demonstrating neutrality, and demonstrating concern for the wellbeing of the

citizen).

Additionally, I assessed each police-citizen interaction for the setting, nature of the

contact/problem, number of officers, number of citizens, date, time, and location.

To assess participation, I documented the officer actions that indicated they

considered the request of the citizen (i.e., engaged in behavior that solicited input from

citizens) and the manner in which the officer demonstrated listening skills. Each

interaction was scored using the formula:

Participation = Officer asking for information or citizen point of view (yes = 1, no

= 0) + the citizen expressed view/provided information (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer

expressed interest in view/information (0 = dismissive, 1 = inattentive listener, 2 =

passive listener, 3 = active listener; Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). Scores may range from

0 – 5.

To assess the neutrality of decision-making, officers must demonstrate a fair

information-gathering process, demonstrate an absence of bias in the decision-making

process, and demonstrate transparency in decision-making. To assess decision-making

neutrality, the following formula was used:

Neutrality = officer seeks citizen viewpoints of all parties involved (yes = 1, no =

0) + officer explains no decision will be made before all information is gathered from all

involved parties (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer demonstrates that decision was not influenced

by citizens’ race, age, sex (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer explains why police are involved in

situation (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer explains why/how resolution was decided (yes = 1, no

= 0; Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). Scores may range from 0 – 5.

To assess dignity, officer behaviors, and speech, which convey a message of

respect and disrespect were documented. The recorded observation assessed the degree of

respect or disrespect the officer demonstrated. Citing the work of Skogan (2006) which

demonstrated negative experiences have a much stronger effect than positive experiences,

Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015), allowed demonstrations of disrespect to override

demonstrations of respect. The following formula was used to assess officer behaviors

demonstrative of respect/disrespect representative of dignity:

Dignity = extent to which officer words/behaviors demonstrated respect toward

the citizen (disrespect = 0, officer showed neither but appeared more robotic in

interactions = 1, officer demonstrated brief instances of respect = 2, officer demonstrated

sporadic instances of respect = 3, officer demonstrated respect throughout contact = 4)

(Jonathan-Zamir et al.). Scores may range from 0 – 4.

Assessing trustworthy motives was accomplished by documenting behaviors that

demonstrated comfort and/or reassurance and by offering other services or assistance to

citizens. The behaviors of the officers must be seen unambiguously as being beneficial to

the citizen. The following formula was used to assess the behaviors of the officer that

demonstrated trustworthiness:

Trustworthy motives = Showing care and concern = officer asks citizen about their

well-being or any combination of behaviors demonstrative of this (yes = 1, no = 0) +

officer offered comfort of reassurance to the citizen (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer actively

controlled another on behalf of the citizen or promised to do so (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer

filed a report or promised to do so (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer acted or promised to act on

behalf of the citizen with another government agency or private organization (yes = 1, no

= 0) + the officer arranged or promised to arrange physical assistance to the citizen (yes =

1, no = 0) + the officer provided or promised to provide advice on how to cope/deal with

the situation or how to handle the problem (yes = 1, no = 0) (Jonathan-Zamir et al). The

scores may range from 0 – 7.

Citizen satisfaction can be measured using observable cues displayed by the

citizen during the course of the police-citizen interaction and focusing primarily on the

very end of the encounter (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). The level of satisfaction can be

rated on a scale ranging from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive) (Jonathan-Zamir et al.,

2015). It is critical to base the estimated level of citizen satisfaction on the words and

actions of the citizen and not on an estimation of what the citizen might be feeling

(Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015), justified this observational

coding of citizen satisfaction as their study data suggested that a relationship exists

between the number of procedural justice behaviors exhibited by police and the amount

of satisfaction displayed by citizens. The more procedurally just the police-citizen

interaction was, the more behavioral expressions of satisfaction were manifested by the

citizen and the converse was true as well such that the less procedurally just the encounter

was, the more dissatisfaction was displayed by citizens (Jonathan-Zamir et al.,

2015).

Assessing the Quality of a Mixed Methods Study

Quality of the Quantitative Strand

The traditional means of evaluating the quality of quantitative research data is

accomplished by assessing their validity and reliability using statistical procedures

(Plano-Clark & Ivankova, 2016). Plano-Clark and Ivankova (2016) define validity as,

“the degree to which inferences can be accurately made based on test scores or other

measures” (p. 166), while reliability is defined as, “the accuracy of measurement

procedures to consistently produce the same scores” (p. 166). Validity is critical in

gauging the relevance of the collected data in answering the quantitative research

questions (Plano-Clark & Ivankova, 2016). Reliability refers to the ability to collect

similar data using the same instruments in similar studies (Plano-Clark & Ivankova,

2016).

Internal and external validity are used to assess the quality of quantitative results.

Internal validity is the researcher’s ability to make correct inferences from the data, while

external validity refers to the ability to make generalizations of the results to a larger

population (Plano-Clark & Ivankova, 2016). Internal and external validity were addressed

by Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015) in the development and testing of their SSO instrument.

Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015) found low correlations among the four procedural justice

elements and high correlations between each element and the overall composite index,

which are good indicators of the internal validity of the index. The correlations were

statistically significant between the four sub-indices and the overall procedural justice

index (r ≥ .59, p < .001). The researchers also noted that multicollinearity between the

sub-indices was not an issue as the variance inflation factors ranged from 1.1 to 1.2, much

below the accepted cut-off value of 10 (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). External validity

was accounted for by linking “the index to other constructs with which it would be

expected to be linked” ((Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015, p. 861). The researchers linked the

procedural justice index with citizen satisfaction and found that interactions in which the

behaviors of the officer demonstrated higher levels of procedural justice had a

significantly greater likelihood of producing citizen satisfaction (Jonathan-Zamir et al.,

2015). The correlation, r = .37, p < .001, is positive, moderate in size, and statistically

significant, thus supporting the external validity of the instrument (Jonathan-Zamir et al.,

2015).

The IBM software program for quantitative statistics, Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS; Version 25), was used to examine the differences between the

screen-in and screen-out police agencies and the amount of procedurally just police

behaviors demonstrated during citizen interactions by N =16 patrol officers and the

estimated resultant amount of citizen satisfaction. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

performed to determine if there was a difference between agency screening type and the

variables of dignity and respect, trustworthy motives, participation, neutrality, and citizen

satisfaction. The calculated F statistic was used as the determinant to either reject or fail

to reject the null hypothesis of no difference between agency type and the amount of

procedurally just policing behaviors and citizen satisfaction.

Quality of the Qualitative Strand

Ravitch and Carl (2016), state that the methodological quality of qualitative

research is evidenced by the trustworthiness and credibility of the qualitative findings and

the subsequent interpretations of those findings. They define trustworthiness as the

guiding criteria used by researchers in the production of findings that call attention to

themselves and are persuasive in the point they are attempting to make. Credibility is one

of the criteria used in the establishing of trustworthiness and references the extent to

which the qualitative findings accurately portray the experiences of the study participants

(Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Ravitch and Carl (2016) cited data triangulation and structured

reflexivity as two of the strategies and processes for achieving trustworthiness in

qualitative research.

Structured reflexivity is a process in which the researcher systematically and

critically engages with their biases, interpretations, processes, and reflections (Ravitch &

Carl, 2016). The process of structured reflexivity is one method to use to produce

research that is more complex and ethically stringent (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). This

process is of critical importance when the researcher is the instrument to ensure the

research process is both rigorous and valid. I served as an instrument when estimating the

level of citizen satisfaction during police-citizen interactions. It was critically important

that I systematically reflected upon my biases and interpretations as I searched for signs

of citizen satisfaction and dissatisfaction during the police-citizen interactions.

Triangulation is a set of processes used by researchers to solidify the validity of a

study (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Data triangulation is the use of multiple data sources that

add to the richness and depth of the description of the phenomenon under study (Ravitch

& Carl, 2016). Data triangulation allows researchers to sample data at different times and

places from different people (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Data triangulation was used in this

study to include performance evaluations, citizen complaints, citizen compliments,

awards, discipline. The gathering of this additional data did add to the picture of officer

performance and helped to guide the researcher’s assessment of procedurally just

behaviors as being consistent or inconsistent with the additional data sources.

Credibility is inexorably tied to the research design, researcher’s instruments, and

data (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). It is the researcher’s ability to sort through the many

complexities that inevitably crop up in a research study and to deal with emergent

patterns that defy immediate explanation (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Through the creation of

a recursive research design, the complexities that arose were adequately addressed, and

credibility was preserved. Other data sources also served to compliment observational

data and enhanced credibility.

Ravitch and Carl (2016) state that dependability in research design is

demonstrated by the stability of the data that is to say, that the data are consistent with the

argument made for how to collect the data. My research study consisted of collecting

observational data of police-citizen interactions using an instrument designed to guide in

the systematic collection of observational data of social interactions. Additional data

collected were also focused on the job performance of the study participants.

Ethical Procedures

The data collected in this research study was information available to any citizen

through the process of filing a FOIA with any law enforcement agency. As such, written

informed consent documentation will not be solicited. Written, informed consent was

obtained from all officers participating in the study in the screen-in agency. Some law

enforcement agencies notify employees when their personal information has been subject

to an FOIA but not the reason for the request. I contacted each selected officer via email

and inform them of the purpose of the FOIA request and assure them of maintaining

confidentiality. This was done to ensure officers did not needlessly worry that the

information was requested as part of an impending lawsuit as is often the case. All data

collected will be kept in a locked safe during the life of the study and for a period of five

years after completion of the study at which point the data will be destroyed. All

identifying information was omitted from the study, and all references to the participants

was made by the assigned numeric designation of 1-16. No data was collected on any

citizens appearing in the body-worn camera videos and any reference to citizens in the

video was by assigned officer number and encounter number (e.g., the citizen appearing

in Officer 5 - encounter 9). Final approval was obtained from the Walden University

Institutional Review Board for the research design and ethical practices (Approval no.

02-07-20-0673411).

Summary

The purpose of this research study was to explore the manner in which officers

who have been selected by agencies using two different psychological screening

methodologies (screen-in or screen-out), interact with citizens as they deliver police

patrol services and to discern any difference between the patrol officers’ procedurally just

behaviors of the screen-in and screen-out police agencies and the resultant citizen

satisfaction. Officers assigned to patrol duties from two different police agencies in the

Midwest were randomly chosen for inclusion in the study and data was collected using

FOIA requests for body-worn camera video footage of police-citizen interactions as well

as performance evaluations, citizen complaints, citizen compliments, discipline, and

awards. Ethical procedures set forth by the American Psychological Association and the

Walden University Institutional Review Board for Ethical Standards in Research were

followed to safeguard anonymity, confidentiality, ethical data collection, and the

minimization of risk to participants.

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

In light of widely publicized controversial police-citizen encounters, much

research has been focused on the role procedural justice plays in citizens’ perceptions of

police legitimacy. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore the manner in

which officers who have been employed by law enforcement agencies using two different

psychological screening philosophies (screen-in or screen-out) interact with citizens as

they deliver police patrol services, and identify any differences between the procedurally

just policing behaviors delivered to the communities served by each agency. In this

research, I have explored the problem of low levels of perceived police legitimacy in two

Midwest communities. Research questions were focused on exploring the behaviors

exhibited by patrol officers as being supportive of or obstructive to the antecedents of

procedural justice.

In Chapter 3, I outlined the mixed-methods research design for this study as well

as the methodology, the procedures used to ensure compliance with ethical standards, and

the alignment of the research design. I also stated the sampling method, recruitment

strategy, and the number of participants from each police agency. In Chapter 4, the results

of this research study will be discussed. Both the quantitative data collection and analysis

and the qualitative data collection and analysis will be examined and discussed.

Finally, I will discuss the issue of trustworthiness, followed by a summary of the chapter.

Research Questions

The research questions and hypotheses examined in this mixed methods research

study were:

RQ1: In a Midwest screen-in police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on dispatched calls for service contribute to the level of community trust/police

legitimacy during interactions with citizens?

RQ2: In a Midwest screen-out police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on dispatched calls for service contribute to the level of community trust/police

legitimacy during interactions with citizens?

RQ3: In a Midwest screen-in police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on self-initiated runs contribute to the level of community trust/police legitimacy

during interactions with citizens?

RQ4: In a Midwest screen-out police agency, what behaviors by police officers (N

= 8) on self-initiated runs contribute to the level of community trust/police legitimacy

during interactions with citizens?

H1: There is a statistically significant and meaningful difference in patrol officer

behaviors that contribute to citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy in one Midwest

screen-in police agency and one Midwest screen-out police agency.

H0: There is no difference in the procedurally just behaviors of patrol officers

during interactions with citizens of screen-in and screen-out police agencies.

Quantitative Data Collection

Setting

I sent an email to police agencies throughout the Midwest requesting information

about their psychological screening process for the hiring of police officers, specifically

targeting the psychological screening process as either a screen-in or screen-out. Over

90% of the responses indicated that the police agency used screen-out psychological

screening. I selected one screen-out agency using a random number generator and

contacted that agency’s chief of police requesting their participation in my study. The

chief of that screen-out agency denied my request. Using the same process as for the first

agency, I randomly selected a second medium-sized screen-out agency and contacted the

chief to request the agency’s participation.

The second department, a medium-sized Midwest police agency, consented,

allowing me access to public records requested through the filing of an FOIA for

bodyworn camera video, compliments, citizen complaints, awards, and disciplinary

records. The requested documents were collected for eight randomly selected officers

assigned to patrol duties. This resulted in a sampling of 33% of officers assigned to the

screen-out agency’s patrol officer staffing. From each selected officer, 10 randomly

sampled bodyworn camera (BWC) videos were collected from a 90-day look-back from

March 2020. Each video had to be a minimum of 120 seconds in length to ensure the

police-citizen interaction was substantial enough to score for procedurally just behaviors

and estimate citizen satisfaction. A total of 80 police-citizen interactions were scored

using Jonathan-

Zamir et al.’s (2015) Systematic Social Observation Instrument.

Using the same procedure used in selecting the screen-out police agency, I

randomly selected a screen-in police agency and sent a request to that agency’s chief of

police for the chief’s consent for the agency’s participation in my study. The request was

accepted with the caveat that I would need to conduct ride-alongs with patrol officers as

their agency did not have the ability to fulfill the FOIA request for such a massive amount

of BWC video. I created a consent form and electronically delivered it to the patrol

officers and supervisors of the screen-in agency 3 weeks prior to the agreed-upon date of

the first ride-along. Supervisors of the screen-in agency reviewed the consent form and

instructed officers to contact me if they had any questions prior to volunteering as a study

participant. No officers contacted me before the commencement of data collection, nor

did they at any point during the 2-week ride-along process.

The screen-in police agency was staffed with 32 officers assigned to their patrol

section. Eight 12-hour ride-alongs were conducted over a 2-week period with eight patrol

officers between the months of February 2020 and May 2020. Over the 96-hour ridealong

period, I observed a total of 65 police-citizen interactions. I also submitted an FOIA

request for all public records pertaining to compliments, citizen complaints, awards, and

discipline for each of the eight officers with whom I conducted ride-alongs.

Results: Quantitative

Descriptive Analysis

Of the 80 randomly selected screen-out agency BWC videos reviewed, N = 67

were able to be evaluated completely. I had to exclude 13 BWC videos due to the

inability to evaluate citizen satisfaction because of either conditions of the video or the

citizen not demonstrating signs of either satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Of the 65 observed

interactions for the screen-in agency, I was able to evaluate 60 using the SSO instrument.

Five interactions were not scored due to an inability to observe the citizen’s facial

expressions and/or a lack of behaviors that demonstrated the citizen’s satisfaction or

dissatisfaction. Each officer was observed during interactions with citizens and scored for

behaviors that either supported or diminished the four elements of procedural justice in

policing, those being citizen participation, neutral decision-making, dignity, and

trustworthy motives.

Numeric values for each element were calculated by scoring behaviors I observed

during the course of a citizen contact. The following formulas were used to guide scoring:

•Participation = Officer asking for information or citizen point of view (yes =

1, no = 0) + the citizen expressed view/provided information (yes = 1, no = 0)

× officer expressed interest in view/information (dismissive = 0, inattentive

listener = 1, passive listener = 2, active listener =3; Jonathan-Zamir et al.,

2015). Scores may range from 0 – 6.

•Neutrality = officer seeks citizen viewpoints of all parties involved (yes = 1,

no = 0) + officer explains no decision will be made before all information is

gathered from all involved parties (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer demonstrates that

decision was not influenced by citizens’ race, age, sex (yes = 1, no = 0) +

officer explains why police are involved in situation (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer

explains why/how resolution was decided (yes = 1, no = 0; Jonathan-Zamir et

al., 2015). Scores may range from 0 – 5.

•Dignity = extent to which officer words/behaviors demonstrated respect

toward the citizen (disrespect = 0, officer showed neither but appeared more

robotic in interactions = 1, officer demonstrated brief instances of respect = 2,

officer demonstrated sporadic instances of respect = 3, officer demonstrated

respect throughout contact = 4; Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). Scores may

range from 0 – 4.

•Trustworthy motives = Showing care and concern = officer asks citizen about

their well-being or any combination of behaviors demonstrative of this (yes =

1, no = 0) + officer offered comfort of reassurance to the citizen (yes = 1, no =

0) + officer actively controlled another on behalf of the citizen or promised to

do so (yes = 1, no = 0) + officer filed a report or promised to do so (yes = 1, no

= 0) + officer acted or promised to act on behalf of the citizen with another

government agency or private organization (yes = 1, no = 0) + the officer

arranged or promised to arrange physical assistance to the citizen (yes = 1, no

= 0) + the officer provided or promised to provide advice on how to cope/deal

with the situation or how to handle the problem (yes = 1, no = 0;

JonathanZamir et al., 2015). Scores may range from 0 – 7.

Table 1 details the number of observed procedurally just behaviors for each

police-citizen contact for N = 8 officers in the screen-out police agency. Table 2 lists the

number of observed procedurally just police behaviors for each citizen contact for N = 8

officers in the screen-in police agency.

Table 1

Displayed Procedurally Just Behaviors per Interaction – Screen-Out

Officer-citizen

interaction

Participation

behaviors

Neutrality behaviors Dignity

behaviors

Trustworthy motives

behaviors

1 3 2 3 1

2 3 3 3 1

3 4 3 4 3

4 2 2 2 1

5 2 1 1 0

6 3 3 3 1

7* 1 1 2 1

8 1 1 2 2

9 4 3 4 3

10 4 3 4 3

11 3 3 4 3

12 3 3 3 1

13* 3 3 2 1

14 3 4 4 4

15 3 2 2 1

16 3 3 2 1

17 3 3 3 2

18 3 2 2 2

19 3 2 1 1

20 3 3 3 3

21 3 3 3 2

22 3 2 2 2

23 3 4 4 3

24 3 2 3 1

25 3 2 4 2

26 3 4 4 3

27 3 4 4 3

28* 3 2 2 2

29 3 2 2 0

30 3 2 3 1

31 3 3 4 3

32* 3 3 3 2

33 3 2 3 2

34 3 3 3 2

35 3 3 3 2

36 1 2 2 2

37 3 3 4 3

38 3 2 3 2

39* 3 3 4 2

40 3 3 3 2

(table continues)

Officer-citizen

interaction

Participation

behaviors

Neutrality

behaviors

Dignity

behaviors

Trustworthy motives

behaviors

41 3 3 4 2

42 3 3 3 2

43 3 2 2 2

44* 3 3 2 2

45 3 3 4 2

46 3 3 2 2

47 3 3 3 2

48 3 3 4 2

49 3 1 2 2

50* 3 2 2 2

51* 1 2 3 1

52 3 3 3 2

53 3 3 4 5

54 1 1 2 2

55* 1 1 2 1

56 3 2 2 1

57 3 3 3 2

58 2 2 2 2

59 3 3 4 3

60 3 3 4 4

61 3 3 4 4

62 3 1 2 1

63* 2 2 2 2

64* 3 1 2 1

65 3 3 3 3

66 3 2 3 2

67 3 2 3 2

68 3 2 3 2

69 2 3 2 0

70 3 2 4 3

71 3 2 4 2

72 2 3 2 2

73 3 2 3 2

74 3 3 4 2

75 3 3 4 2

76* 2 1 3 1

77 2 2 3 2

78 2 1 2 0

79* 3 1 3 1

80 3 1 2 2

Note. Police-citizen interactions marked with an asterisk denote unable to determine satisfaction.

Table 2

Displayed Procedurally Just Behaviors per Interaction – Screen-In

Police-citizen

interaction

Citizen

participation

behaviors

Neutrality

behaviors

Dignity behaviors Trustworthy

motive behaviors

1 4 5 4 5

2 4 4 3 3

3* 3 3 3 2

4 3 3 3 3

5 3 5 4 6

6 3 4 3 3

7* 4 3 3 2

8 3 4 4 3

9 4 4 3 4

10 3 5 3 3

11 3 3 2 2

12 3 2 3 2

13 3 3 3 2

14 4 3 4 4

15 4 3 4 2

16 4 3 4 2

17 3 3 3 2

18* 3 3 3 2

19 4 3 4 5

20 3 3 4 2

21 3 3 4 2

22* 3 3 3 2

23 3 2 3 2

24 4 3 3 3

25 3 4 3 3

26 4 3 4 4

27 4 4 4 5

28 3 3 4 3

29 4 3 4 6

30 4 2 4 2

31 3 3 4 4

32 3 2 4 1

33 3 4 4 2

34 4 3 4 2

35 4 3 4 5

36 4 2 4 4

37 2 3 2 2

38 3 3 4 3

39 4 3 4 3

40 3 3 3 4

41 4 4 4 4

42 4 4 4 4

43 4 3 3 4

(table continues)

Police-citizen

interaction

Citizen

participation

behaviors

Neutrality

behaviors

Dignity behaviors Trustworthy

motive behaviors

44 4 3 4 3

45 4 3 3 4

46 4 3 3 4

47 4 2 4 2

48 4 3 3 4

49 4 3 4 4

50 4 3 4 4

51* 4 3 3 2

52 4 3 4 3

53 4 3 4 3

54 3 3 2 2

55 4 3 4 4

56 4 3 4 2

57 3 2 3 1

58 4 3 4 2

59 3 3 4 2

60 4 5 4 3

61 4 4 4 5

62 4 5 4 5

63 4 4 4 3

64 3 3 3 4

65 4 3 4 3

Note. Police-citizen interactions marked with an asterisk denote unable to determine citizen satisfaction.

Descriptive Statistics/Analysis

To answer Research Questions 1 through 4, descriptive statistics were employed

using IBM’s SPSS (Version 25) to describe the procedurally just behaviors of patrol

officers as they interacted with citizens. Total behaviors for each of the four procedural

justice elements were totaled for both agencies. Figure 2 displays the breakdown of the

number of participation behaviors displayed by officers per citizen interaction. The figure

shows the breakdown of behaviors contrasting the screen-in and screen-out agencies.

Similarly, Figures 3, 4, and 5 display the number of officer behaviors supportive of the

respective procedural justice element. Figure 6 displays the total number of behaviors

displayed for each procedural justice element, contrasting the screen-in and screen-out

agencies.

Figure 2. Observed participation behaviors demonstrated by officers in citizen

interactions.

30 1

Behavior Observed 2 Behaviors Observed 31 4 Behaviors Observed Behaviors Observed

Participation Behaviors/Citizen Interaction

ScreenOut ScreenIn

Figure 3. Observed neutrality behaviors demonstrated by officers in citizen interactions.

Figure 4. Dignity and respect demonstrated by officers during citizen interactions.

4 00 7

1 Behavior 2 Behaviors 3 Behaviors 4 Behaviors 5 Behaviors

Neutrality Behaviors/Citizen Interaction

ScreenOut ScreenIn

27 28

0 3

Business-like Intermittent Respect Dominant RespectBrief Respect

Dignity and Respect Demonstrated/Citizen Contact

ScreenOut ScreenIn

Figure 5. Behaviors indicating trustworthy motives demonstrated by officers during

citizen interactions.

Figure 6. Procedurally just behavior totals for all elements for screen-in and screen-out

agencies.

3 1 020

1616

Behaviors 1 Behavior 2 Behaviors 3 Behaviors0 Behaviors 5 Behaviors 6 Behaviors4

Trustworthy Motives Behaviors/Citizen Contact

ScreenOut ScreenIn

222

193

232

155

232

209

231

202

100

150

200

250

Participation Neutrality Dignity Trustworthy

Agency Procedurally Just Behaviors Totals

ScreenOut ScreenIn

Additional descriptive statistics were used to understand the data better after the

data displayed in graphs appeared to show a difference in the way officers delivered

procedurally just police services to their community. Using SPSS, the range, mean, and

standard deviation were calculated for each of the four elements for both agency types.

Tables 3 and 4 show the values contrasting the screen-out and screen-in agencies,

respectively. The data in Tables 3 and 4 confirm the observations from the previously

listed figures; there is a difference between agency types, as evidenced by the Mean

values for each procedural justice element.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics: Screen-out Procedurally Just Behaviors

Number of

observations

Range Minimum

score

Maximum

score

Mean Standard

deviation

Participation 80 3 1 4 2.78 .636

Neutrality 80 3 1 4 2.41 .807

Dignity 80 3 1 4 2.90 .851

Trustworthy

Motives

80 5 0 5 1.94 .932

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics: Screen-in Procedurally Just Behaviors

Scored

observations

Range Minimum

value

Maximum

value

Mean Standard

deviation

Participation 65 2 2 4 3.57 .529

Neutrality 65 3 2 5 3.22 .739

Dignity 65 2 2 4 3.55 .587

Trustworthy

Motives

65 5 1 6 3.11 1.174

The next step in the data analysis was determining if the observed difference in

procedurally just policing behaviors between agencies was statistically significant and

meaningful. Data were organized so that each police-citizen interaction was given an

overall procedural justice value. This was accomplished by adding the values for each

element per police-citizen interaction. The equation used to calculate the overall

procedural justice value was: Participation Value + Neutrality Value + Dignity Value +

Trustworthy Motives Value = Overall Procedural Justice Value. Table 5 shows the

procedural justice values for each of the N = 65 screen-in interactions (SI) and N = 80

screen-out interactions (SO).

Table 5

Procedural Justice Value: Combined Element Values for all Interactions

Agency type-police-citizen interaction Overall procedural justice value

SI -1 18

SI-2 14

SI-3 11

SI-4 12

SI-5 18

SI-6 13

SI-7 12

SI-8 14

SI-9 15

SI-10 14

SI-11 10

SI-12 10

SI-13 11

SI-14 15

SI-15 13

SI-16 13

SI-17 11

SI-18 11

SI-19 16

SI-20 12

SI-21 12

SI-22 11

SI-23 10

SI-24 13

SI-25 13

SI-26 15

SI-27 17

SI-28 13

SI-29 17

SI-30 12

SI-31 14

SI-32 10

SI-33 13

SI-34 13

SI-35 16

SI-36 14

SI-37 9

SI-38 13

SI-39 14

SI-40 13

SI-41 16

SI-42 16

SI-43 14

SI-44 14

SI-45 14

(table continues)

Agency type-police-citizen interaction Overall procedural justice value

SI-46 14

SI-47 12

SI-48 14

SI-49 15

SI-50 15

SI-51 12

SI-52 14

SI-53 14

SI-54 10

SI-55 15

SI-56 13

SI-57 9

SI-58 13

SI-59 12

SI-60 16

SI-61 17

SI-62 18

SI-63 15

SI-64 13

SI-65 14

SO-1 9

SO-2 10

SO-3 14

SO-4 7

SO-5 4

SO-6 10

SO-7 5

SO-8 6

SO-9 14

SO-10 14

SO-11 13

SO-12 10

SO-13 9

SO-14 15

SO-15 8

SO-16 9

SO-17 11

SO-18 9

SO-19 7

SO-20 12

SO-21 11

SO-22 9

SO-23 14

SO-24 9

SO-25 11

SO-26 14

SO-27 14

SO-28 9

SO-29 7

SO-30 9

(table continues)

Agency type-police-citizen interaction Overall procedural justice value

SO-31 13

SO-32 11

SO-33 10

SO-34 11

SO-35 11

SO-36 7

SO-37 13

SO-38 10

SO-39 12

SO-40 11

SO-41 12

SO-42 11

SO-43 9

SO-44 10

SO-45 12

SO-46 10

SO-47 11

SO-48 12

SO-49 8

SO-50 9

SO-51 7

SO-52 11

SO-53 15

SO-54 6

SO-55 5

SO-56 8

SO-57 11

SO-58 8

SO-59 13

SO-60 14

SO-61 14

SO-62 7

SO-63 8

SO-64 7

SOI-65 12

SO-66 10

SO-67 10

SO-68 10

SO-69 7

SO-70 12

SO-71 11

SO-72 9

SO-73 10

SO-74 12

SO-75 12

SO-76 7

SO-77 9

SO-78 5

SO-79 8

SO-80 8

These data were next used to test for a significant and meaningful relationship

through the use of an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using SPSS Version 25. This test

was selected because the variables under study were at the categorical and scale levels

(Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2015). Partial eta squared was calculated using

the formula: η2p = SSBetween / SSBetween + SSWithin (Frankfort-Nachmias et al., 2015). The results

of the ANOVA and partial eta squared shown in Table 6 and can be summarized as F(1,

143) = 72.49, p < .001, η2p = .34. The F value of 72.49 is well above the F critical value of

3.84, demonstrating a statistically significant difference when p < .001. The partial eta

squared value of .34 signifies that 34% of the variance in officers’ procedurally just

behaviors can be accounted for by the agency type, making it a substantial finding. .

Table 6

ANOVA: Significance and Meaningfulness of Difference Between Agencies

Sum of

squares

df Mean

squares

F Partial eta

squared

Significance

Between

Groups

419.74 1 419.74 72.49 .34 .000

Within Groups 828.01 142 5.79

Total 1247.75 143

Demographics: Qualitative

The qualitative portion of this study was conducted observing in person or

watching on recorded body-worn camera video, 145 police-citizen interactions, and

assessing if the service rendered by the police officer was deemed satisfactory by the

citizen. Of the 145 observed interactions, it was possible to assess citizens’ satisfaction in

127. For the screen-in agency’s 65 observed interactions, N = 60 were assed for citizen

satisfaction, an assessment rate of 92%. For the screen-out agency’s 80 observed

interactions, N = 67 were assed for citizen satisfaction, an assessment rate of 84%. The

overall assessment rate was 88% for all observed interactions, N = 127.

Data Collection: Qualitative

Qualitative data were gathered from observations of citizens’ words, expressions,

and mannerisms as they interacted with police officers. Jonathan-Zamir et al. (2015) state

that observations of citizens’ attitudes and inner feelings must be based upon observable

cues. Guided by this philosophy, for each police-citizen interaction, observations were

made of the citizen’s initial attitude, the citizen’s attitude and mannerisms as the

interaction progressed, and a final assessment of the citizen’s overall satisfaction with the

encounter. For the observations made while conducting ride-alongs, I remained in the

background, close enough to hear what was said and observe physical cues, but far

enough away that the citizens were unlikely to try and interact with me. Additionally,

maintaining a distance allowed the officer to respond to the citizen without my physical

presence being in their field of vision.

Data Analysis: Qualitative

The systematic collection of qualitative data was performed throughout the use of

In Vivo and Process Coding of field notes made during participant observation of

policecitizen interactions (Saldaña, 2016). The field notes consisted of specific

observation times during the observed police-citizen interactions. An initial observation

recorded the citizen’s verbal and behavioral cues to aid in assessing the citizen’s attitude

toward police in the beginning stages of contact. As the interaction progressed, additional

observations were recorded of the citizen’s actions and verbalizations to paint a rich

picture of the citizen’s response to the interaction with police. I took filed notes at the

conclusion of the interaction to richly describe the behavior of the citizen, which might

belie satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the police interaction.

After the interaction was concluded, a determination was made based on a review

and theming of the collected data that the citizen was either satisfied or dissatisfied with

the police service or that it was not possible to determine the citizen’s satisfaction. The

process of reviewing the field notes, coding, and theming was reviewed an additional

time several days after the original data collection to allow for reflexivity. Figures 7 and 8

show the process of taking observations of citizen behaviors and verbalizations and

developing themes leading to an assessment of citizen satisfaction.

Initial Observation Interim Observation Final Observation

Dissatis

Figure 7. Screen-out officer 1, interaction 1. Theming process to assess citizen

satisfaction.

Initial Observation Interim Observation Final Observation

Theming Theming

R voice,

hand

, fast

I behavior

S facial

raised,

ticket,

away

F I

F A

Satisfi

Figure 8. Screen-in officer 3, interaction 2. Theming process to assess citizen satisfaction.

The final analysis of the police-citizen interactions yielded a total of N = 127

observations where the citizen’s satisfaction could be assessed. 16% (13 of 80) of the

interactions of the screen-out agency could not be assessed due to either an inability to

hear and observe the citizen, and in three interactions, the citizen was too impaired to be

assessed. 8% (5 of 65) of the screen-in agency interactions were not able to be assessed

due to an inability to adequately observing the citizen. 20 of the 67 (30%) assessed

police-citizen interactions for the screen-out agency were determined to result in a

dissatisfied citizen. 6 of the 60 (10%) assessed police-citizen interactions for the screenin

agency were determined to result in a dissatisfied citizen.

These data were transformed into two dichotomous variables, agency type, and

citizen satisfaction, and entered into SPSS Version 25 for analysis. I calculated a Pearson

Chi-Square, Phi, and Cramer’s V to determine if a statistical difference exists between

Theming Theming

A ,

with

, stated

did not fail

stop

down,

, body

civil

behavior,

A U A

agency type and citizen satisfaction. Phi and Cramer’s V were calculated to assess if the

strength of any resultant difference was meaningful. Table 7 shows the results of the

Pearson Chi-Square as χ2(1df) = 7.66 (P <.006). Table 8 shows the Phi as: Φ = .246 (P

<.006). The result of the Chi-Square means that we can reject the null hypothesis of no

difference and that with 99% certainty, a difference exists in the real world between

agency types and citizen satisfaction. The result of Phi is interpreted as there is a

moderate relationship between agency type and citizen satisfaction such that 24.6% of the

difference in citizen satisfaction can be accounted for by agency type.

Table 7

Pearson Chi-Square: Agency Type and Citizen Satisfaction

Value df Asymptotic

significance

(2sided

Pearson Chi-Square 7.66 1 .006

Continuity

Correction

6.49 1 .011

Likelihood Ratio 8.05 1 .005

Linear-by-Linear

Association

7.60 1 .006

N of valid cases 127

Table 8

Phi and Cramer’s V: Strength of Relationship Between Agency Type and Satisfaction

Value Approximate

significance

Nominal by Phi

Nominal

.246 .006

Cramer’s V .246 .006

N of Valid Cases 127

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Ravitch and Carl (2016) state that the methodological quality of qualitative