the impact of alienation on police officers
DESCRIPTION
This study examines the impact of perceived community alienation on levels of self-reported mastery and motivation for proactive law enforcement for police officers from 11 law enforcement agencies in a large Southeast Michigan County.TRANSCRIPT
THE IMPACT OF ALIENATION ON POLICE OFFICERS' SENSE OF MASTERY AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN PROACTIVE
ENFORCEMENT
by
ROBERT CAMILLE ANKONY
DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Graduate School
of Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
1997
MAJOR: SOCIOLOGY (Criminology)
Approved by:
Advisor date
2
8 COPYRIGHT BYROBERT CAMILLE ANKONY
1997All Rights Reserved
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to many for their time, assistance, and
patience in completing this dissertation. I would first like
to express sincere gratitude to members of my Doctoral
Committee: Dr. Thomas M. Kelley, Department of Criminal
Justice, for being my Advisor, and for his criminal justice
expertise and counseling; Dr. Leon H. Warshay, Department of
Sociology, for his theoretical expertise; Dr. Leon C. Wilson,
Department of Sociology, for his methodological and
statistical expertise; and Dr. Matthew W. Seeger, Department
of Communication for his participation and guidance.
I would also like to recognize the Department of
Sociology for its assistance and guidance over the years; my
friend Dr. Shenyang Guo for his expertise and counseling; my
father Edmond who helped in more ways than he will ever know;
my mother Ruth for her everlasting faith in this high school
drop out; my wife Cathy for her years of endurance and
immense help; my children Catherine, Bobby, and Mikey for the
time I lost with them -- I hope this accomplishment will
extend the horizon of their ability to achieve; my special
friends Mike and Tom for their continual concern; and lastly
my fellow police officers in this study and elsewhere.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Melvin Seeman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Karl Marx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Emile Durkheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Georg Simmel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Eric Fromm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Howard S. Becker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Robert Merton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Donald Schmidt et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Clifford Mottaz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Richard Schmitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Bruce Berg et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Kai Erikson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Mark Pogrebin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Stan Shernock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
John Crank et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
iv
Barbara King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Relationship of Research to Present Study . . . . . . 31
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Social Demographic Characteristics of Sample . . . . . 34
National Characteristics of Police Officers . . . . . 36
INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Operationalization of Alienation . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Operationalization of Mastery . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Operationalization of Proactive Enforcement . . . . . 44
Operationalization of Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Degree of Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Recoding of Six Social Demographic Variables . . . . . 49
Method of Survey Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Survey Response Rate of Each Department . . . . . . . 52
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Validity and Reliability Tests of Scales . . . . . . . 55
v
Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Independent and Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . 58
Hierarchical Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Diagnostic Tests for Regression Assumptions . . . . . 60
Test of Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Validity and Reliability: Alienation Scale . . . . . . 63
Validity and Reliability: Mastery Scale . . . . . . . 65
Validity and Reliability: Proactive Enforcement Scale 68
Validity and Reliability: Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
UNIVARIATE STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Missing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Mean Scores of Concepts by Social Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Correlation Between Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Regression Findings: DV Mastery . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Regression Findings: DV Proactive Enforcement . . . . 91
Regression Findings: DV Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
vi
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Overview of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Relationship of Findings to Other Research . . . . . 104
Implications of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Problems with Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Problems with Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Limitations of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . 111
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . 114
APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES . 115
APPENDIX C: COVER LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
APPENDIX E: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION OF SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
TABLE 2: SURVEY RESPONSE RATE OF EACH DEPARTMENT . . . . 53
TABLE 3: TEST OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY: ITEM GROUPINGS SUGGESTED BY FACTOR MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . 72
TABLE 4: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALIENATION ITEMS . . . . 73
TABLE 5: CROSS-GROUP CORRELATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
TABLE 6: RESULTS OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TEST . . . . 75
TABLE 7: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR MASTERY ITEMS . . . . . . 76
TABLE 8: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
TABLE 9: VARIATION AND RESPONSE RATE OF SURVEY ITEMS . . 79
TABLE 10: MEAN SCORES OF CONCEPTS BY SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
TABLE 11: CORRELATION BETWEEN CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . 85
TABLE 12: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF ALIENATION AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLE "MASTERY" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
TABLE 13: PREDICTED "MASTERY" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . 90
TABLE 14: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF MASTERY AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLE "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT" . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
TABLE 15: PREDICTED "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
TABLE 16: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF MASTERY AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLE
viii
"PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT SINCE VERDICTS" . . . . 100
TABLE 17: PREDICTED "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT SINCE VERDICTS" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . 101
1
CHAPTER ONE
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The contemporary movement toward community policing
emphasizes proactive enforcement which proposes that street
crime can be reduced through greater crime prevention and
community involvement at all levels by police officers. To
accomplish this initiative it is crucial that officers feel
integrated with the majority of citizens in the community
where they patrol, and that they perceive themselves as
sharing similar values and beliefs so they are confident in
their decision making ability (Burden 1992; Bobinsky 1994;
Mastrofski et al. 1995). It is the premise of this study
that as the perception of alienation increases among police
officers from citizens in the community where they patrol,
their sense of mastery at work will decrease and in turn
their willingness to respond proactively.
Alienation is a sociological concept developed by
several classical and contemporary theorists, particularly
Marx (1844, 1846, 1867); Simmel (1950, 1971); Fromm (1941,
1955); and Seeman (1959). According to these theorists,
alienation is a condition in social relationships where there
is a low degree of integration or common values and a high
degree of distance and isolation between people or groups of
people in a community or work environment. The concept
proposes the greater the level of alienation an individual
2
experiences with others in a community or work environment
the lower their sense of mastery will be. Mastery is defined
in this study as a state of mind in which an individual
experiences minimum feelings of helplessness and strong
positive feelings that he or she has the ability, control,
skill, or knowledge to influence events (Webster 1987; Wilson
1989). An officer's personal sense of mastery is
particularly vital to proactive enforcement because police
patrol work is so highly unsupervised, a considerable amount
of responsibility, discretion, and initiative to enforce the
law is delegated to the individual patrol officer. Thus, it
would seem to logically follow that the degree an officer
feels helpless would be associated with their degree of
motivation to proactively enforce the law. Proactive
enforcement is defined here as the predisposition of a police
officer to be actively involved in fighting crime (Webster
1987; Bobinsky 1994).
Again, it is hypothesized in the present study that as
the level of perceived alienation increases among police
officers from citizens in the community where they patrol,
their level of mastery at work will decrease and so too their
willingness to respond proactively to serious crime. The
study also investigates whether recent highly publicized
judicial verdicts against police officers for controversial
on duty performance, such as incidents involving Rodney King,
Malice Green, and O.J. Simpson, are related to the level of
3
perceived alienation experienced by police and thus their
willingness to respond proactively to serious crime. In
addition the study investigates if police officers working in
communities having a higher degree of urbanism report more
perceived alienation, less sense of mastery, and less
willingness to respond proactively to serious crime.
Finally, the study examines the relationship of gender, age,
race, rank, seniority, education, marital status, and
residency, to the predicted alienation-mastery-proactive
policing sequence.
4
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Alienation is a concept discussed by several theorists
as a condition in social relationships where there is a low
degree of integration or common values and a high degree of
distance and isolation between people or groups of people in
a community or work environment. The present study focuses
on the impact of alienation on police officers from citizens
in the community where they patrol, by investigating how it
affects their sense of mastery and as a result their
willingness to participate in proactive enforcement. The
study also investigates if police officers working in
communities having a higher degree of urbanism report more
perceived alienation, less sense of mastery, and less
willingness to respond proactively to serious crime.
Finally, the study examines the relationship of gender, age,
race, rank, seniority, education, marital status, and
residency, to the predicted alienation-mastery-proactive
enforcement sequence (see Appendix A for definitions of
concepts and Appendix B for definitions of social demographic
variables).
The theoretical underpinnings for this study are derived
from the work of the following eight classical and
contemporary social theorists -- Marx (1844, 1846, 1867);
5
Durkheim (1893, 1897); Simmel (1950, 1971); Fromm (1941,
1955); Seeman (1959); Merton (1968); Schmitt (1983); and
Erikson (1986). Each of these theorists portrayed how
greater complexity in a social environment results in
individuals experiencing feelings of alienation with others.
Moreover, they described how alienation reduces a person's
sense of mastery and how it in turn leads to withdrawal,
apathy, and comparative inactivity in their work setting or
social relationships.
The effect of alienation on workers has also been
demonstrated through empirical research by eight contemporary
authors -- Becker (1966); Schmidt et al. (1982); Mottaz
(1983); Berg et al. (1984); Pogrebin (1987); Shernock (1988);
Crank et al. (1995); and King (1995). Findings by these
authors confirm the above theoretical perspectives by
demonstrating that workers or police officers working in an
environment where they perceive a low degree of integration,
common values, or social support, are more alienated. As a
result, they have a weaker sense of mastery, and are more
detached, indifferent, and unproductive in their work.
This section will begin with a summary of an article
written by Seeman (1959) who describes the various meanings
of alienation. It will then be followed in chronological
order with summaries of theoretical and empirical writings
from the other theorists and researchers who explain the
causes and effects of alienation.
6
The Meaning of Alienation
Seeman (1959) proposed how the concept of alienation
could be made more amendable to modern empirical measurement,
through better understanding of the alternative meanings of
alienation as used in traditional sociological thought.
Seeman identified the five alternative meanings of alienation
as: 1) powerlessness, 2) meaninglessness, 3) normlessness, 4)
isolation, and 5) self-estrangement.
The first and most frequent usage of alienation is that
of powerlessness. Seeman credited this usage to the Marxian
view where the worker in a capitalist society feels alienated
because his prerogative and means of decision making are
expropriated by the ruling entrepreneurs. This is when an
individual has a belief that they are not in control because
their own behavior cannot determine the outcomes, or
reinforcements, they seek.
The second major usage of alienation is that of
meaninglessness. Seeman attributed this usage to Mannheim's
"functional rationality" argument which states "as society
increasingly organizes its members rationally, there is a
parallel decline in the capacity to [understand] . . . the
interrelations of events" (Mannheim 1940:59). This is when
an individual experiences a sense of futility in his actions
because his minimal standards for clarity to make a decision
are not being met and he is unclear as to what he ought to
7
believe.
The third usage of alienation is that of normlessness.
Seeman placed this usage to Durkheim and Merton's theory of
anomie where the latter wrote "anomie is the sociological
term in which values have been submerged in the welter of
private interests seeking satisfaction by virtually any means
which are effective" (Merton [1949] 1968:128). This is when
many individuals believe there is a high expectancy that
socially unapproved behaviors are required to achieve given
goals.
The fourth usage of alienation is that of isolation.
Seeman assigned this usage to the detachment of the
intellectual from popular cultural standards. This is when
the alienated, like the intellectual, feel withdrawn because
they assign a low reward value to the goals or beliefs that
are highly valued in their society.
The fifth and last usage of alienation is that of self-
estrangement. Seeman laid this usage to Fromm who wrote that
"alienation is meant a mode of experience in which the person
experiences himself as an alien. He has become, one might
say, estranged from himself" (Fromm 1955:120). This is when
an individual just goes through the rituals and acts only for
the effects of others, rather than in activities that engage
him.
Alienation, Loss of Mastery, and Inactivity
8
Marx described how our thoughts and actions are a
product of our social environment. In the words of Marx, "It
is not the consciousness of men that determines their social
existence, but their social existence that determines their
consciousness" ([1859] 1970:21). In this sense Marx argued
that modern capitalist society is an alienating and divisive
force among people because of its complex division of labor
and the inequality inherent in its wage labor (i.e., private
labor of the proletariate by the bourgeois). According to
Marx alienation is a relationship of reciprocal "isolation
and foreignness" ([1867] 1977:182) that does not exist for
members of a primitive society. Marx believed that the
alienating factors in capitalistic society broke primitive
society's social solidarity of "we" in exchange for "me."
Moreover, Marx alluded to how alienation results in a worker
loosing his sense of mastery because his own deed becomes "an
alien power opposed to him, standing over and against him,
which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him"
([1846] 1967:48).
Marx made a distinction between the meanings of
alienation and self-alienation, and proposed how they result
in greater work inactivity:"(1) [Alienation] . . . this relation is the . . . relation to the sensuous external world . . . as an alien world inimically opposed to him. (2) [Self-alienation] . . . this relation is the relation of the worker to his own activity as an alien activity not belonging to him . . . emasculating, the worker's own physical and mental energy . . . for what is life but
9
activity? . . . Here we have self-estrangement, as previously we had estrangement of the thing" ([1844] 1975:275).
In other writings, Marx vividly described how alienation
ultimately results in the avoidance of work:"The worker therefore . . . is home when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home . . . Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no other physical or other compulsion exists, it is avoided like the plague" (in Zeitlin 1968:87).
In summary, Marx's (1844, 1846, 1859, 1867) writings are
important to this study because of his argument that
complexity in working environments makes man experience a
sense of alienation with others or with his labor. As a
result, the worker loses his sense of mastery and becomes
apathetic and inactive his work.
Town Size, Heterogeneity in Values, and Loss of Mastery
Durkheim (1893, 1897) explained how community size is
related to homogeneity or heterogeneity in values and how
this could affect a person's sense of mastery. To begin
with, Durkheim wrote that primitive preindustrial revolution
society is featured by "mechanical solidarity, or solidarity
by similarities" ([1893] 1984:31), whereas modern post
industrial revolution society is featured by "organic
solidarity, or solidarity arising from the division of labor"
([1893] 1984:68). Durkheim (1893, 1897) distinguished each
of these societies by how much the collective consciousness
"regulates" our personality. To regulate according to
10
Durkheim, means that "network of ties" (e.g., community and
family) which shape and supports an individual. Thus,
Durkheim believed individuals in primitive society resemble
one another, and have a high degree of tradition,
integration, and regulation because they share many common
values with simple division of labor. In contrast
individuals in modern society are different from one another,
and have a low degree of tradition, integration, and
regulation because they share few common values with complex
division of labor.
Durkheim wrote environments having many common values,
as in early society, still exist in small towns:"in a small town, when some scandal . . . has just taken place . . . people stop each other on the street, call upon one another . . . a common indignation is expressed . . . the sentiments . . . are common to everybody: they are strongly felt because they are not contested . . . they are universally respected" ([1893] 1984:58).
Durkheim (1893) believed common values enhance community
solidarity. He also discussed, as did Simmel (1903), because
there is greater supervision and surveillance shaping values
in small towns more common values and solidarity exist. In
Durkheim's words in "small towns . . . everyone's attention
is constantly fixed upon what everyone else is doing, the
slightest deviation is remarked upon and immediately
repressed" ([1893] 1984:239).
In contrast, Durkheim wrote that in large towns there
11
are less common values and more individuation because there
is less surveillance to shape the individual:"As society spreads out and becomes denser, it envelopes the individual less tightly . . . to confirm that this is the case . . . compare large and small towns. With the latter, the person who seeks to emancipate himself from accepted customs comes up against resistances that are on occasion very fierce . . . on the contrary, in large towns the individual is much more liberated from the yoke of the collectivity . . . The surveillance is less careful because there are too many people and things to watch . . . Even neighbors and members of the same family are in contact less often" ([1893] 1984:238-239).
Durkheim also alluded to how people living in environments
that have less social regulation as existing in large towns
"throws open the door to disillusionment and consequently
to . . . [a loss of] mastery" ([1897] 1951:285). Durkheim's
(1893, 1897) writings are significant to this study because
of his argument that greater complexity and community size
result in less common values among people and less sense of
mastery in a person.
Town Size, Heterogeneity, Alienation, and Indifference
Simmel (1950, 1971) discussed how modern society and
town size affected homogeneity and heterogeneity in values
and how town size can affect one's sense of concern for
others. In Simmel's ([1908] 1971) writings, "size" refers to
variation in the size of the social structure, such as a
small town environment in contrast with a large city or
metropolis environment. Whereas "complexity" refers to
12
modern society's increased population density, division of
labor, bureaucracy, and hierarchy.
Simmel (1950) stated that small town environments have
more solidarity and less estrangement than do larger cities
for the following reasons: 1) because there are fewer
bureaucratic hierarchies to heighten indifference, and
paralleling Durkheim's (1893) ideas, 2) because there is more
supervision of the citizen by other citizens to shape the
individual in the same fashion. In other writings that
elaborated on the second reason, Simmel ([1903] 1971) stated
that citizens in a small town are more anxious to watch over
the deeds, the conduct of life, and the attitudes of other
individuals.
In contrast, Simmel wrote that large city environments
with their high population density and most advanced economic
division of labor, cause an over-stimulation of experiences.
This results in the "blase metropolitan attitude" of
heightened "indifference," and greater estrangement and
anonymity in social relationships. Simmel ([1903] 1950)
expressed similar views in other writings when he argued that
because the behavior of people in large cities often appears
to people from small towns as "cold and heartless," one never
feels so "lonely and as deserted" as when in a metropolitan
environment. Simmel's (1950, 1971) writings are
consequential to this study because of his analysis that
greater community size increases the likelihood that people
13
will experience more sense of alienation and indifference in
social relationships.
Alienation, Loss of Mastery, and Apathy
Fromm (1955) proposed how alienation leads to a loss of
mastery and apathy among workers. To begin with, Fromm
defined alienation as: "a mode of experience in which the
person experiences himself as an alien. He has become . . .
estranged from himself . . . The alienated person is out of
touch with himself as he is out of touch with any other
person" (1955:120-121).
Fromm (1941) argued, as did Marx (1846), that complexity
in modern society, capitalism, and technology have estranged
man from his labor. By reason of that, Fromm wrote man is
not the "master anymore . . . [because] he is pervaded by an
intense sense of insignificance and powerlessness" (1941:117-
118). In other writings, Fromm (1955) proposed that in order
for a person to have a strong sense of self, the person must
believe they are the subject of their own thoughts, feelings,
decisions, judgments, and actions.
Fromm also wrote, as did Marx (1968), how alienation and
the lack of mastery results in apathy among workers:
"Alienation as we find it in modern society . . . pervades the relationship of man to his work . . . He does not feel himself as a creator and center . . . [the] need to control . . . [have] independent thought are being baulked, and the . . . inevitable result, is . . . apathy" (1955:123-124).
14
Fromm's (1941, 1955) writings are relevant to this study
because his analysis mirrored Marx (1844, 1846, 1859, 1867).
For Fromm similarly argued complexity in working environments
makes man experience a sense of alienation with others or
with his labor. As a result, the worker loses his sense of
mastery and becomes apathetic and inactive in his work.
Alienation, Lack of Community, and Low Self-Image
Becker (1966) researched alienation in the work place.
This consisted of: 1) investigating how alienation is
grounded on social complexity and lack of community, 2)
devising a method to measure a worker's degree of alienation
by their self-image, and 3) investigating the relationship
between alienation and work settings.
Becker expressed views similar to Marx (1867) and Fromm
(1941) that alienation is rooted in the complexity of modern
society and results in a worker's loss of self. Becker also
indicated that it is rooted in the lack of community because
the alienated are "unattached, isolated, and lacking in firm
moral values . . . incessantly striving for community and
certainty . . . not to win freedom but to escape from it"
(1966:139).
To measure a worker's degree of alienation, Becker
extended his logic that alienated individuals lack community
integration and are thus insecure, by viewing the work place
like a community. As a result, Becker wrote that one first
15
has to measure a worker's "self-image" to capture their sense
of alienation. In the words of Becker:"to measure social alienation we must first measure prized self-image, the central attributes of self-concept to which strong positive feelings are attached . . . We may speak of the man whose work role poorly fits his prized self-image as work-alienated" (1966:140).
Becker hypothesized a worker would have a strong self-image
and express a low degree of work alienation if the worker had
the opportunity to use his own judgment, be conscientious in
his work, be independent from higher supervision, and have
his ambition rewarded by promotion.
Becker surveyed 1,156 male workers and found their level
of alienation was related to a work situation that provided:
"little discretion," a "tall hierarchy above," and a "career
which has been blocked" (1966:143-144). The most important
implications of Becker's (1966) research to this study are
his theoretical and methodological propositions that
alienation is related to social complexity and lack of
community; and his finding that alienation is related to a
worker's inability to use his discretion.
Alienation and Inactivity
Merton (1968) discussed how alienation can result in
greater work inactivity in his writings on the "ritualist."
The ritualist is one of five types of adaptations in his
anomic deviance theory. The ritualist according to Merton is
16
an anomic and alienated worker who adapts to the ambiguities
in the cultural norms by withdrawing and becoming complacent
and inactive in his work. Merton described the ritualistic
type of adaptation as the abandoning or scaling down of lofty
cultural goals to the point where one's aspirations can be
satisfied.
Merton expressed the ritualist does not represent
genuine deviant behavior but is a departure from the cultural
model in which men are obliged to strive actively. Merton
saw the ritualist as a frightened employee where "fear
produces inaction." Merton cited examples of this type of
employee as one who uses cliches like, "I'm not sticking my
neck out," or "I'm playing safe" (1968:203-204). Merton
wrote:"the ritualist is, in short, the mode of adaptation of individually seeking a private escape from the changes and frustrations . . . by abandoning these goals and clinging all the more closely to the safe routines and the institutional norms" (1968:205).
Merton's view on the ritualist is similar to Seeman's (1959)
description of the "self-estranged" where one only acts for
the effects of others, rather than in activities that engage
him.
Merton suggested Srole's (1956) anomie scale, which
measures the condition of "self to other alienation," would
be a valid method for capturing ritualistic behavior. The
scale is also relevant because it identifies some of the
17
social causes of alienation. Srole used the following five
indicators to measure this condition:"(1) . . . community leaders are indifferent . . . (2) . . . the social order [is] fickle and unpredictable; (3) . . . people . . . are retrogressing from goals they already reached; (4) . . . meaninglessness of life; and (5) . . . personal relationships . . . [are] no longer predictable or supportive" (1956:712-713).
Merton's (1968) writings are meaningful to this study because
he argued a worker who experiences a significant sense of
anomie or alienation in their community or work environment
adapts by becoming less involved in their work.
Alienation, Withdrawal, Social Support, and Gender
Schmidt, Conn, Greene, and Mesirow (1982) researched how
alienation results in social withdrawal. Further, they
investigated how social support can mitigate the effects of
alienation and how social support can vary by gender.
Schmidt et al. argued that alienation is usually viewed
in sociological literature as a macro-social problem
affecting large groups that results in a uniform response of
social withdrawal. Whereas psychological literature is more
apt to view alienation as an individual differences variable
in which reactions to alienation are diverse. For instance,
Schmidt et al. cited psychological studies that found sex
differences when responding to interpersonal distress, such
that men tend to respond to task roles while women attend to
18
interpersonal aspects of the situation. In other words men
tend to withdraw while women tend to share their negative
emotions. If true, Schmidt et al. wrote:"one potential cost of choosing withdrawal as a response to alienation is that the person may also reduce sources of social support that can be used to cope with distress . . . withdrawal may be a double-edge sword, removing the person from stressful contacts, but also reducing helpful interactions" (1982:516).
Schmidt et al. hypothesized when alienation is experienced by
men it would be followed more often by social withdrawal,
while women would cope with it more often with a problem-
solving strategy.
Schmidt et al. surveyed 40 male and 63 female students
using a questionnaire that attempted to measure each element
of alienation (i.e., powerlessness, meaninglessness,
normlessness, isolation, and self-estrangement) as delineated
by Seeman (1959). Schmidt et al. wrote that they selected
Seeman's (1959) multidimensional definition of alienation
because they found:
"While a number of alienation scales exist, most of these measures tap only a limited aspect of the concept or are worded in a way that reflect a general worldwide view rather than an attitudinal system relative to social interactions" (1982:517).
Schmidt et al. findings revealed that men and women
essentially perceived alienation to the same degree. Yet men
are more likely to withdraw and less likely to seek social
19
support, whereas women were significantly less likely to have
no support (2 versus 9%) and more likely to have both-sex
support (73 versus 60%). The most important aspect of
Schmidt et al. (1982) research to this study is their finding
that less social support increases one's sense of alienation
which results in social withdrawal.
Alienation, Apathy, and Lack of Community Support
Mottaz (1983) researched the nature and sources of
alienation among workers and police officers. Mottaz defined
work alienation, as did Berg (1984), in terms of worker
apathy, where workers experience a "lack of intrinsic
fulfillment in work . . . [because] work is viewed as . . .
not rewarding and engaging in itself, but simply a means to
some other end" (1983:23).
To determine whether the degree of alienation at work
varied among occupations, Mottaz surveyed three occupational
groups (i.e., 277 professional workers, 429 blue collar
workers, and 607 police officers). The police officer group
was further subdivided into three department type categories
(i.e., state police, suburban police, and city police).
Mottaz also measured the relationship of alienation to
various social economic variables, as well as to three of
Seeman's (1959) elements of alienation (i.e., powerlessness,
meaninglessness, and self-estrangement).
20
By occupational group Mottaz's findings revealed that
blue collar workers had the highest level of alienation,
followed by police officers, and then by professionals. By
department type, Mottaz found that city police had the
highest level of alienation followed by suburban police and
then by state police. Mottaz also found the following
variables were very strong predictors of alienation among
police officers across all department types: 1) meaningless
(lack of purpose in task performance), 2) high work
expectations, 3) higher education, 4) powerlessness (lack of
control over task activities), and 5) higher seniority.
Mottaz elaborated on his findings by pointing out that
alienation among police officers is often the result of a
lack of community support. In the words of Mottaz "negative
job attitudes among police officers is brought about, at
least in part, from contact with a hostile, indifferent, and
unappreciative public" (1983:24). The most important
implication of Mottaz's (1983) research to this study is his
finding that police officers expressed a strong sense of
alienation and powerlessness when they perceived a lack of
community support.
Alienation, Lack of Community, and Loss of Mastery
Schmitt (1983) discussed the causes and effects of
alienation. Schmitt, as did Simmel (1950), wrote how greater
size and complexity of a social structure (i.e., population,
21
bureaucracy, and division of labor) results in alienation
between individuals. Schmitt also argued that alienation
breaks one's sense of community solidarity, and ultimately
one's sense of mastery. Schmitt described the alienated as
people who feel estranged from persons and places they have
known all their lives, and when they speak it seems as if
they are using a foreign language.
Regarding how increased population and bureaucracy
results in alienation, Schmitt wrote that these factors
heightened an individual's sense of powerlessness, which is a
major component of alienation:"With the increase . . . in population, power has become concentrated in fewer institutions . . . The powerlessness of the individual confronted with a massive bureaucracy . . . evokes . . . the sense of frustration and impotence . . . because the functionary that faces you across the counter is as powerless as you are. Whatever you want him or her to do they cannot do because "its against the rules" . . . they "don't make the rules; they only work here" (1983:180-181).
Concerning how the division of labor results in
alienation, Schmitt wrote, as did Marx (1867), that increased
division of labor breaks social solidarity and results in the
"fragmentation of society into isolated individuals"
(1983:79). According to Schmitt, solidarity's worst enemy is
the division of labor (as well as classism, sexism, and
racism) because it rigidifies people into a permanent social
division, and retards the full development of community.
As for how alienation results in the loss of mastery,
22
Schmitt expressed since alienation is intimately linked to a
"lack of community," people without community cannot have a
strong sense of mastery. Schmitt elaborated on the logic
behind this statement by writing that people who do not have
a genuine sense of community will experience feelings of
powerlessness, depersonalization, aimlessness, isolation, and
loneliness, which ultimately destroys their ability to
achieve any sense of mastery.
In summary, Schmitt's (1983) analysis is relevant to
this study because it parallels Simmel's (1950, 1971)
discussion regarding the effects of greater size and
complexity of social structures. For Schmitt also proposed
these factors result in people experiencing less sense of
community, more sense of alienation, less sense of mastery,
and more indifference in social relationships.
Alienation, Apathy, and Lack of Community Support
Berg, Gerz, and True (1984) researched the linkage of
alienation and apathy among police officers to various
community social structures. They performed this by
measuring whether the degree of alienation in police officers
was associated with their view of support from: 1) the local
media, 2) the community where they worked, 3) their police
administrators, and 4) their prosecutor's office.
Berg et al. defined work alienation, as did Mottaz
23
(1983), in terms of worker apathy, where workers experience
"detachment from their work, intrinsic feelings of isolation,
and lack of fulfillment from working" (1984:20). To
determine the degree to which alienation was related to
several community social structures the authors surveyed 86
police officers from Miami and Dade County Metropolitan
Police Departments shortly after the 1979 Liberty riot.
Berg et al. findings revealed that: 1) a clear majority
of police officers are alienated from the local media because
they believe it is biased against them, 2) black officers
tend to be far less alienated and perceived more assistance
from citizens in the community where they worked than white
or Hispanic officers, 3) police officers had a high level of
negativism (64%) toward their department administrators
because of the perception of little support and backing, 4)
only 15% of the officers had a negative view of their
prosecutor's office as most believed they would aggressively
pursue the conviction of police assailants, and 5) young
officers (under 30) are more likely to offer cynical
responses than older officers. The most important aspect of
Berg et al. (1984) research to this study is their finding
that alienation among police officers is linked to a lack of
support from various community social structures.
Alienation and Ambiguity
Erikson (1986) wrote on alienation in the work place.
24
Of interest were two issues: 1) Erikson offered a definition
of alienation that causally linked alienation to work rather
than community, and 2) Erikson discussed how more complexity
in division of labor results in a greater sense of ambiguity
for workers.
Regarding the first issue, Erikson defined alienation in
terms of "disconnection, separation-the process by which
human beings are cut adrift from their natural moorings"
(1986:2). Erikson further argued, as did Marx (1846, 1867),
that alienation is not due to one's estrangement from their
community, but from the unnatural, alien work arrangements
existing in modern society, manifested by more complex
division of labor.
Concerning the second issue, Erikson wrote that more
complex division of labor in modern society also results in a
greater sense of ambiguity for workers because their role has
been reduced into minute segments of specialization:"alienation is most likely . . . where workers . . . do not have a very clear sense of the pattern of the whole and are not really sure what their role is in it . . . the work task has been splintered into so many specialties that only a fraction of the workers intelligence and skill is required" (1986:3).
Erikson's (1986) writings are relevant to this study because
of his theoretical premise that greater complexity in social
structures results in workers experiencing less clarity of
expectations and more sense of alienation.
25
Alienation and Inactivity
Pogrebin (1987) researched the causes and effects of
alienation among veteran police officers. This consisted of
investigating: 1) why veteran officers feel alienated, 2) how
alienation affects work productivity, and 3) the effect of
alienation on the morale of other officers.
Pogrebin surveyed 20 veteran officers from a medium-
sized metropolitan police department in the Southwest United
States and found that alienation and subsequent work
inactivity was mostly due to internal departmental factors
rather than external community factors. As Pogrebin wrote:"the lack of promotional opportunities . . . often resulted in . . . feelings of organizational alienation, depression and loss of self esteem . . . [such officers] may very likely become a destructive force within the department . . . opting to retire on the job" (1987:38).
Pogrebin attributed much of the alienation experienced by
veteran officers to police administrators who do not give
"recognition and compensation" for good police work, or
appreciate their experience and appropriate judgments in the
"ambiguous situations" that often occur when fighting crime.
Pogrebin also found that negative attitudes displayed by
alienated veteran officers can often affect the entire
organization. However, Pogrebin points out that such
attitudes had the greatest effect on the morale and work
productivity of younger low seniority officers, who may
become persuaded that good police work goes unrecognized and
26
unrewarded. The most important implication of Pogrebin's
(1987) research to this study is his finding that alienation
made police officers feel more negative about themselves and
their department which results in greater work inactivity.
Negative Community Orientation and Solidarity
Shernock (1988) researched the relationship between
police solidarity and their view of the community where they
worked. Shernock wrote that much prior research on the
police subculture found that the more police officers felt
"socially isolated" the more they exhibited a sense of
solidarity and secrecy. Based on this premise, that there is
a relationship between in-group cohesion and out-group
antagonism, Shernock hypothesized police officers who express
a greater sense of police solidarity will also express a less
positive community orientation.
Shernock tested his hypothesis from data obtained by
surveying 177 patrol officers from eleven police departments
located in small and medium sized cities in the Northeast
United States. Shernock focused on two areas affecting
police solidarity: 1) the external working environment. This
consisted of measuring the danger police officers perceived
while on and off duty; the negative encounters they perceived
with citizens while on and off duty; and the control of their
discretion they perceived from courts and civilian review
27
boards, and 2) the internal working environment. This
consisted of measuring the perceived threat from their
supervisors, administrators, and internal review boards.
Regarding the external working environment, Shernock
found the more police officers felt socially isolated from
the community where they worked the less they would express a
favorable attitude toward its citizens. Shernock also found
the attribute of loyalty to fellow officers to have a strong
correlation to their view of the external working
environment:"the danger inherent in police work leads to an omnipresent suspicion, which serves to isolate police from the rest of society . . . the police perception of public hostility towards law enforcement . . . contributed . . . [the most] to police solidarity, as well as to a negative community orientation" (1988:183-184).
Shernock elaborated that this "us versus them" attitude
spawns a police subculture of secrecy, which provides the
glue that binds police solidarity against an environment that
is perceived as hostile. Another significant factor in the
external working environment that increased police solidarity
was antagonism toward "control over police discretion."
Concerning the internal working environment, Shernock
found that opposition to "greater supervision" had the effect
of increasing police solidarity. Moreover that the
inflexible "hierarchical" structure of a police department
had the same effect. The most significant implication of
28
Shernock's (1988) research to this study is his finding that
the more police officers felt isolated from the community
where they patrolled, the more they withdrew and the more
negative they felt towards its citizens.
Antecedents of Alienation
Crank, Regoli, Hewitt, and Culbertson (1995) researched
the causes of stress, alienation, and anomie among police
executives. Their research focused on police chiefs and
sheriffs rather than patrol officers.
Crank et al. hypothesized that police executives were
often hired with certain individual characteristics
(education, commitment to public service ethic, ethnicity,
and managerial experience) which should moderate the effects
of stress. However, the executives may still become stressed
by: 1) role stress, 2) work alienation, and 3) anomie.
Crank et al. selected the four individual-level
characteristics because prior research showed that:"[1.] Educated police officers . . . are less vulnerable to the debilitating effects of unclear or ambiguous role expectations . . . [2.] Commitment to public service may . . . counter the tendency of police personnel to become insular . . . and adopt an "us versus them" mentality regarding the public . . . [3.] Ethnicity . . . minority group members . . . may feel greater performance pressures . . . [4.] Length of service . . . [in] police executive leadership were especially stressful in the first 4 years" (1995:156-157).
Crank et al. tested their hypothesis from data obtained
29
by surveying a national sample of 1,404 police executives.
Their findings revealed that:"the effects of education, belief in public service, minority status [i.e., African American], and experience on work alienation remained significant even in the presence of organizational and institutional stressors . . . even though those protective attributes cease to shield them against role stress and provide only limited protection against anomie" (1995:167).
The most important aspect of Crank et al. (1995) research to
this study is their theoretical premise that the lack of
clarity and ambiguity of expectations results in alienation
among police officers.
Town Size, Alienation, and Inactivity
King (1995) researched the compliance-gaining techniques
of police officers in a big city and small town. Although
the central theme of King's research was on the communicative
techniques of compliance-gaining, there were many peripheral
issues relevant to this study such as how: 1) larger
community size is related to greater social distance between
police officers and citizens, 2) larger community size is
related to a greater sense of alienation between police
officers and citizens, 3) recent highly publicized judicial
verdicts against police officers, such as incidents involving
Rodney King and Malice Green, have affected police
involvement, and 4) greater seniority with police officers is
related to less willingness to become involved.
King performed her research by riding on patrol with 26
30
police officers from a big city Midwestern police department
that had approximately 3,900 officers and with 15 officers
from a small town Midwestern police department that had
approximately 40 officers. For anonymity reasons King called
the big city "River City" and the small town "Greendale."
The population of the former city was slightly more than one
million residents, whereas the latter community had
approximately 24,000 residents. King described the two
communities as being at opposite ends of the spectrum, not
only in size but also in terms of the big city having much
higher violent crime, a lower socioeconomic standard of
living, and a higher degree of racial heterogeneity.
Regarding the first issue how larger community size is
related to greater social distance between police officers
and citizens, King found police interaction with citizens in
River City often characterized by a desire for anonymity to
avoid citizen complaints. Reminiscent of Simmel's (1903)
writings on how large city environments have greater
indifference in social relationships, King wrote that the
demeanor of River City police officers is typified by "a calm
yet stern, detached manner--not rude but certainly not
friendly" (1995:244). King illustrated this by citing a 20-
year Riverside veteran who stated, "To stay safe we treat
everybody like the bad guy" (1995:244).
In contrast with the big city police department, King
found police interaction with citizens in Greendale was not
31
characterized by a desire for anonymity. King cited research
that the demeanor of small town officers tends:"to reflect not suspicion and detachment but rather friendliness and concern . . . an "ethic of friendliness" . . . to relate to them whenever possible on a personal level . . . [This] attitude [is] attributed . . . to the lower level of danger . . . Further, the small town officer is more likely to know personally the members of a community -- a situation that discourages the "us versus them" mentality . . . [which] afford[s] the small town cop the opportunity to be "Officer Friendly" (1995:19-20).
King also found the demeanor of Greendale police officers
with its citizens to be more intimate. For instance, they
showed respect, politeness, and friendliness in their desire
to be liked by the public they serve. King illustrated this
by citing a few Greendale officers who stated, "I gotta live
in this community after I retire" . . ."people in this town
are cooperative and supportive. The majority are downright
friendly" . . . "People generally respect our department"
(1995:135).
Concerning the second issue how larger community size is
related to a greater sense of alienation between police
officers and citizens, King found River City patrol officers
so estranged with the community where they worked that they
viewed it as "too dangerous for their families" (1995:240).
Moreover, King found that many River City officers viewed
themselves as "largely disconnected from the community where
they worked" and were essentially in a constant state of an
"us versus them mentality" (1995:259). As a result, King
32
stated many River City police officers maintain two homes:
one in the city (in order to satisfy the residency
requirement) and one in the suburbs where their families
reside.
As for the third issue how recent highly publicized
judicial verdicts against police officers, such as incidents
involving Rodney King and Malice Green, have affected police
involvement, King found that they were interpreted by police
to demonstrate the lack of consistent community or department
support. According to King, they had the major effect of
reducing officers willingness to fight crime in both big city
and small town environments. King pointed out that police
admitted to her that they now second-guess themselves in
force situations and take a "less proactive approach in their
work" (1995:7). King elaborated on this issue by writing,
"Having seen fellow officers financially ruined, fired and
even jailed on excessive force charges . . . [they] worry
about a similar fate" (1995:183-184). King illustrated this
fear by respectively citing four River City and one Greendale
police veterans as stating:"Now if we make a stop, I'm worried about what if I do have to hassle with some guy. I have to second-guess myself and I might get killed" . . . "The community is never happy. Either we're too hard on [crime] or we're slackin' off" . . . "You've heard about the [Malice Green] case. Those cops were bustin' their butts and look where it got them" . . . "Our department says they're behind us. What a joke. Oh, they're behind you all right--just don't bend over" . . . "I don't wanna lose my house, my car and all that. You just
33
gotta watch it. It's not worth getting' sued over . . . It's getting to the point of not doing your job" (1995:7,183,241-242).
Finally, regarding the fourth issue how greater
seniority with police officers is related to less willingness
to become involved, King found considerable evidence from
prior research that higher seniority is associated with a
strong sense of complacency and futility. As King
summarized:"The learning of complacency . . . insures continuance in the police world . . . A rookie patrol officer quickly learns that aggressive patrol tactics are bothersome, increasing the likelihood of being sanctioned by a civilian audience. To avoid becoming targets . . . [they learn to] minimize contact with the citizenry, respond primarily to departmental directive, and take little initiative on the street . . . [Thus] a metamorphosis [occurs where] new police officers . . . suffused with altruism . . . gradually discover the futility of their efforts to make the world a better place" (1995:13-21).
King's own findings echo prior research on this issue. For
example, King respectively cited one Greendale and two River
City veterans as stating:"The rookies think that their arrests are gonna make a difference. One day they're gonna realize that they're not saving the world" . . . "I can get two or three felonies (felony arrests) a day and still not feel like I'm makin' a dent" . . . "you just get fed up with these people. It's the same people, same problems" (1995:223).
The most significant implications of King's (1995)
research to this study are her findings that larger community
size is related to greater social distance and sense of
34
alienation between police officers and citizens. Further,
that recent highly publicized judicial verdicts against
police officers have been interpreted by police as a lack of
consistent community support which has resulted in their
having less willingness to become involved.
Relationship of Research to Present Study
The present study focuses on the impact of perceived
alienation of police officers from citizens in the community
where they patrol on their sense of mastery and subsequent
willingness to proactively enforce the law. According to the
writings of classical and contemporary social theorists cited
in this chapter, the sociological concept of alienation
describes a condition in social relationships where there is
a low degree of integration or common values and a high
degree of distance and isolation between people or groups of
people in a community or work environment. The concept
proposes the greater the level of alienation experienced by
individuals in a particular community, the greater their
sense of helplessness and apathy, and ultimately the less
their willingness to proactively engage in work.
Empirical research by authors cited in this chapter
tends to support this relationship by demonstrating that
people who perceive a high degree of alienation in their work
environment are more apt to have a weaker sense of mastery,
and in turn be more detached, indifferent, and unproductive
35
in their work. Except for the work of King (1995), no
empirical research was found in the literature that
specifically focused on this alienation-mastery-proactive
enforcement sequence for police officers. Other than King
(1995), no empirical research was discovered which
investigated the relationship between perceived alienation,
mastery, and police proactive enforcement since recent highly
publicized judicial verdicts, such as incidents involving
Rodney King, Malice Green, and O.J. Simpson. Therefore, the
present study was designed to investigate the validity of the
following hypotheses:
Hypotheses
1.There will be a significant inverse relationship between
the level of perceived alienation and the level of mastery
as reported by police officers.
2.There will be a significant inverse relationship between
the level of perceived alienation and the degree of
willingness to proactively enforce the law as reported by
police officers.
3.There will be a significant inverse relationship between
the level of perceived alienation and the impact of recent
highly publicized judicial verdicts on proactive
enforcement as reported by police officers.
4.There will be a significant inverse relationship between
the degree of urbanism with: 1) the level of perceived
36
alienation, 2) the level of mastery, 3) the degree of
willingness to proactively enforce the law, and 4) the
degree of willingness to proactively enforce the law since
the impact of recent highly publicized judicial verdicts
as reported by police officers.
5.The study will examine the relationship of gender, age,
race, rank, seniority, education, marital status, and
residency, to the predicted alienation-mastery-proactive
policing sequence.
37
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Overview
The primary areas of discussion of this chapter are: 1)
social demographic characteristics of sample, 2) instrument
of measurement, 3) research design, and 4) statistical
analysis.
Social Demographic Characteristics of Sample
Table 1 presents a breakdown of the 272 police officers
who participated in this study on the social demographic
variables of gender, age, race, rank, seniority, education,
marital status, residency, and degree of urbanism. The vast
majority of the sample were male (95%). The sample ranged in
age from 22 to 59 years (mean 37.4). The majority of the
sample was white (84.2%), and the minority was black (8.5%)
and other (5.1%). Seventy five percent of the sample were at
the rank of police officer and the rest were at the rank of
sergeant or higher.
The mean seniority level of the sample was 12.9 years.
The majority of the sample (50.4%) had some college education
and 42.7% a bachelor degree or higher. Seventy three percent
of the sample were married, 17% were single, and 8.5% were
divorced or separated. More than half of the sample (61.8%)
lived in the community where they worked and 66.7% of this
38
group indicated they lived there by choice; of those who did
not live in the community where they worked 57.6% (60 cases)
indicated they would never choose to live there. The
majority of the sample (48.2%) worked in a community having a
moderate degree of urbanism; while the remainder worked in a
community having a high degree of urbanism (36.8%) or low
degree of urbanism (15.1%).
The sample was from eleven different law
enforcement agencies. This consisted of one university
department of public safety, nine police departments, and one
sheriff department.1 The departments ranged in size from 15
to 850 sworn police officers. The departments were located
in a large metropolitan county in the Midwest United States
having a population density of 3,392 persons per square mile.
The racial environment of the county was approximately 60%
white and 40% black. There was an average ratio of 18 sworn
police officers to every 10,000 citizens.2 The communities
where these departments were located ranged in population
from approximately 10,000 to more than two million persons.
Racially these communities ranged from over 99% white and
less than 1% black; to 31% white, 59% black, and 10% other
(Center for Urban Studies 1993).
1 These agencies are hereafter universally referred to as police departments.
2 This figure does not include the university department of public safety or sheriff department used in this study.
39
It would appear departmental participation was greatly
affected by the degree of urbanism of the community where the
police department was located and by a lesser extent due to
the degree of racial heterogeneity of the community. As
three departments that refused to participate in this study
would have been placed with the high urban group and had
predominantly minority populations. The chiefs of these
departments declined based on one or more of the following
concerns: 1) survey items3 P17 and P18 on Rodney King, Malice
Green, and O.J. Simpson would be highly sensitive and
inflammatory with their officers and citizens, 2) not enough
time elapsed since these incidents, 3) the study could widen
the distance between police administrators and patrol
officers at the very time they were trying to show more
support, 4) the results could make their department look bad,
and 5) the results could heighten fear among their older
citizens. In contrast no refusals were made from chiefs
located in environments having a moderate or low degree of
urbanism. However, a few chiefs from the moderate group did
express concern regarding the above issues while still
participating.
3 The term "item" refers to the question on the survey questionnaire (see Appendix D). In addition each item is symbolized with a letter that denotes the variable it attempts to measure. Thus, "A" denotes alienation, "M" denotes mastery, "P" denotes proactive enforcement, and "D" denotes social demographic variables.
40
National Characteristics of Police Officers
Available national data of social demographic
characteristics of full time local sworn police officers
(i.e., municipal or county) revealed similar proportions to
the respondents in this study. Regarding the variable of
gender males made up about 90% of the officers nationally in
comparison to 95% in this study. Concerning the variable of
race whites made up over 80% of the officers nationally in
comparison to about 84% in this study. As for the variable
of education 20% of officers nationally had some college
education or degree "prior to employment" in comparison to
93% of the "employed" officers in this study. Lastly, in
regards to the ratio of sworn police officers to every 10,000
citizens there were 21 officers nationally in comparison to
18 in this study (Center for Urban Studies 1993, United
States Department of Justice 1996).
41
TABLE 1: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION OF SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Characteristic N % N % Gender Education Male 259 95.2 High School 17 6.3 Female 13 4.8 Some College 137 50.4
Bachelor 78 28.7Age Some Graduate or 20-24 8 2.9 Higher 38 14.0 25-29 50 18.4 30-34 52 19.1 Marital Status 35-39 37 13.6 Single 47 17.3 40-44 44 16.2 Married 199 73.2 45-49 37 13.6 Divorced or 50-54 20 7.4 Separated 23 8.5 55+ 5 1.8
Residency: Lives inRace Working Community White 229 84.2 Yes 168 61.8 Black 23 8.5 No 104 38.2 Other 14 5.1
Degree of UrbanismRank High 100 36.8 Police Officer 205 75.4 Moderate 131 48.2 Sergeant or Higher 65 23.9 Low 41 15.1
Seniority 1-5 years 63 23.2 6-10 62 22.8 11-20 77 28.3 21+ 65 23.9
42
Total 272 100
Note:
! For each variable the sum of N may not equal 272 and the total percentage may not equal 100 because of deletion of missing values.
43
INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT
Survey Questionnaire
A survey instrument in the form of a self administered
questionnaire was developed by the author to measure police
officers' level of perceived alienation, sense of mastery,
and willingness to be involved in proactive enforcement both
before and after highly publicized judicial verdicts.
Eighteen items in the instrument were conceived and
operationalized based on the conceptualization of alienation,
mastery, and proactive enforcement by the various social
theorists and researchers cited in Chapters One and Two.
Operationalization of Alienation
The following seven items (A1 through A7) were used in
the survey questionnaire to measure the level of respondents'
perception of alienation from citizens in the community in
which they patrol:
A1 -- "Do you live in the community where you work?" This
item was based on the assumption that if police officers did
not live in the community where they patrol, the more they
would experience themselves as being alienated from the
citizens of the community. This item was answered "yes" or
"no," indicating a low or high degree of alienation.4
4 Originally the instrument of measurement used items A1, A2, and A3 as part of one Alienation Scale. However, during regression analysis it was found since these items only had a
44
A2 -- "If you live in the community where you work do you
live there by choice?" This item was based on the assumption
that if police officers did not live in the community where
they patrol by choice (many police departments have a
residency requirement), the more they would experience
themselves as being alienated from the citizens of the
community. This item was answered "yes" or "no," indicating
a low or high degree of alienation.
A3 -- "If you do not live in the community where you work
would you ever choose to live there?" This item was based on
the assumption that if police officers did not live in the
community where they patrol and would never choose to do so,
the more they would experience themselves as being alienated
from the citizens of the community. This item was answered
"yes" or "no," indicating a low or high degree of alienation.
A4 -- "To what degree do you share the family values of the
citizens in the community where you work?" This item was
based on the assumption that the less police officers share
the family values of the citizens in the community where they
patrol, the more they would experience themselves as
alienated from the citizens of the community. This item was
answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from "very
dichotomous response option of "yes" or "no" (unlike the five-point Likert type measurement scale used in A4, A5, A6, and A7) they would have to be used as a separate measure of alienation. This was achieved by combining them into one ordinal variable termed "Residence and Choice" (this is discussed in detail in the Research Design section of this chapter).
45
much" to "very little," indicating a low to high degree of
alienation.
A5 -- "To what degree do you share the religious values of
the citizens in the community where you work?" This item was
based on the assumption that the less police officers share
the religious values of the citizens in the community where
they patrol, the more they would experience themselves as
being alienated from the citizens of the community. This
item was answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from
"very much" to "very little," indicating a low or high degree
of alienation.
A6 -- "To what degree do you share the economic values (work
ethic) of the citizens in the community where you work?"
This item was based on the assumption that the less police
officers share the economic values of the citizens in the
community where they patrol, the more they would experience
themselves as being alienated from the citizens of the
community. This item was answered on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from "very much" to "very little," indicating a
low or high degree of alienation.
A7 -- "To what degree do you share the political values of
the citizens in the community where you work?" This item was
based on the assumption that the less police officers share
the political values of the citizens in the community where
they patrol, the more they would experience themselves as
being alienated from the citizens of the community. This
46
item was answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from
"very much" to "very little," indicating a low or high degree
of alienation.
As discussed in a previous footnote two scales were used
to measure alienation: 1) Scores on items A1, A2, and A3 were
combined into a "Residence and Choice" variable to obtain a
total alienation score for each respondent as it was
associated with their residency. The highest possible score
of 4 on this variable would indicate the highest level of
alienation, whereas the lowest possible score of 1 would
indicate the lowest level of alienation; and 2) Scores on
items A4, A5, A6, and A7 were combined into an "Alienation
Scale" to obtain a total alienation score for each respondent
as it was associated with citizens in the community where
they patrol. The highest possible score of 20 on this scale
would indicate the highest level of alienation, whereas the
lowest possible score of 4 would indicate the lowest level of
alienation.
Operationalization of Mastery
The following six items (M8 through M13) were used in
the survey questionnaire to measure the level of respondents'
sense of mastery:
M8 -- "To what degree do you feel the citizens in the
community where you work support you in your efforts to
enforce the law?" This item was based on the assumption that
47
the less police officers perceive themselves being supported
by citizens in the community where they patrol, the less
their sense of mastery. This item was answered on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from "very much" to "very little,"
indicating a high or low degree of mastery.
M9 -- "To what degree do you think the citizens in the
community where you work want you to aggressively enforce the
law?" This item was based on the assumption that the less
police officers perceive the desire of citizens in the
community where they patrol to have them aggressively enforce
the law, the less their sense of mastery. This item was
answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from "very
much" to "very little," indicating a high or low degree of
mastery.
M10 -- "To what degree do you think the citizens in the
community where you work are quick to turn on you if
something goes wrong when you aggressively enforce the law?"
This item was based on the assumption that the more police
officers perceive ambiguity of support when enforcing the law
from citizens in the community where they patrol, the less
their sense of mastery. This item was answered on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from "very much" to "very little,"
indicating a low or high degree of mastery.
M11 -- "To what degree do you feel that you can use your own
judgment in responding to potentially serious crime
(felonies) in the community where you work?" This item was
48
based on the assumption that the less police officers
perceive they can use their own judgment in responding to
potentially serious crime in the community where they patrol,
the less their sense of mastery. This item was answered on a
five-point Likert scale ranging from "very much" to "very
little," indicating a high or low degree of mastery.
M12 -- "To what degree do you feel helpless in dealing with
potentially serious crime (felonies) in the community where
you work?" This item was based on the assumption that the
more police officers feel helpless in dealing with serious
crime in the community where they patrol, the less their
sense of mastery. This item was answered on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from "very much" to "very little,"
indicating a low or high degree of mastery.
M13 -- "To what degree do you feel that your crime fighting
efforts are useless in reducing crime in the community where
you work?" This item was based on the assumption that the
more police officers perceive their crime fighting efforts
are useless in the community where they patrol, the less
their sense of mastery. This item was answered on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from "very much" to "very little,"
indicating a low or high degree of mastery.
Scores on items M8, M9, M10, M11, M12, and M13 were
combined into a "Mastery Scale" to obtain a total mastery
score for each respondent. The highest possible score of 30
on this scale would indicate the lowest level of mastery,
49
whereas the lowest possible score of 6 would indicate the
highest level of mastery. This scale had three items (M10,
M12, and M13) that had reversed sentiments and response
coding.
Operationalization of Proactive Enforcement
The following five items (P14 through P18) were used in
the survey questionnaire to measure the level of respondents'
desire for proactive enforcement:
P14 -- "When it is completely up to you, to what degree would
you respond to potentially serious crime (felonies) in the
community where you work?" This item was based on the
assumption that the less police officers feel a desire to
respond to serious crime in the community where they patrol,
when it was completely up to their own initiative, the less
their desire for proactive enforcement. This item was
answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from "very
much" to "very little," indicating a high to low degree of
proactive enforcement desire.
P15 -- "Assume you live in the community where you work.
During off duty hours, when it is completely up to you, to
what degree would you respond to potentially serious crime
(felonies) in that community?" This item was based on the
assumption that the less police officers feel a desire to
respond to serious crime in the community where they patrol
while off duty, when it is completely up to their own
50
initiative, the less their desire for proactive enforcement.
This item was answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from "very much" to "very little," indicating a high to low
degree of proactive enforcement desire.
P16 -- "To what degree has your desire to become involved in
responding to potentially serious crime (felonies) changed in
recent times?" This item was based on the assumption that
the less police officers feel a desire to respond to serious
crime in recent times, the less their desire for proactive
enforcement. This item was answered on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from "very much more desire than in the past"
to "very much less than in the past," indicating a high to
low degree of proactive enforcement desire.
Operationalization of Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts
The final two items from the Proactive Enforcement Scale
(P17 and P18) were combined into a separate "Proactive
Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale" to obtain a total proactive
enforcement since verdicts score for each respondent. These
items were based on the assumption that the less police
officers express that their associates or themselves are
willing to become involved in responding to serious crime
since these recent highly publicized judicial verdicts
against police officers, the less their desire for proactive
enforcement following these verdicts. The highest possible
score of 10 on this scale would indicate the lowest level of
51
proactive enforcement desire since verdicts, whereas the
lowest possible score of 2 would indicate the highest level
of proactive enforcement desire since verdicts. Both items
on this scale had reversed sentiments and response coding.
P17 -- "To what degree do you think other officers in your
department are less willing to become involved in responding
to potentially serious crime (i.e, felonies) since verdicts
like Rodney King, Malice Green and O.J. Simpson?" This item
was based on the assumption that the less police officers
feel that their associates are willing to become involved in
responding to serious crime since these recent highly
publicized judicial verdicts against police officers, the
less their own desire for proactive enforcement following
these verdicts. This item was answered on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from "very much less willing" to "very
little less willing," indicating a low to high degree of
willingness to respond proactively.
P18 -- "To what degree are you less willing to become
involved in responding to potentially serious crime
(felonies) since verdicts like Rodney King, Malice Green and
O.J. Simpson?" This item was based on the assumption that
the less police officers feel they are willing to become
involved in responding to serious crime since these recent
highly publicized judicial verdicts against police officers,
the less their desire for proactive enforcement following
these verdicts. This item was answered on a five-point
52
Likert scale ranging from "very much less willing" to "very
little less willing," indicating a low to high degree of
willingness to respond proactively.
Scores on items P14, P15, P16, P17, and P18 were
combined into a "Proactive Enforcement Scale" to obtain a
total proactive enforcement score for each respondent. The
highest possible score of 25 on this scale would indicate the
lowest level of proactive enforcement desire, whereas the
lowest possible score of 5 would indicate the highest level
of proactive enforcement desire. This scale had two items
(P17 and P18) that had reversed sentiments and response
coding.
53
RESEARCH DESIGN
Sampling Procedure
A survey method was used in this cross sectional study
of police officers to obtain data to test the hypotheses.
The unit of analysis was individual police officers from
eleven police departments. Selection of the police
departments was by a non-probability judgmental sampling
method. This method is the selection of a sample for general
comparative purposes based upon a researcher's knowledge of
the population, its elements, and aims of the research
(Babbie 1989). Participation was also based upon the
approval of the police chief of each department.
From these police departments all uniformed patrol
officers from all shifts ranked as a lieutenant or below were
potential respondents and were surveyed with the
understanding that their participation would be on a
voluntary and anonymous basis. This category of officers was
selected because they are the officers who commonly work the
street and are presented with many occasions to use their
discretion and initiative in responding to potentially
serious crime.
Degree of Urbanism
The eleven police departments were subdivided into three
groups based on the degree of urbanism of each community to
measure if this factor had a significant impact on the
54
hypothesized relationships of this study. This study used
the following two indicators proposed by Theodorson (1979)
and Bartol (1982) to measure the degree of urbanism: 1) the
distance in miles of the community to the center of any urban
sprawl, and 2) the population density per square mile (PSM)
of each community. Using these criteria, three department
groupings were framed. The following departments made up the
high urban group: Department 1 (PSM: 8,790); Department 2
(PSM: 7,363); Department 3 (PSM: 7,054); Department 4 (PSM:
4,675); and Department 5 (PSM: 4,445). The following
departments made up the moderate urban group: Department 6
(PSM: 4,900); Department 7 (PSM: 4,498); Department 8 (PSM:
3,392); and Department 9 (PSM: 2,996). Lastly, the following
departments made up the low urban group: Department 10 (PSM:
2,800); and Department 11 (PSM: 936); (Center for Urban
Studies 1993).
Recoding of Six Social Demographic Variables
The following six social demographic variables were
recoded to make them more suitable for regression analysis
because they had small sample size with some of their
attributes. The recoding scheme of these variables are as
follows:
!Race -- was recategorized from White (Euro-American), Black
(African-American), Hispanic, Arabic, Asian, or Other, into
the dichotomous variable of White or Non-white. It equals
55
1 if the respondent is white, and equals 0 otherwise (non-
white).
!Rank -- was recategorized from police officer or corporal,
sergeant, or lieutenant or above, into the dichotomous
variable of police officer or corporal, or otherwise. It
equals 1 if the respondent is a police officer or corporal,
and equals 0 otherwise (sergeant or higher).
!Education -- was recategorized from high school, some
college, bachelor degree, some graduate or professional
school, or graduate or professional degree, into the
dichotomous variable of bachelor degree or above, or
otherwise. It equals 1 if the respondent has a bachelor
degree or above, and equals 0 otherwise (high school or
some college).
!Marital Status -- was recategorized from married, single,
separated, or divorced, into the dichotomous variable of
married or otherwise. It equals 1 if the respondent is
married, and equals 0 otherwise (single, divorced, or
separated).
!Residency -- This study was also interested in whether
police officers lived in their working community and
whether they lived there by choice. As it proposed this
information would provide an additional measure of their
level of alienation. Originally the survey instrument used
the social demographic variable A1 of an officer's
"residency," along with A2 and A3 of an officer's "choice
56
of residency," as part of the Alienation Scale. However,
during regression analysis it was found since these
variables only had a dichotomous response option of "yes"
or "no" (unlike the five-point Likert type measurement
scale used in A4, A5, A6, and A7) they would have to be
used as a separate measure of alienation. This was
achieved by combining items A1, A2, and A3 into one ordinal
variable termed "Residence and Choice" (RC) to obtain a
total alienation score for each respondent as it was
associated with their residency. The highest possible
score of 4 on this variable would indicate the highest
level of alienation, whereas the lowest possible score of 1
would indicate the lowest level of alienation:
RC=1 if respondent lives in working community and lives
there by choice.
RC=2 if respondent does not live in working community but
would choose to.
RC=3 if respondent lives in working community but not by
choice.
RC=4 if respondent does not live in working community and
would never choose to.
!Degree of Urbanism -- was recategorized from high, moderate,
or low, into the dichotomous variable of high or otherwise.
It equals 1 if the respondent works in a high urban
community, and equals 0 otherwise (moderate or low).
57
Method of Survey Administration
All potential respondents from the eleven police
departments were presented with a cover letter, informed
consent form, and survey questionnaire (see Appendix C, D,
and E). Depending on the police chief or shift commander,
and the time constraints of the officers, the survey was
completed under the following circumstances: 1) officers in
four of the eleven departments completed all their
questionnaires at roll call, 2) officers in four other
departments completed their questionnaires either at roll
call or after roll call while on patrol, and 3) officers in
the three remaining departments completed all their
questionnaires after roll call while on patrol.5 Time for
completion of each questionnaire was approximately ten
minutes.
Survey Response Rate of Each Department
Table 2 presents the survey response rate of the police
officers from the eleven police departments subdivided by
their degree of urbanism. As the table shows, a total of 402
potential respondents were surveyed. Of that total 272
officers (68%) completed the questionnaire. As found with
5 Since confidentiality was maintained and adequate time made available to complete the survey under either circumstance, the circumstance appeared to have no significance. Thus, there was no coding and no data entered as to which circumstance an officer was under when the questionnaire was completed. However, Table 2 does show on a departmental basis if the survey was completed only at roll call, at roll call and while on patrol, or only while on patrol.
58
departmental participation, it would appear the degree of
urbanism of the community where the police officers patrolled
had some effect on their participation. As only 66% of
officers from the high urban group and 68% of officers from
the moderate urban group completed the survey questionnaire,
in contrast to 86% of officers from the low urban group.
59
TABLE 2: SURVEY RESPONSE RATE OF EACH DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT SPO P N %
- - - - - - - - - - - - HIGH URBAN - - - - - - - - - - - -
Department 1# 52 36 25 69
Department 2# 39 26 21 81
Department 3R *60 45 26 58
Department 4R 35 25 10 40
Department 5 32 22 18 82 Subtotal 218 154 100 66
- - - - - - - - - - - - MODERATE URBAN - - - - - - - - - -
Department 6# 45 31 19 61
Department 7 *55 41 37 90
Department 8# 60 50 32 64
Department 9R *102 75 43 57 Subtotal 262 197 131 68
Note:
SPO = Sworn Police Officers (all ranks, plain clothes and detective)P = Potential respondents (all uniformed patrol officers ranked as a lieutenant or below)N = Number of actual respondents% = Percent of potential respondents = Survey completed only at roll call# = Survey completed at roll call and while on patrolR = Survey completed only while on patrol
60
* = Residency required = Department size is much larger (this figure only represents officers from its patrol and investigation division)
61
TABLE 2: Continued
POLICE DEPARTMENT SPO P N %
- - - - - - - - - - - - LOW URBAN - - - - - - - - - - - -
Department 10 *47 37 27 73
Department 11 15 14 14 100 Subtotal 62 51 41 86
Total 542 402 272 68
Note:
SPO = Sworn Police Officers (all ranks, plain clothes and detective)P = Potential respondents (all uniformed patrol officers ranked as a lieutenant or below)N = Number of actual respondents% = Percent of potential respondents = Survey completed only at roll call# = Survey completed at roll call and while on patrolR = Survey completed only while on patrol* = Residency required = Department size is much larger (this figure only represents officers from its patrol and investigation division)
62
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Validity and Reliability Tests of Scales
Following DeVellis (1991), an exploratory factor
analysis was used to test for construct validity. Construct
validity will determine if the individual items in the
instrument of measurement were empirically related to the
broader concepts of alienation, mastery, proactive
enforcement, and proactive enforcement since verdicts, they
intended to measure. In the words of DeVellis:"Construct validity is directly concerned with the theoretical relationship of a variable (e.g., a score on some scale) to other variables (Cronbach and Meehl 1955). It is the extent to which a measure "behaves" the way that the construct it purports to measure should behave, with regard to established measures of other constructs" (1991:46).
Exploratory factor analysis helps determine construct
validity by discovering: 1) the number of dimensions
underlying the data set (in the current study it is expected
that this number is four, since four constructs were
hypothesized), and 2) how the items group together (in this
study it is expected that the items proposed to measure each
construct will group together).
Three methods are used for factor-extraction in
exploratory factor analysis: 1) principal component, 2)
principal-axis factoring, and 3) maximum likelihood. Two
rotation methods are used in exploratory factor analysis as a
63
means to finding simpler and more easily interpretable
factors: 1) orthogonal, and 2) oblique. An orthogonal
rotation assumes that the factors are uncorrelated, while an
oblique rotation assumes that the factors are correlated. A
total of seven factor models are tested by using a different
combination of each factor-extraction and rotation method.
In addition, the data is split into two random samples where
a principal component analysis and a orthogonal rotation is
applied to each of them. This procedure provides a means to
investigate whether randomly generated samples produce the
same factor patterns.
The final model of the validity test is based on a
principal component analysis with an orthogonal rotation. In
this model, as with the other eight models, factor loadings
(the correlation between an indicator and a construct) that
are larger than .50 indicates that particular indicator
groups with that particular construct (i.e., the concept of
alienation, mastery, proactive enforcement, or proactive
enforcement since verdicts). Further, the number of
underlying factors is indicated by any eigenvalues larger
than one.6
6 An eigenvalue is a mathematical property of a matrix. In exploratory factor analysis, it is used in relation to the decomposition of a correlation matrix, both as a criterion of determining the number of factors to extract from the data and as a measure of variance accounted for by a given dimension. This study used the criteria that the number of eigenvalues larger than one is an indication as to the number of factors one should extract.
64
Following DeVellis (1991) the widely applied measure of
Cronbach's alpha was used to test for reliability (i.e.,
internal consistency). A Cronbach's alpha will answer if the
instrument of measurement can obtain consistent and stable
results from repeated measurements. The rule of thumb most
social-behavioral scientists apply when measuring the
reliability of a particular scale is a Cronbach's alpha
of .60 or larger.
Regression Analysis
A regression analysis was used to capture the net
relationships between the variables of interest of each
hypothesis, while holding the impacts of all other variables
constant. A regression approach typically treats the
variable of interest as a dependent variable, and links it to
a set of independent variables thought to be the cause of the
dependent variable. The mathematical relationship between
the dependent variable and each independent variable is
revealed by a set of regression coefficients. Each
regression coefficient indicates the amount of change in the
dependent variable that is associated with a unit of increase
(or decrease) in an independent variable, holding all other
independent variables constant. Therefore, each regression
coefficient captures the net relationship between an
independent variable and a dependent variable. Estimates of
65
regression equations are derived by using ordinary least
squares (OLS).
This study was primarily interested in the strength of
the relationships of: 1) alienation on mastery, while
controlling for social demographic variables,7 2) alienation
on proactive enforcement, while controlling for social
demographic variables and mastery, and 3) alienation on
proactive enforcement since verdicts, while controlling for
social demographic variables and mastery. For it
hypothesized the impact of alienation on these variables was
more important than the police officers' personal
characteristics.
Independent and Dependent Variables
The social demographic variables and measures of
alienation (i.e., the Residency and Choice variable and the
Alienation Scale) developed by this study were used as
independent (explanatory) variables throughout this study.
Whereas the Mastery Scale, Proactive Enforcement Scale, or
Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale, developed by this
7 During regression analysis the variable of "gender" was eliminated because females only comprised 4.8% of the sample, "seniority" was eliminated because of a multicollinearity problem with age, and as indicated in a previous footnote "residency" was used as a separate measure of alienation. Thus, the final social demographic variables consisted of age, race, rank, education, marital status, and degree of urbanism.
66
study were employed respectively as a dependent variable in
the equation of interest.
Thus, measures of alienation, plus the police officers'
social demographic characteristics, became explanatory
variables in the equation using the Mastery Scale as the
dependent variable. While measures of alienation, plus the
police officers' social demographic characteristics and the
Mastery Scale, became explanatory variables in the equation
using the Proactive Enforcement Scale or Proactive
Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale as the dependent variable,
one at a time, in a related regression equation.
Hierarchical Regression Models
Hierarchical regression is a procedure for regression
analysis to test the hypothetical relationships among the
variables and present the explanatory power of the
incremental models. Thus, for the equation using the Mastery
Scale as the dependent variable, two models were constructed
to test the importance of alienation. These models differed
in their inclusion of the explanatory variables: Model 1
contained social demographic variables only; and Model 2 adds
the measures of alienation. For the equation using the
Proactive Enforcement Scale or Proactive Enforcement Since
Verdicts Scale as the dependent variable, three models were
constructed to test the importance of alienation. These
models differed in their inclusion of the explanatory
67
variables: Model 1 contained social demographic variables
only; Model 2 adds the measures of alienation; and Model 3
further adds the Mastery Scale.
As a result, if alienation is indeed an important factor
affecting the dependent variable as hypothesized by this
study, one should expect Model 1 (a model without alienation)
would have very little explanatory power. By contrast, Model
2 which contained the measures of alienation (for the
equation using the Mastery Scale as the dependent variable);
or Model 2 and 3 which contained the measures of alienation
and the Mastery Scale (for the equation using the Proactive
Enforcement Scale or Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts
Scale as the dependent variable) -- would have much stronger
explanatory power.
The statistic employed to indicate the explanatory power
of a regression model is the "coefficient of determination"
-- R2. Formally, this is the proportion of variation in the
dependent variable explained by the explanatory variables in
the equation. In a hierarchical regression context, the
primary interest is the increment of R2 (i.e., the change in
R2 between two hierarchical models). By definition an
incremental R2 is uniquely attributable to the variables
added to the second model. For instance, a large incremental
R2 associated with Model 2 (social demographic variables plus
measures of alienation) indicates that alienation plays a
more important role than the social demographic variables in
68
determining police officers' level of mastery, proactive
enforcement, or proactive enforcement since verdicts.
Diagnostic Tests for Regression Assumptions
The ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models makes
a set of assumptions regarding the nature of the independent
and dependent variables and distribution of the error terms.
Such assumptions include: 1) independence of sample
observations, 2) normal distribution of the error terms with
a mean of 0 and a constant variance, and 3) linear
relationships between each independent variable and dependent
variable. Statistical problems arise if one or more of such
assumptions are violated. Corrective measures must be taken
to improve the estimates of the model, when diagnostic tests
show the presence of such statistical problems.
Several diagnostic tests for OLS assumptions were
performed before running the final models. These tests
included: 1) a scatter plot of predicted values of the
dependent variable against the values of each independent
variable for judging how well a straight line fits the data
and for checking the equality of variance assumption, 2) a
scatter plot of the predicted dependent variable against
residuals to test the equality of variance assumption, 3) a
histogram of standardized residuals and a normal probability
plot of the standardized residuals to test the normality
assumption of the error terms, and 4) a test of the tolerance
69
of an independent variable and its variance inflation factor
(VIF) to diagnose the multicollinearity problem.8
Generally speaking, no harmful problems were found that
violated the fundamental OLS assumptions. Of importance was
an absence of the harmful problem of heteroscedasticity
(i.e., unequal variances of the error terms), as the
residuals appeared to be fairly normal in shape. However, a
multicollinearity problem was present in the original
specification of the models with the variables of "Age" and
"Seniority." This was indicated by high values of VIF (6.6
and 7.3) and a high Pearson-correlation-coefficient between
the two variables (0.91). Since seniority is primarily a
function of age in this study's sample, it was decided to
exclude seniority from all regression models.
Test of Significance
As discussed the participating police departments used
in this study were selected by a non-probability judgmental
sampling method. Yet in the interest of generalizing the
relationships observed in this study's sample to the larger
population of police officers, a test of significance was
used to test assumptions regarding the regression
coefficients. This test was further encouraged because
8 Multicollinearity refers to a situation in which there is too high of a correlation between independent variables. The problem with the collinear variables is that they provide very similar information, which makes it difficult to separate out the effects of the individual variables.
70
national data of police officers suggested the sample was
fairly representative. The technique employed was a
Student's t distribution test (t-test).
The t-test procedure is as follows: a critical Student-t
value associated with a pre-specified probability of making a
type I error9 (a significant level is usually set at 0.05 or
0.01) when compared with the sample observed t value for a
specific regression coefficient. If the latter is larger
than the former, the statement can be made that this
regression coefficient is statistically significant (i.e.,
that the null hypothesis having a zero regression parameter
in the population can be rejected within a given likelihood
of making a type I error).
9 Type I error consists of falsely rejecting the null hypotheses that is in fact true.
71
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Overview
The primary areas of discussion of this chapter are: 1)
validity and reliability of scales, 2) univariate statistics,
3) bivariate correlations, and 4) multivariate analysis.
Validity and Reliability: Alienation Scale
Table 3 presents results of exploratory factor analysis
for the test of construct validity for the items used in the
Alienation Scale (A4 through A7).10 Findings of this table
show that there is only one dimension to this concept since
all models support the fact that the items that purport to
measure alienation group together.
Although different factor models show a high consistency
in the grouping of items, it is not clear if such a pattern
can be shown by a correlation matrix. A thorough
investigation of the grouping of bivariate relationships,
therefore, becomes necessary. This investigation is
fulfilled by decomposing the bivariate correlations into two
10 Validity and reliability tests are only for a composite scale comprised of two or more items. Since the Residence and Choice variable is just a recode of items A1, A2, and A3 no validity or reliability tests could be performed on this measure.
72
parts: 1) the within-group pairs, and 2) the cross-group
pairs.
The within-group pairs refer to the bivariate
correlations of the items that are intended to measure a
common construct. The cross-group pairs on the other hand,
refer to the correlations between two items such that each of
them is intended to measure a different construct. If the
items under our hypothesized grouping does have a high
construct validity, the within-group pairs of correlation
should be high and the cross-group pairs should be low.
Table 4 presents the bivariate correlation coefficients
for each item within this concept. As the table shows, the
correlation coefficients for within-group pairs is quite
high. Correlations of each item with the concept of
alienation are all greater than .70, and most are greater
than .80. In addition correlations between A4, A5, and A6
are all larger than .60. In contrast, Table 5 shows the
correlation coefficients of cross-group pairs are usually
below .40 and mostly below .30. Note that, as Table 5 shows,
A4, A5, A6, and A7 are moderately correlated with mastery
items M8 and M9, with correlation coefficients ranging
from .34 to .51. This was because of some theoretical
ambiguity in M8 and M9, for they could measure both
alienation and mastery (i.e., they could relate to an
officer's "connectiveness" with their working community and
73
to the officer's "confidence" to enforce the law). It should
also be noted that these two items were originally designed
to measure alienation, however empirical findings showed they
grouped best with mastery.
Table 6 presents factor loadings from Table 3: Model A
(principal component extraction and orthogonal rotation). As
the table shows, all alienation items load on this scale with
loadings well above the .50 minimum acceptable level. The
loadings ranged from .63 to .86, with most having a loading
of .80 or above. Table 6 also shows that the total variance
accounted for by this factor is 32.8%. Variance accounted
for was computed based on the eigenvalue associated with this
factor. From these tests, one can conclude that the four
indicators of A4 through A7 can be used as a single scale to
measure what they were intended to measure for "Alienation."
Table 6 also presents results of the Cronbach's alpha
test of reliability for the Alienation Scale. As the table
shows, a value of .85 was obtained, which is quite high in
relationship to the .60 minimum acceptable level for this
test. It should be noted this is an especially high alpha
given there are only four items to this scale. This test
concludes an acceptable level of reliability, or internal
consistency for the alienation items. Thus, based on the
results of the validity and reliability tests, a summated
rating scale was developed to measure alienation, and it was
74
used as a continuous variable in the multivariate analysis to
test the research hypotheses.
Validity and Reliability: Mastery Scale
Table 3 presents results of exploratory factor analysis
for the test of construct validity for the items used in the
Mastery Scale (M8 through M13). Findings of this table show
that seven of the nine models support the fact that the items
that purport to measure mastery group together. However,
Models A and H1 show that M9 groups with alienation. These
two models were disregarded because: 1) M9 loads strongly
(above .50) on the other seven models, and 2) M9 is
consistent to the underlying theoretical theme of the mastery
indicators that relate to an officer's confidence to enforce
the law. Table 3 also shows that M11 has a weak
loading (below .40) on most models. Still, M11 was kept as a
measure of mastery because: 1) Models A and H2 supports the
grouping of M11 to F2 with loadings of .48 or above, 2) M11
does not group higher with any other concept, and 3)
theoretical issues (i.e., the strong face validity of this
indicator in relating to an officer's confidence to enforce
the law).
Table 7 presents the bivariate correlation coefficients
for each item within this concept. As the table shows, the
correlation coefficients for within-group pairs is moderately
75
high (all but one item has a correlation with the concept of
mastery of .65 or higher). The only item with a moderate
coefficient of .52 was M11. In contrast, Table 5 shows the
correlation coefficients of cross-group pairs are quite low
(most are well below .36) except M8 and M9, which as
indicated when discussing the validity of the Alienation
Scale, these items are moderately correlated with both
alienation and mastery, but grouped best with mastery.
Table 6 presents factor loadings from Table 3: Model A
(principal component extraction and orthogonal rotation). As
the table shows, five of the six mastery items loaded on this
scale with loadings above the .50 minimum acceptable level.
The loadings ranged from .48 to .71, with M11 being the only
item with a weak loading of .48. One should note the
loadings revealed two items (M8 and M9) to be ambiguous, for
they were found to be related to both alienation and mastery.
Specifically, M8 loads only slightly higher (.60 versus .58)
on F2 (mastery) than on F1 (alienation). Whereas, M9 loads
higher (.58 versus .52) on F1 (alienation) than on F2
(mastery). However, as previously indicated, M9 does
consistently group with the items that purport to measure
mastery in the other seven models (see Table 3). Initially,
M8 and M9 were designed to measure a respondent's degree of
alienation, however the different models presented in Table 3
demonstrated they grouped best with mastery. As a result, if
76
these items were to be employed again they would be rephrased
to make them clearly measure the concept they purported to
measure.
Table 3 also shows that the loading for M11 is weak
(.48), it is however just below the minimum acceptable level
of .50, and as indicated this item has other merits. Table 6
also shows that the total variance accounted for by this
factor is 12.9%. Variance accounted for was computed based
on the eigenvalue associated with this factor. From these
tests, one can conclude that the six indicators of M8 through
M13 can be used as a single scale to measure what they were
intended to measure for "Mastery."
Table 6 also presents results of the Cronbach's alpha
test of reliability for the Mastery Scale. As the table
shows, a value of .75 was obtained, which is high in
relationship to the .60 minimum acceptable level for this
test. This test concludes an acceptable level of
reliability, or internal consistency for the mastery items.
Thus, based on the results of the validity and reliability
tests, a summated rating scale was developed to measure
mastery, and it was used as a continuous variable in the
multivariate analysis to test the research hypotheses.
Validity and Reliability: Proactive Enforcement Scale
77
Table 3 presents results of exploratory factor analysis
for the test of construct validity for the items used in the
Proactive Enforcement Scale (P14 through P18). Findings of
this table show that there is only one dimension to this
concept since most models support the fact that the items
that purport to measure proactive enforcement group
together.11
Table 8 presents the bivariate correlation coefficients
for each item within this concept. As the table shows, the
correlation coefficients for within-group pairs is moderately
high (all but one item has a correlation with the concept of
proactive enforcement .63 or higher). The only item with a
moderate coefficient of .54 was P14. In contrast, Table 5
shows the correlation coefficients of cross-group pairs are
all below .40, and most are below .30.
Table 6 presents factor loadings from Table 3: Model A
(principal component extraction and orthogonal rotation). As
the table shows, all proactive enforcement items load on this
scale with loadings above the .50 minimum acceptable level.
The loadings ranged from .52 to .69, with most having a
loading above .60. Table 6 also shows that the total
variance accounted for by this factor is 9.3%. Variance
11 It should be noted that three models (E, F, and G) separate P17 and P18 from the other items of this concept. This does not present a serious problem since these two items are also used as a separate scale in this study to measure the related concept of proactive enforcement since verdicts.
78
accounted for was computed based on the eigenvalue associated
with this factor. From these tests, one can conclude that
the five indicators of P14 through P18 can be used as a
single scale to measure what they were intended to measure
for "Proactive Enforcement."
Table 6 also presents results of the Cronbach's alpha
test of reliability for the Proactive Enforcement Scale. As
the table shows, a value of .66 was obtained, which is
satisfactory in relationship to the .60 minimum acceptable
level for this test. This test concludes an acceptable level
of reliability, or internal consistency for the proactive
enforcement items. Thus, based on the results of the
validity and reliability tests, a summated rating scale was
developed to measure proactive enforcement, and it was used
as a continuous variable in the multivariate analysis to test
the research hypotheses.
Validity and Reliability: Proactive Enforcement Verdicts
Scale
This scale was driven by a research interest concerning
a particular aspect of proactive enforcement. Specifically
the extent recent highly publicized judicial verdicts have
impacted on police officers' willingness to participate in
proactive enforcement. This scale was not used to measure
proactive enforcement in general. Accordingly, the more
79
comprehensive tests of validity that accompanied the
preceding scales were not performed on this scale.
Yet some tests of validity are available. For instance,
Table 3 presents results of exploratory factor analysis for
the test of construct validity for the items used in the
Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale (P17 and P18). As
the table shows, three of the models (E, F, and G)
demonstrate that the items that purport to measure proactive
enforcement since verdicts group together as one dimension.
From these tests, one can assume that the two indicators of
P17 and P18 can be used as a single scale to measure what
they were intended to measure for "Proactive Enforcement
Since Verdicts."
A separate Cronbach's alpha test of reliability for the
Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale was also
performed. A value of .71 was obtained, which is fairly high
in relationship to the .60 minimum acceptable level for this
test. It should also be noted this is a rather high alpha
given that there are only two items to this scale. This test
concludes an acceptable level of reliability, or internal
consistency for the proactive enforcement since verdicts
items. Thus, based on the results of the validity and
reliability tests, a summated rating scale was developed to
measure proactive enforcement since verdicts, and it was used
80
as a continuous variable in the multivariate analysis to test
the research hypotheses.
81
TABLE 3: TEST OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
82
TABLE 4: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALIENATION ITEMS
Item/Scale A4 A5 A6 A7
A4 1.00
A5 .65 1.00
A6 .77 .65 1.00
A7 .47 .42 .52 1.00
Alienation .88 .82 .89 .72
Mastery .43 .36 .45 .35
ProactiveEnforcement .27 .21 .31 .23
Description of Items:
A4 -- Share family values of communityA5 -- Share religious values of communityA6 -- Share economic values of communityA7 -- Share political values of community
Alienation Scale (sum of A4 through A7)Mastery Scale (sum of M8 through M13)Proactive Enforcement Scale (sum of P14 through P18)
83
TABLE 5: CROSS-GROUP CORRELATIONS
84
TABLE 6: RESULTS OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TEST(Validity results from Table 3: Model A)
Correlation between Scale and Item (Factor Loading) Scale/Item F1 F2 F3
F1: Alienation
A4 Share family values of community .86 .10 .10A5 Share religious values of community .80 .05 .12A6 Share economic values of community .86 .12 .14A7 Share political values of community .63 .15 .10
Variance accounted for by the factor = 32.8% Cronbach's alpha = .85
F2: Mastery
M8 Community supports you .58 .60 .01M9 Community wants you to enforce law .58 .52 .02M10 Community is quick to turn on you .23 .71 -.06M11 You can use your own judgment -.03 .48 .29M12 You feel helpless in dealing with crime .05 .69 .19M13 Your crime fighting efforts are useless .27 .52 .24
Variance accounted for by the factor = 12.9% Cronbach's alpha = .75
F3: Proactive Enforcement
P14 Degree of your on duty involvement .14 -.02 .68P15 Degree of your off duty involvement .41 -.19 .61P16 Has your involvement changed in recent times .22 .29 .58P17 Are other officers less involved since verdicts -.00 .36 .52P18 Are you less involved since verdicts -.09 .38 .69
85
Variance accounted for by the factor = 9.3% Cronbach's alpha = .66
Variance accounted for by the three factors = 55.0%
86
TABLE 7: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR MASTERY ITEMS
Item/Scale M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13
M8 1.00
M9 .65 1.00
M10 .52 .37 1.00
M11 .20 .29 .13 1.00
M12 .33 .26 .30 .37 1.00
M13 .40 .35 .30 .18 .39 1.00
Alienation .56 .51 .29 .11 .19 .31
Mastery .78 .73 .65 .52 .67 .66
ProactiveEnforcement .32 .29 .22 .25 .26 .36
Description of Items:
M8 -- Community supports youM9 -- Community wants you to enforce lawM10 -- Community is quick to turn on youM11 -- You can use your own judgmentM12 -- You feel helpless in dealing with crimeM13 -- You feel your crime fighting efforts are useless
Alienation Scale (sum of A4 through A7)Mastery Scale (sum of M8 through M13)Proactive Enforcement Scale (sum of P14 through P18)
87
TABLE 8: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS
Item/Scale P14 P15 P16 P17 P18
P14 1.00
P15 .35 1.00
P16 .25 .32 1.00
P17 .18 .10 .30 1.00
P18 .28 .24 .36 .56 1.00
Alienation .18 .35 .29 .16 .10
Mastery .22 .18 .41 .29 .34
ProactiveEnforcement .54 .64 .63 .69 .78
Description of Items:
P14 -- Degree of on duty involvementP15 -- Degree of off duty involvementP16 -- Has your involvement changed in recent timesP17 -- Are other officers less involved since verdictsP18 -- Are you less involved since verdicts
Alienation Scale (sum of A4 through A7)Mastery Scale (sum of M8 through M13)Proactive Enforcement Scale (sum of P14 through P18)
88
UNIVARIATE STATISTICS
Missing Data
Table 9 presents the response rate to most of the items
used in the survey questionnaire and as a result the missing
data to these items. It should be noted the missing data on
any given item was negligible. The worse case was D20 (age).
Even so, this item was still answered by 253 of the 272
respondents. Examination of returned questionnaires revealed
there was some ambiguity with D20 asking "what year were you
born" because several respondents interpreted this item as
asking where were you born, and wrote in their place of birth
instead of their age. The overall response rate per item
ranged from 253 to 272 respondents, with the average response
rate being 269 respondents per item. Overall, 236 of the 272
respondents answered all the items. As a result, systematic
missing data by any group of respondents was not considered a
serious problem because of the large sample size of the
groups (except for gender and race) and the modest degree of
missing data on any given item.
89
TABLE 9: VARIATION AND RESPONSE RATE OF SURVEY ITEMS
Item Mean Standard Minimum Maximum N Deviation Real Real Score Score
A1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 272A2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 262A3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 267A4 2.51 1.23 1 5 270A5 2.94 1.19 1 5 267A6 2.68 1.15 1 5 271A7 3.31 1.09 1 5 270M8 2.99 1.05 1 5 272M9 2.78 1.09 1 5 272M10 3.88 1.04 1 5 270M11 1.91 .93 1 5 270M12 2.54 1.09 1 5 270M13 2.90 1.07 1 5 271P14 1.47 .76 1 5 267P15 2.60 1.44 1 5 270P16 3.36 .84 1 5 270P17 2.71 1.33 1 5 268P18 2.24 1.35 1 5 267D20 37.42 8.66 22 59 253D23 12.93 8.27 1 33 267
Respondents Answering All Items 236
Description of Items:
A1 -- Do you live in working communityA2 -- Do you live in working community by choiceA3 -- Would you ever choose to live in working communityA4 -- Share family values of communityA5 -- Share religious values of communityA6 -- Share economic values of communityA7 -- Share political values of communityM8 -- Community supports youM9 -- Community wants you to enforce lawM10 -- Community is quick to turn on youM11 -- You can use your own judgment
90
M12 -- You feel helpless in dealing with crimeM13 -- You feel your crime fighting efforts are uselessP14 -- Degree of your on duty involvementP15 -- Degree of your off duty involvementP16 -- Has your involvement changed in recent timesP17 -- Are other officers less involved since verdictsP18 -- Are you less involved since verdictsD20 -- AgeD23 -- Seniority
91
Mean Scores of Concepts by Social Demographic Variables
Table 10 presents mean scores of police officers in the
present study with the concepts of alienation, mastery, and
proactive enforcement, by the social demographic variables of
gender, age, race, rank, seniority, education, marital
status, residency, and degree of urbanism. The purpose of
this analysis is to present preliminary descriptive
statistics of these variables.12
Regarding the variable of "Gender," Table 10 shows that
female police officers generally had the most sense of
alienation, and the lowest level of mastery and willingness
for proactive enforcement.13 This finding should not be taken
as too conclusive, as the sample size of female officers was
very small (N=13), versus male (N=259). As for the variable
of "Age," Table 10 shows no trend.
Concerning the variable of "Race," Table 10 shows that
police officers categorized as "Other" generally had the most
sense of alienation (mean 12.36) and least sense of mastery
12 It should be noted that these findings could be artificial. A more substantive presentation of these same variables is offered later in this chapter under regression findings, which controls for the impact of other variables and is accompanied with tests of significance.
13 It is important to note that because of the way the composite items are coded, a low level of mastery, proactive enforcement, or proactive enforcement since verdicts, is actually indicated by a high score on the Mastery Scale, Proactive Enforcement Scale, or Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale.
92
(mean 19.14), followed by "White" officers (mean alienation
11.72 and mean mastery 17.02), and last by "Black" officers
(mean alienation 8.57 and mean mastery 16.09). This trend
with alienation and mastery was not followed by the same
racial groups into their having less willingness for
proactive enforcement. As mean scores indicated white
officers generally had the least desire for proactive
enforcement (mean 12.58), followed by black (mean 11.52), and
then by other (mean 10.23). The implication of this finding
should not be exaggerated, since the number of cases is too
small for black (N=23) or other (N=14), versus white (N=229).
About the variables of "Rank," "Seniority," or "Education,"
Table 10 revealed no significant difference or trends.
As for the variable of "Marital Status," Table 10
revealed no significant difference, yet police officers
categorized as "Single" or "Married" generally had the most
sense of alienation (mean alienation 12.50 and 11.44) and
least sense of mastery (mean mastery 16.85 and 17.67), when
compared to "Divorced or Separated" officers (mean alienation
9.61 and mean mastery 16.24). This trend with alienation and
mastery was not followed by the same marital status groups
into their having less desire for proactive enforcement. As
mean scores indicated divorced or separated officers
generally had the least desire for proactive enforcement
(mean 13.04), followed by married (mean 12.43), and then by
93
single (mean 11.79). This anomaly could be due to the
relatively small sample size of the divorced or separated
officers (N=23), when compared to single officers (N=47) or
married officers (N=199).
Regarding the variable of "Residency," Table 10 shows
that police officers living in the community where they
patrol generally had a lower degree of alienation, and a
higher degree of mastery and proactive desire, than officers
living outside the community where they patrol. The last
variable is "Degree of Urbanism," where Table 10 shows a
trend with officers working in environments having a
"Moderate" degree of urbanism as generally having the most
sense of alienation (mean 11.89), the least sense of mastery
(mean 17.67), and the least desire for proactive enforcement
(mean 12.93). This group was followed closely by officers
working in environments having a "High" degree of urbanism,
and noticeably less by officers working in environments
having a "Low" degree of urbanism.
Table 10 also shows the mean scores for the three
concepts. The mean "Alienation" score of the sample was
11.46, which is just below the theoretical midpoint score of
12, reflecting an aggregate sense by the respondents of a
moderate level of alienation with the citizens of the
community where they patrol. The mean "Mastery" score of the
sample was 17.04, which is just below the theoretical
94
midpoint score of 18, reflecting an aggregate sense by the
respondents of a moderate level of mastery. The mean
"Proactive Enforcement" score of the sample was 12.38, which
is more than two points below the theoretical midpoint score
of 15, reflecting an aggregate sense by the respondents of a
moderate desire for proactive enforcement.
95
TABLE 10: MEAN SCORES OF CONCEPTS BY SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Characteristic N % Mean Score Alienation Mastery Proactive Enforcement
Gender Male 259 95.2 11.39 17.00 12.34 Female 13 4.8 13.09 17.92 13.33
Age 20-24 8 2.9 10.25 13.13 11.14 25-29 50 18.4 13.47 17.34 11.89 30-34 52 19.1 11.08 16.57 11.63 35-39 37 13.6 11.51 18.50 11.64 40-44 44 16.2 11.30 17.14 13.07 45-49 37 13.6 10.53 17.30 13.64 50-54 20 7.4 10.30 15.55 12.25 55+ 5 1.8 11.20 18.80 15.00
Race White 229 84.2 11.72 17.02 12.58 Black 23 8.5 8.57 16.09 11.52 Other 14 5.1 12.36 19.14 10.23
Rank Police Officer 205 75.4 11.83 16.40 12.38 Sergeant or Higher 65 23.9 10.14 17.22 12.38
Seniority 1-5 years 63 23.2 12.72 16.87 11.63 6-10 62 22.8 10.90 16.31 11.63 11-20 77 28.3 11.03 17.46 12.30 21+ 65 23.9 11.24 17.32 13.84
Total 272 100 11.46 17.04 12.38
Note:
96
!For each variable the sum of N may not equal 272 and the total percentage may not equal 100 because of deletion of missing values.
!Mean score for each variable characteristic may be computed from fewer cases than N shows because of deletion of missing values.
97
TABLE 10: Continued
Characteristic N % Mean Score Alienation Mastery Proactive Enforcement
Education High School 17 6.3 10.47 17.44 13.35 Some College 137 50.4 11.64 17.30 12.39 Bachelor 78 28.7 10.69 16.34 11.71 Some Graduate or Higher 38 14.0 12.92 17.38 13.28
Marital Status Single 47 17.3 12.50 16.76 11.79 Married 199 73.2 11.44 17.16 12.43 Divorced or Separated 23 8.5 9.91 16.24 13.04
Residency: Lives in Working Community Yes 168 61.8 10.40 16.34 11.94 No 104 38.2 13.21 18.15 13.09
Degree of Urbanism High 100 36.8 11.67 16.85 12.17 Moderate 131 48.2 11.89 17.67 12.93 Low 41 15.1 9.61 15.44 11.10
Total 272 100 11.46 17.04 12.38
Note:
!For each variable the sum of N may not equal 272 and the total percentage may not equal 100 because of deletion of missing values.
!Mean score for each variable characteristic may be computed from fewer cases than N shows because of deletion of missing values.
98
BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS
Correlation Between Concepts
Table 11 presents a Pearson-correlation-coefficient
matrix that confirms the concept of alienation correlates
with the concepts of mastery and proactive enforcement. As
the table shows, all associations are moderate to moderately
high (ranging from .32 to .49). It is also important to note
that all correlations in this table are positive in the
correct direction (see Footnote 13 for important reference
concerning the coding scheme of these concepts). This
indicates that as the level of alienation increases between
police officers and citizens in the community where they
patrol, their level of mastery will decrease as well as their
willingness to respond proactively. In a less strict sense
these bivariate correlations have confirmed both the
theoretical and the hypothetical relationships between the
concepts of alienation, mastery, and proactive enforcement
that this study proposed.
TABLE 11: CORRELATION BETWEEN CONCEPTS
Concept Alienation Mastery Proactive Enforcement Alienation 1.00
Mastery .49 1.00
Proactive Enforcement .32 .42 1.00
99
Description of Concepts:
Alienation Scale (sum of A4 through A7)Mastery Scale (sum of M8 through M13)Proactive Enforcement Scale (sum of P14 through P18)
100
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
Regression Findings: DV Mastery
Table 12 presents results of the hierarchical regression
analysis for models using the Mastery Scale as a dependent
variable, to test the hypothesis of alienation on mastery.
As the table shows, when the regression equation only
consists of six social demographic variables (Model 1),
almost none of the variation in mastery can be explained by
the model (R2 = .0036). However, by adding the Residence and
Choice variable and the Alienation Scale (Model 2) to the
regression equation, the coefficient of determination, R2
jumps to .2692. This R2 increment of .2656 is solely
attributable to these two variables measuring alienation.
Overall, the independent variables in Model 2 can explain
more than 26% of the variation in mastery, which indicates
the explanatory strength of this model is powerful, when
judging from a social-science standard. These findings
confirm that alienation is indeed an important factor
affecting police officers' sense of mastery.
Since Table 12 (Model 2) shows the net impacts of the
Alienation Scale on the Mastery Scale, after controlling for
the social demographic variables, it is presented as the
final model, and the following discussion on mastery is based
fully on this model. Accordingly, Model 2 shows a positive
relationship between the Alienation Scale and the Mastery
101
Scale, where one unit of increase in the Alienation score
raised the Mastery score by 0.54, net of impacts of all other
variables. The coefficient for this variable is
statistically significant at a 0.01 level, which indicates
this type of relationship is very likely to exist in the
general population. The Residence and Choice variable was
found to be insignificant, yet it does show a positive sign,
which implies again the higher the alienation the lower the
mastery. Model 2 also shows the "Degree of Urbanism"
variable was found to be insignificant and has a negative
sign, which implies that police officers working in an
environment having a high degree of urbanism will have more
sense of mastery. This finding is contrary to the theory
posited by this study, and could be due to the lack of
participation by true "big city" police departments.
Overall, one can conclude that the hypothesized relationship
between alienation and mastery was confirmed by the data.
Table 12 (Model 2) also shows a statistically
significant and positive relationship with the social
demographic variable of "Age" and the Mastery score. Other
things being equal, a one year increase in age increased the
Mastery score by .08. This means younger police officers
generally have more sense of mastery than older officers.
Model 2 also shows a statistically significant and inverse
relationship with the social demographic variable of "Race"
102
and the Mastery score. Other things being equal, a white
police officer would generally be 1.55 of a unit lower on the
Mastery Scale than a non-white. This means white officers
generally have a higher sense of mastery than non-white
officers. It should be pointed out that this finding is not
consistent to the mean scores presented in Table 10, where
blacks demonstrated a higher sense of mastery. This is
attributed to combining the categories of "Black" and "Other"
(as presented in Table 10) into the category of "Non-white,"
to gain sufficient sample size for regression analysis.
Based on Model 2 of Table 12, Table 13 presents a
simulation model of predicted Mastery scores by different
values of alienation and selected personal characteristics.
For instance, for a police officer who is white, aged 37,
married, having a Bachelor or higher degree, ranked as a
police officer, who chose to live in the working community,
and has a Proactive Enforcement score held constant at 10 and
an Alienation score of 5, the Mastery score would be 12.22.
For a non-white officer with the same other characteristics,
the Mastery score would be 13.77. Likewise, for a sergeant
or higher who is white with the same other characteristics,
the Mastery score would be 11.40. For a non-white with the
same other characteristics, the Mastery score would be 12.95.
This table also clearly shows the inverse relationship as
hypothesized by this study, that police officers' level of
103
mastery14 would steadily decrease with their rise in
alienation.
14 Note, a low level of mastery is actually indicated by a high score on the Mastery Scale.
104
TABLE 12: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF ALIENATION AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLE "MASTERY"
Explanatory Variables Hierarchical Regression Models Model 1 Model 2 Social Demographic Variables:
Age .06 .08* (1.4) (2.39)
Race: White vs. Non-White (D) -.49 -1.55* (-.61) (-2.18)
Rank: Police Officer vs. Sgt or higher (D) 1.63* .82 (2.10) (1.19)
Education: Bachelor or higher vs. Other (D) -.49 -.82 (-.89) (-1.69)
Marital Status: Married vs. Other (D) .58 .15 (.90) (.27)
Degree of Urbanism: High vs. Other (D) -.12 -.79 (-.20) (-1.53)
Measures of Alienation:
Residence and Choice Variable .28 (1.33)
Alienation Scale .54** (7.82)
Constant 13.96 8.47
Adjusted R5 .0036 .2692R5 Increment .2656
Note:
t Statistics in parentheses* Significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test** Significant at the 0.01 level, two-tailed testD Denotes a dichotomous variable
105
TABLE 13: PREDICTED "MASTERY" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Simulation Based On Regression Model 2 Of Table 12)
Personal Characteristics Given Alienation Score
5 10 15 20 White, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Police Officer,Proactive Enforcement score 10 Live in working community by choice 12.22 14.92 17.62 20.32 Do not live there, but would choose to 12.50 15.20 17.90 20.60 Live there, but did not choose to 12.78 15.48 18.18 20.88 Do Not live there and would not choose to 13.06 15.76 18.46 21.16
Non-white, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Police Officer,Proactive Enforcement score 10 Live in working community by choice 13.77 16.47 19.17 21.87 Do not live there, but would choose to 14.05 16.75 19.45 22.15 Live there, but did not choose to 14.33 17.03 19.73 22.43 Do not live there and would not choose to 14.61 17.31 20.01 22.71
White, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Sergeant or higher,Proactive Enforcement score 10 Live in working community by choice 11.40 14.10 16.80 19.50 Do not live there, but would choose to 11.68 14.38 17.08 19.78 Live there, but did not choose to 11.96 14.66 17.36 20.06 Do not live there and would not choose to 12.24 14.94 17.64 20.34
Non-white, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Sergeant or higher,Proactive Enforcement score 10 Live in working community by choice 12.95 15.65 18.35 21.05 Do not live there, but would choose to 13.23 15.93 18.63 21.33 Live there, but did not choose to 13.51 16.21 18.91 21.61 Do not live there and would not choose to 13.79 16.49 19.19 21.89
106
Regression Findings: DV Proactive Enforcement
Table 14 presents regression results for models using
the Proactive Enforcement Scale as a dependent variable, to
test the hypothesis of alienation on proactive enforcement.
These models show a very similar pattern as those of mastery.
When the regression equation only consists of six social
demographic variables (Model 1), very little of the variation
in proactive enforcement can be explained by the model (R2 =
0.0368). However, by adding the Residence and Choice
variable and the Alienation Scale (Model 2) to the regression
equation, the coefficient of determination, R2 increases
to .1660. This R2 increment of .1292 is solely attributable
to these two variables measuring alienation. Lastly, by
adding the Mastery Scale to the equation (Model 3), a further
gain of .0687 is shown in R2. Overall, the independent
variables in Model 3 can explain more than 23% of the
variation in proactive enforcement, which indicates the
explanatory strength of this model is moderate, when judging
from a social-science standard. These findings confirm that
alienation is an important factor affecting police officers'
desire for proactive enforcement.
Table 14 (Model 3) also shows a positive relationship
between the Alienation Scale and the Proactive Enforcement
Scale, where one unit of increase in the Alienation score
raised the Proactive Enforcement score by .21, net of impacts
107
of all other variables. This positive relationship is also
shown between the Mastery Scale and the Proactive Enforcement
Scale, where one unit of increase in the Mastery score raised
the Proactive Enforcement score by .28, net of impacts of all
other variables. The coefficients for both of these
variables are statistically significant at a 0.01 level,
which indicate these types of relationships are very likely
to exist in the general population. The Residence and Choice
variable does not show a hypothesized sign as posited by this
study, and the coefficient is not significant. This
indicates that the relationship between police officers'
choice of residency and desire for proactive enforcement is
inconclusive, and further study is needed. Model 3 also
shows that the Degree of Urbanism variable was found to be
insignificant, yet it does show a positive sign, which
implies that police officers working in an environment having
a high degree of urbanism will have less desire for proactive
enforcement. This finding is consistent to the theory
posited by this study. Taking Model 3 as a whole, it can be
stated with a fair degree of confidence, that the
hypothesized relationship between alienation and proactive
enforcement was confirmed by the data.
Table 14 (Model 3) also shows a statistically
significant and positive relationship with the social
demographic variables of "Age" and "Race," and the Proactive
108
Enforcement score. Other things being equal, a one year
increase in age increased the Proactive Enforcement score
by .12, and a white police officer would generally be 1.32 of
a unit higher on the Proactive Enforcement Scale than a non-
white. This means younger or non-white police officers
generally have more desire for proactive enforcement than
older or white officers.
Based on Model 3 of Table 14, Table 15 presents a
simulation model of predicted Proactive Enforcement scores by
different values of alienation and selected personal
characteristics. For instance, for a police officer who is
white, aged 37, married, having a Bachelor or higher degree,
ranked as a police officer, who chose to live in the working
community, and has a Mastery score held constant at 10 and an
Alienation score of 5, the Proactive Enforcement score would
be 9.38. For a non-white officer with the same other
characteristics, the Proactive Enforcement score would be
8.06. Likewise, for a sergeant or higher who is white with
the same other characteristics, the Proactive Enforcement
score would be 8.78. For a non-white with the same other
characteristics, the Proactive Enforcement score would be
7.35. This table also clearly shows the inverse relationship
as hypothesized by this study, that police officers' degree
109
of willingness for proactive enforcement15 would steadily
decrease with their rise in alienation.
15 Note, a low degree of willingness for proactive enforcement is actually indicated by a high score on the Proactive Enforcement Scale.
110
TABLE 14: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF MASTERY AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLE "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT"
Explanatory Variables Hierarchical Regression Models Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Social Demographic Variables:
Age .12** .14** .12** (3.30) (4.14) (3.72)
Race: White vs. Non-White (D) 1.45* .87 1.32* (1.95) (1.22) (1.92)
Rank: Police Officer vs. Sgt or higher (D) 1.37* .78 .60 (1.98) (1.17) (.94)
Education: Bachelor or higher vs. Other (D) -.18 -.30 -.03 (-.37) (-.62) (-.07)
Marital Status: Married vs. Other (D) -.15 -.28 -.44 (-.27) (-.50) (-.81)
Degree of Urbanism: High vs. Other (D) .37 -.05 .14 (.69) (-.10) (.28)
Measures of Alienation:
Residence and Choice Variable -.08 -.13 (-.36) (-.68)
Alienation Scale .37** .21** (5.45) (2.87)
Measure of Mastery:
Mastery Scale .28** (4.59)
Constant 5.74 2.01 -.46
Adjusted R5 .0368 .1660 .2347R5 Increment .1292 .0687
Note:
t Statistics in parentheses* Significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test** Significant at the 0.01 level, two-tailed testD Denotes a dichotomous variable
111
TABLE 15: PREDICTED "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Simulation Based On Regression Model 3 Of Table 14)
Personal Characteristics Given Alienation Score
5 10 15 20 White, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Police Officer,Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice 9.38 10.43 11.48 12.53 Do not live there, but would choose to 9.25 10.29 11.34 12.39 Live there, but did not choose to 9.11 10.16 11.21 12.26 Do not live there and would not choose to 8.98 10.03 11.08 12.12
Non-white, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Police Officer,Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice 8.06 9.11 10.16 11.20 Do not live there, but would choose to 7.92 8.97 10.02 11.07 Live there, but did not choose to 7.79 8.84 9.89 10.94 Do not live there and would not choose to 7.65 8.70 9.75 10.80
White, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Sergeant or higher,Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice 8.78 9.82 10.87 11.92 Do not live there, but would choose to 8.64 9.69 10.74 11.79 Live there, but did not choose to 8.51 9.51 10.61 11.65 Do not live there and would not choose to 8.37 9.42 10.47 11.52
Non-white, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Sergeant or higher,Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice 7.45 8.50 9.55 10.60 Do not live there, but would choose to 7.32 8.37 9.42 10.47 Live there, but did not choose to 7.18 8.23 9.28 10.33 Do not live there and would not choose to 7.05 8.10 9.15 10.20
112
Regression Findings: DV Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts
Table 16 presents regression results for models using
the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale as a
dependent variable, to test the hypothesis of alienation on
proactive enforcement since the verdicts of Rodney King,
Malice Green, and O.J. Simpson. This scale is a summated
rating score, taking the sum of responses to P17 and P18. As
the table shows, when the regression equation only consists
of six social demographic variables (Model 1), very little of
the variation in proactive enforcement since verdicts can be
explained by the model (R2 = .0430). However, by adding the
Residence and Choice variable and the Alienation Scale (Model
2) to the regression equation, the coefficient of
determination, R2 increases to .0760. This R2 increment
of .0330 is solely attributable to these two variables
measuring proactive enforcement since verdicts, though the
rise in explanatory power is not high. Lastly, by adding the
Mastery Scale to the equation (Model 3), a further gain
of .0771 is shown in R2. Overall, the independent variables
in Model 3 can explain more than 15% of the variation in
proactive enforcement since verdicts, which indicates the
explanatory strength of this model is fair, when judging from
a social-science standard.
Table 16 (Model 2) also shows a positive relationship
between the Alienation Scale and the Proactive Enforcement
113
Since Verdicts Scale, where one unit of increase in the
Alienation score raised the Proactive Enforcement Since
Verdicts score by .11, net of impacts of all other variables.
The coefficient for this variable is statistically
significant at a 0.05 level. However, when the Mastery Scale
is added into the regression equation (Model 3), the
coefficient of the Alienation Scale becomes insignificant. A
positive relationship is also shown in Model 3 between the
Mastery Scale and the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts
Scale, where one unit of increase in the Mastery score raised
the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts score by .19, net of
impacts of all other variables. The coefficient for this
variable is statistically significant at the 0.01 level,
which indicates this type of relationship is very likely to
exist in the general population. The Residence and Choice
variable was found to be insignificant in either Model 2 or
3, yet it does show a positive sign, which implies again the
higher the alienation the lower the desire of proactive
enforcement since verdicts. Model 3 also shows that the
Degree of Urbanism variable was found to be insignificant,
yet it does show a positive sign, which implies that police
officers working in an environment having a high degree of
urbanism will have less desire for proactive enforcement
since verdicts. This finding is consistent to the theory
posited by this study.
114
Table 16 (Model 3) also shows a statistically
significant and positive relationship with the social
demographic variable of "Age" and the Proactive Enforcement
Since Verdicts score. Other things being equal, a one year
increase in age increased the Proactive Enforcement Since
Verdicts score by .07. This means younger police officers
generally have more desire for proactive enforcement since
verdicts than older officers. Overall, the impact of
alienation on proactive enforcement since verdicts is
complicated: Model 2 can confirm the research hypothesis, but
Model 3 cannot. This is probably because the causal
relationships between alienation, mastery, and proactive
enforcement since verdicts, are more sophisticated than the
regression analysis used in this study, where each model
treats the dependent variable separately (one at a time). It
could also be because this variable only consisted of two
measures (P17 and P15). Based on these findings, one can
conclude that the research hypothesis regarding proactive
enforcement since verdicts cannot be confirmed, and further
study is needed using a more sophisticated statistical
technique to capture the causalities of the variables.
Although the hypothesis regarding proactive enforcement
since verdicts cannot be confirmed, a simulation model of
predicted Proactive Enforcement Since Verdict scores may
still be useful. Thus, based on Model 3 of Table 16, Table
115
17 presents predicted Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts
scores by different values of alienation and selected
personal characteristics. For instance, for a police officer
who is white, aged 37, married, having a Bachelor or higher
degree, ranked as a police officer, who chose to live in the
working community, and has a Mastery score held constant at
10 and an Alienation score of 5, the Proactive Enforcement
Since Verdicts score would be 5.83. For a non-white officer
having the same other characteristics, the Proactive
Enforcement Since Verdicts score would be 4.98. Likewise,
for a sergeant or higher who is white with the same other
characteristics, the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts
score would be 5.40. For a non-white with the same other
characteristics, the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts
score would be 4.55. This table also clearly shows the
inverse relationship as hypothesized by this study, that
police officers' degree of willingness for proactive
enforcement since verdicts16 would steadily decrease with
their rise in alienation. However, it should be noted that
the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts score increased very
little as the Alienation score rose -- only 0.01 for every
five-unit rise in the Alienation score. This implies that
alienation only exerts a marginal impact on police officers'
16 Note, a low degree of willingness for proactive enforcement since verdicts is actually indicated by a high score on the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale.
116
degree of willingness for proactive enforcement since
verdicts.
117
TABLE 16: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF MASTERY AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLE "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT SINCE VERDICTS"
Explanatory Variables Hierarchical Regression Models Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Social Demographic Variables:
Age .08** .09** .07** (3.73) (4.02) (3.47)
Race: White vs. Non-White (D) .73 .55 .86 (1.62) (1.21) (1.94)
Rank: Police Officer vs. Sgt or higher (D) .80 .60 .43 (1.91) (1.40) (1.04)
Education: Bachelor or higher vs. Other (D) -.01 -.10 .09 (-.04) (-.34) (.30)
Marital Status: Married vs. Other (D) -.20 -.30 -.37 (-.58) (-.83) (-1.06)
Degree of Urbanism: High vs. Other (D) .46 .26 .37 (1.41) (.80) (1.17)
Measures of Alienation:
Residence and Choice Variable .11 .06 (.82) (.47)
Alienation Scale .11* .00 (2.47) (.04)
Measure of Mastery:
Mastery Scale .19** (4.74)
Constant .69 -.60 -2.17
Adjusted R5 .0430 .0760 .1531R5 Increment .0330 .0771
Note:
t Statistics in parentheses* Significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test** Significant at the 0.01 level, two-tailed testD Denotes a dichotomous variable
118
TABLE 17: PREDICTED "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT SINCE VERDICTS" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Simulation Based On Regression Model 3 Of Table 16)
Personal Characteristics Given Alienation Score
5 10 15 20 White, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Police Officer,Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice 5.83 5.84 5.85 5.86 Do not live there, but would choose to 5.89 5.90 5.91 5.92 Live there, but did not choose to 5.95 5.96 5.97 5.98 Do not live there and would not choose to 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04
Non-white, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Police Officer,Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice 4.98 4.99 5.00 5.01 Do not live there, but would choose to 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 Live there, but did not choose to 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 Do not live there and would not choose to 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18
White, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Sergeant or higher,Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 Do not live there, but would choose to 5.46 5.47 5.48 5.49 Live there, but did not choose to 5.52 5.53 5.54 5.55 Do not live there and would not choose to 5.58 5.59 5.60 5.61
Non-white, Age 37, Married,Education: Bachelor or higher,Rank: Sergeant or higher,Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice 4.55 4.56 4.57 4.58 Do not live there, but would choose to 4.61 4.62 4.63 4.64 Live there, but did not choose to 4.66 4.67 4.68 4.69 Do not live there and would not choose to 4.72 4.73 4.74 4.75
119
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
Overview of Findings
The present study was a cross sectional survey research
of 272 police officers ranked as a lieutenant or below from
eleven police departments located in the Midwest United
States. Its primary purpose was to test the sociological
concept of alienation as developed by several classical and
contemporary social theorists, particularly Marx (1844, 1846,
1867); Simmel (1950, 1971); Fromm (1941, 1955); and Seeman
(1959), by investigating if an inverse relationship existed
between the level of alienation as perceived by police
officers from citizens in the community where they patrolled,
with their level of mastery and willingness to respond
proactively to serious crime.
Overall, the statistical analysis confirmed the
theoretical and hypothetical relationships this study
proposed. In specific reference to the five hypotheses, the
present study found: 1) police officers reporting more
alienation from citizens in the community where they
patrolled also reported a lower level of mastery, after
controlling for social demographic variables. This finding
was statistically significant at the 0.01 level, 2) police
officers reporting more alienation with citizens in the
120
community where they patrolled also reported less willingness
for proactive enforcement, after controlling for social
demographic variables and mastery. This finding was
statistically significant at the 0.01 level, 3) police
officers reporting more alienation with citizens in the
community where they patrolled also reported less willingness
for proactive enforcement since recent highly publicized
judicial verdicts against police officers, after controlling
for social demographic variables and mastery. This finding
was statistically significant at the 0.05 level in Model 2,
however when the Mastery Scale was added to the regression
equation in Model 3, the coefficient of the Alienation Scale
became insignificant, 4) police officers working in
communities having a higher degree of urbanism reported more
perceived alienation and sense of mastery, but less
willingness for proactive enforcement and less willingness
for proactive enforcement since verdicts, after controlling
for all other variables. However, the findings of this
hypothesis were not statistically significant, and 5) in
regard to the social demographic variables, a significant
relationship was found in Model 3 of the regression analysis
with age and race. Age was found to be statistically
significant and having a positive relationship with the
Mastery score, Proactive Enforcement score, and Proactive
Since Verdicts score, meaning younger officers generally had
121
a higher level of mastery, more willingness for proactive
enforcement, and more willingness for proactive enforcement
since verdicts, than older officers. Race (white vs. non-
white) was found to be statistically significant and having
and inverse relationship with the Mastery score, meaning
white officers generally had more sense of mastery than non-
white officers. Race was also found to be statistically
significant and having a positive relationship with the
Proactive score, meaning non-white officers generally had
more willingness for proactive enforcement than white
officers.
Relationship of Findings to Other Research
Mean scores showing that female police officers had more
sense of alienation than male officers is not consistent with
research by Schmidt et al. (1982) who found that male
citizens are more likely to withdraw from others than
females. Mean scores showing that black police officers are
less alienated from their working community than whites or
others is consistent with research by Berg et al. (1984) who
found black officers are generally less alienated than either
white or Hispanic officers; and with Crank et al. (1995) who
found black police executives generally had lower levels of
work alienation.
122
Mean scores showing that police officers living outside
their working community had a higher degree of alienation and
a lower degree of mastery than officers living in their
community is consistent with writings by Durkheim (1897) that
a lack of social ties results in people having less sense of
mastery, with Becker (1966) and Schmitt (1983) that
alienation is linked to a lack of community integration, and
with the popular argument that residency requirements enhance
police integration and concerns for their working community.
Mean scores showing that police officers working in
communities having a moderate or high degree of urbanism are
more alienated than officers working in low urban communities
is essentially consistent with research by Mottaz (1983) who
found urban officers generally had the highest level of
alienation, followed by suburban officers, and then by state
police; and with King (1995) who found urban officers are
much more alienated than suburban officers.
Regression findings showing that older police officers
had less sense of mastery at work than younger officers is
consistent with research by Mottaz (1983), Pogrebin (1987),
and King (1995), who found senior officers generally express
more negative job attitudes and futility about their work.
Regression findings showing that older police officers had
less desire for proactive enforcement than younger officers
is consistent with research by Mottaz (1983), Pogrebin
123
(1987), and King (1995), who found more senior officers are
more likely to be apathetic, negative, or complacent.
Regression findings showing that police officers expressed
less desire for proactive enforcement since verdicts like
Rodney King and Malice Green is consistent with research by
King (1995) who found both urban and suburban officers
expressed less proactive desire since these verdicts.
Implications of Findings
The results of this study demonstrated that alienation
correlated with mastery, proactive enforcement, and proactive
enforcement since verdicts, in an inverse direction as
hypothesized. It is hoped that this research is used to
suggest to community leaders and police administrators the
following three points: 1) police officers reporting a high
degree of alienation with citizens in the community where
they patrol, will also report a lower level of mastery and
less desire for proactive policing than officers reporting a
low degree of alienation, 2) the effects of alienation can be
reduced by providing greater clarity in policy expectations,
particularly on highly controversial enforcement situations
that involve the use of force, vehicle chases, or interracial
enforcement, as these situations are often viewed by the
public in a very arbitrary and capricious manner (see King
1995), and 3) the effects of alienation can be reduced by
124
providing consistent support and recognition of good police
work (see Schmidt et al. 1982, Berg et al. 1984, and Pogrebin
1987).
Reducing the level of alienation between police officers
and citizens in the community where they patrol can be more
important than the findings this study presented. Research
by Pogrebin (1987) found that negative attitudes displayed by
alienated officers can often affect the morale and work
productivity of their entire department, and research by
Shernock (1988) found that as the level of alienation between
officers and their community increased, their level of
antagonism towards its citizens increased.
Problems with Sample Size
During statistical analysis an inadequate sample size
was found with some attributes of the social demographic
variables of "Gender," "Race," "Education," and "Marital
status." Accordingly, gender was eliminated because only
4.8% of the sample were female. Race was collapsed from the
categories of white, black, and other, into the dichotomous
groupings of white or non-white, because black only comprised
8.5% of the sample, and other only comprised 13.6% of the
sample. Education was collapsed from the categories of high
school, some college, bachelor degree, or some graduate
school or higher, into the dichotomous groupings of high
125
school or some college, or bachelor degree or above, because
high school only comprised 6.3% of the sample, and some
graduate school or higher only comprised 14% of the sample.
Marital status was collapsed from the categories of married,
single, or divorced or separated, into the dichotomous
groupings of married, or single, divorced or separated,
because single only comprised 17.3% of the sample, and
divorced or separated only comprised 8.5% of the sample.
Problems with Survey Instrument
While transferring data from completed survey
questionnaires, it was found a few respondents viewed some
items to be lacking in response options or sensitive. For
instance, since this study did not anticipate residency
requirements, it was found the variable of "Residency and
Choice" (A1, A2, and A3) did not have a mutually exclusive
response to A2 which asked: "If you live in the community
where you work do you live their by choice?" As some
respondents lived in their working community by choice but
were also required to live there. Thus, some answered this
item in the negative but in the positive (or vice versa) to
A3 which asked: "If you do not live in the community where
you work would you ever choose to live there?" These
logically inconsistent responses were eliminated from
126
analysis, however a pre-test of more than one department may
have resolved this problem.
It was also found a few respondents wrote comments like
"I have no idea" or "not applicable" to A5 which asked: "To
what degree do you share the religious values of the citizens
in the community where you work?" In addition, a few
respondents wrote comments that the response options were all
"negative" in response to P17 and P18 which asked: "To what
degree do you think other officers (or you) are less willing
to become involved in responding to potentially serious crime
(felonies) since verdicts like Rodney King, Malice Green, and
O. J. Simpson?"
It should be emphasized there were less than a dozen
cases where respondents expressed a problem to survey items
A5, P17, and P18. Thus, there should be no serious problem
with missing or systematic missing data in this study.
Limitations of Study
There are several limitations to this study that should
be taken into account in interpreting the results. The
questions to three items (M10, M12, and M13) from the Mastery
Scale were phrased in the negative. This could lead a
respondent in a particular direction in answering these items
and as a result affect the findings of mastery. Yet it
should be noted to capture the entire dimension of mastery
127
(i.e., the respondent's sense of confidence and helplessness)
this phraseology was deemed necessary.
The response options to the two items (P17 and P18) that
comprised the Proactive Since Verdicts Scale were not
exhaustive because they were negative (i.e., they only
inquired as to the degree the respondent was less willing).
Consequently, the findings of proactive enforcement since
verdicts may be biased due to this limitation. It is also
presumed that the effects of the verdicts posited by these
items should diminish over time, particularly if positive
police stories are reported.
Limitations regarding the external validity of this
study should also be recognized because the police
departments used in this study were selected by a non-
probability judgmental sampling method from departments
located in one county. As a result, the findings may be
biased. More meaningful extrapolations would be possible if
the sampled departments were selected on a random basis from
a larger population. However, such sampling method was not
possible with the current research. The results remain
exploratory and descriptive in nature. It should also be
pointed out that national data presented in this study of
local police officers demonstrated the sample is fairly
representative (see p. 36).
128
Sample representativeness may also be limited by the
presence of one of the eleven police departments used in this
study being a university public safety department (Department
2). However, this effect should be negligible as the
respondents of this department only comprised 7.7% of the
total sample. Further, it should be noted that this
department is part of the aggregate of police officers and is
located in an urban environment where the department assists
on runs to the larger community as well as to their own
residents on campus.
There are also issues regarding the limitations of the
construct validity test used in this study. Since this study
primarily used one type of construct validation method,
namely exploratory factor analysis, other research by
Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991) suggests that a good test of
construct validity should be based on both exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis. However, confirmatory factor
analysis could not be employed as the scales used in this
study were new.
Lastly, because this study considered any effects from
within a police department on an officer's level of
alienation as an extraneous variable, the results may be
affected. Research by Shernock (1988) for example, suggests
negative community perceptions can lead officers into group
solidarity and create a mentality among officers of "us
129
versus them." In other words, the social environment within
the department can act as an intervening variable and
exacerbate the effects of alienation. If so, this would
impact on the officer's level of mastery and willingness to
participate in proactive enforcement.
In summary, for several methodological, procedural, and
conceptual reasons, the results of this study need to be
interpreted cautiously. None-the-less, the general trends
and relationship identified do point to directions for future
research.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research having an adequate sample size of female
police officers would be meaningful because there is little
theoretical or empirical research (other than Schmidt et al.
1982) on the effect of alienation on females and no known
research on the effect of alienation on female police
officers. This factor would also be worth investigating
because females are participating in the police profession in
increasing numbers.
Future research having an adequate sample size of black
police officers would be particularly meaningful since black
officers often comprise a large portion of urban police
departments and because research by Berg et al. (1984) and
Crank et al. (1995) found black officers are less alienated.
130
Unfortunately, like this study, their sample of black
officers was small and their research offered no explanation
about the racial makeup of the environment where the officers
worked. Still, their findings were partly corroborated by
this study which found if "Non-white" and "White" officers
have the same level of alienation, non-whites would generally
have a higher desire for proactive policing.
The "Degree of Urbanism" variable needs future research
having an adequate sample of police officers from a true "big
city" police department, as it was hypothesized they would
experience the most alienation. Unfortunately, a department
of this type declined to participate in this study because
survey items (P17 and P18) on Rodney King, Malice Green, and
O.J. Simpson would be highly sensitive and inflammatory with
their officers and citizens. As a consequence, even though
36.8% of the sample used in this study was from high urban
police departments, the lack of participation from a true big
city police department could be the reason this variable did
not show significance.
Since this study considered the social environment
within a police department as an extraneous variable, future
research needs to investigate if there are any mitigating or
exacerbating effects from this factor on an officer's level
of alienation. Research by Shernock (1988) for example,
suggests it exacerbates the effect.
131
Finally, the impact of alienation on the Proactive
Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale needs further study because
its findings are complicated: Model 2 can confirm the
research hypothesis, but Model 3 which introduces the Mastery
Scale cannot. Thus, a more sophisticated statistical
technique is recommended to capture the causality between
alienation, mastery, and proactive enforcement since
verdicts. In addition, because this scale only had two
measures (P17 and P18), future research having more
components would increase its validity.
132
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS
1.Alienation is a condition in social relationships where
there is a low degree of integration or common values and
a high degree of distance and isolation between people or
groups of people in a community or work environment.
2.Mastery is the state of mind in which an individual
expresses minimum feelings of helplessness and strong
positive feelings that he or she has the ability,
control, skill or knowledge to influence events.
3.Proactive Enforcement is the predisposition of a police
officer to be actively involved in fighting crime.
4. Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts is the
predisposition of a police officer to be actively
involved in fighting crime since recent highly
publicized judicial verdicts against police officers,
such as Rodney King (Los Angeles 3/3/91), Malice Green
(Detroit 11/5/92), and O. J. Simpson (Los Angeles
6/12/94).
133
APPENDIX B
DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
1.Gender is categorized as male or female.
2.Age a continuous variable in number of years.
3.Race is categorized as White (Euro-American), Black
(African-American), Hispanic, Arabic, Asian, or Other.
4.Rank is categorized as police officer or corporal,
sergeant, or lieutenant or above.
5.Seniority a continuous variable in number of years of
total police experience.
6.Education is categorized as high school, some college,
bachelor degree, some graduate or professional school, or
graduate or professional degree.
7.Marital Status is categorized as being single, married,
separated, divorced, or widowed.
8.Residency is categorized as the respondent does, or does
not reside in the community where he or she works.
9.Degree of Urbanism is categorized as high urban, moderate
urban, or low urban. Relative to a suburban or rural
community, the urban community is usually larger and
older. It also possesses a higher degree of population
density; heterogeneity of ethnicity, race, and values;
lines of communication; zoning districts (i.e.,
134
residential, business, and manufacturing); and a
"substantial personal anonymity in interpersonal
contacts" (Gould & Kolb 1964:738-739).
135
APPENDIX C
COVER LETTER
November 1995
Fellow Law Enforcement Officer,
I am a former police officer with 15 years of patrol and investigation experience. I am now working on a doctoral degree at Wayne State University in sociology specializing in criminology. My doctoral thesis is regarding how "patrol officers" view and respond to serious crime in various environments.
In order to complete this research your help in answering this questionnaire is essential and greatly appreciated. Your participation will be anonymous and kept completely confidential, and the questionnaire will be seen only by myself as I compile the results of this research.
Thank you for your participation.
Robert C. Ankony Doctoral Candidate Department of Sociology Wayne State University 2228 FAB 656 W. Kirby Detroit, MI 48202
136
APPENDIX D
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
TITLE OF PROJECT: "The impact of Alienation on Police Officers' sense of Mastery and their subsequent willingness to participate in Proactive Enforcement"
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER: If you have any questions concerning this research you can contact Robert C. Ankony at the Department of Sociology: (313) 577-2930.
PURPOSE: You are being asked to participate in a doctoral research regarding how police officers in a number of communities view and respond to serious crime.
PROCEDURE: The research will be conducted with a self administered questionnaire.
RISKS: No risks are anticipated. Participating departments is with the approval of the respective police chief.
BENEFITS: This research is a contribution to knowledge. If accurate it could suggest to community leaders and police administrators whose police officers have a high degree of alienation with citizens in the community where they patrol two aspects: 1) the importance to recognize the existence of alienation and its effect on police officers' sense of mastery and willingness for proactive enforcement, and 2) the effects of alienation can be reduced by providing greater clarity in policy expectations, consistent support, and recognition of good police work.
RIGHT TO REFUSE: Participation is strictly voluntary.
CONFIDENTIALITY: All survey questionnaires are anonymous and will be destroyed at the completion of this research. No names are requested and all responses will be kept completely confidential and seen only by the principal investigator who will compile the results of the research. Any reference to a police department in this research will be with a pseudonym.
137
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE CHAIR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER: If you have any questions concerning the principal investigator you can contact Dr. Thomas M. Kelley: (313) 577-6088.
BEHAVIORAL INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE CHAIR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER: If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research subject you can contact Dr. Peter A. Lichtenberg: (313) 577-1628.
INFORMED CONSENT: All participants will receive a signed copy of this form from the principal investigator.
138
APPENDIX E
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE CIRCLE, OR WRITE IN WHERE APPROPRIATE, YOUR ANSWER TO EACH ITEM ON THE FOUR PAGES OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE -- THANK YOU.
1.Do you live in the community where you work?
1. Yes5. No
2.If you live in the community where you work do you live there by choice?
1. Yes5. No 0. Not applicable
3.If you do not live in the community where you work would you ever choose to live there?
1. Yes5. No 0. Not applicable
4.To what degree do you share the family values of the citizens in the community where you work?
1. Very much 2. Much 3. Moderately
4. Little 5. Very little
5.To what degree do you share the religious values of the citizens in the community where you work?
1. Very much2. Much 3.Moderately
4. Little5. Very little
139
6.To what degree do you share the economic values (work ethic) of the citizens in the community where you work?
1. Very much 2. Much 3. Moderately
4. Little 5. Very little
7.To what degree do you share the political values of the citizens in the community where you work?
1. Very much 2. Much 3. Moderately
4. Little 5. Very little
8.To what degree do you feel the citizens in the community where you work support you in your efforts to enforce the law?
1. Very much 2. Much 3. Moderately
4. Little 5. Very little
9.To what degree do you think the citizens in the community where you work want you to aggressively enforce the law?
1. Very much 2. Much 3. Moderately
4. Little 5. Very little
10.To what degree do you think the citizens in the community where you work are quick to turn on you if something goes wrong when you aggressively enforce the law?
5. Very much 4. Much 3. Moderately
2. Little 1. Very little
140
11.To what degree do you feel that you can use your own judgment in responding to potentially serious crime (felonies) in the community where you work?
1. Very much 2. Much 3. Moderately
4. Little 5. Very little
12.To what degree do you feel helpless in dealing with potentially serious crime (felonies) in the community where you work?
5. Very much 4. Much 3. Moderately
2. Little 1. Very little
13.To what degree do you feel that your crime fighting efforts are useless in reducing crime in the community where you work?
5. Very much 4. Much 3. Moderately
2. Little 1. Very little
14.When it is completely up to you, to what degree would you respond to potentially serious crime (felonies) in the community where you work?
1. Very much 2. Much 3. Moderately
4. Little 5. Very little
15.Assume you live in the community where you work. During off duty hours, when it is completely up to you, to what degree would you respond to potentially serious crime (felonies) in that community?
141
1. Very much 2. Much 3. Moderately
4. Little 5. Very little
16.To what degree has your desire to become involved in responding to potentially serious crime (felonies) changed in recent times?
1. Very much more desire 2. Much more desire than in the past than in the past
3. About the same desire 4. Much less desire as in the past than in the past
5. Very much less desire than in the past
17.To what degree do you think other officers in your department are less willing to become involved in responding to potentially serious crime (felonies) since verdicts like Rodney King, Malice Green, and O.J. Simpson?
5. Very much less willing 4. Much less willing
3. Moderately less willing 2. A little less willing
1. Very little less willing
18.To what degree are you less willing to become involved in responding to potentially serious crime (felonies) since verdicts like Rodney King, Malice Green, and O.J. Simpson?
5. Very much less willing 4. Much less willing
3. Moderately less willing 2. A little less willing
1. Very little less willing
142
AGAIN, PLEASE CIRCLE, OR WRITE IN WHERE APPROPRIATE, YOUR ANSWER TO EACH ITEM -- THANK YOU.
19.Are you male or female? 1. Male 2. Female
20.What year were you born?
21.What is your race (circle one)?
1. White 2. Black3. Hispanic
4. Arabic 5. Asian6. Other
22.What is your rank?
1. Police Officer 2. Sergeant 3. Lieutenant or corporal or above
23.How many years of total police seniority do you have?
24.What is the highest level of education you have completed?
1. High school 2. Some college 3. Bachelor degree 4. Some graduate or 5. Graduate or professional school professional degree
25.What is your marital status?
1. Single 2. Married 3. Separated 4. Divorced
143
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Babbie, Earl; 1989, The Practice of Social Research, Fifth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Bartol, Curt; 1982, "Psychological Characteristics of Small-Town Police Officers." Journal of Police Science and Administration, (October):58-63.
Becker, Howard S. (Editor); 1966, Social Problems: A Modern Approach. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Berg, Bruce, Marc Gertz, and Edmond True; 1984, "Police-Community Relations and Alienation." The Police Chief, (November):20-23.
Bobinsky, R.; 1994, "Reflections on Community-Oriented Policing." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (March):15-19.
Burden, O.; 1992, "Community Policing." National Fraternal Order of Police Journal, (Fall/Winter):31-35.
Burrows, David and Frederick Lapides (Editors); 1969, Alienation A Casebook. New York, NY: Thomas Crowell Company.
Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University; 1993, 1990 Census Community Profiles for Southeast Michigan, Volume 3.
Detroit, MI: Michigan Metropolitan Information Center.
Crank, John, Robert Regoli, John Hewitt, and Robert Culbertson; 1995, "Institutional and Organizational Antecedents of Role Stress, Work Alienation, And Anomie Among Police Executives." Criminal Justice and Behavior, (June):152-171.
Cronbach, Lee and Paul Meehl; 1955, "Construct Validity in Psychological Tests." Psychological Bulletin, 281-302.
DeVellis, Robert; 1991, Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Durkheim, Emile; Translated by W.D. Halls, [1893] 1984, The Division of Labour in Society. Houndsmills, England: Macmillan.
144
Durkheim, Emile; Translated by John Spalding, [1897] 1951, Suicide: A Study In Sociology. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Erikson, Kai; 1986, "On Work and Alienation." American Sociological Review, (February):1-8.
Fromm, Eric; 1941, Escape From Freedom. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Fromm, Eric; 1955, The Sane Society. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Gould, Julius and William Kolb; 1964, A Dictionary of the Social Sciences. New York, NY: The Free Press.
King, Barbara; 1995, "Cops and Compliance-Gaining: A Study of the Organizational Reality of Police Officers in Two Cities." Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI:1-294.
Mannheim, Karl; 1940, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. New York, NY: Harcourt and Brace.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels; [1844] 1975, Marx Engels Collected Works, Volume 3. London, England: McGraw-Hill.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels; [1846] 1967, The German Ideology. New York, NY: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl; [1859] 1970, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. New York, NY: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl; Translated by Ben Fowkes, [1867] 1977, Capital A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Mastrofski, Stephen, Robert Worden, and Jeffery Snipes; 1995, "Law Enforcement in a time of Community Policing." Criminology, (November):539-563.
Merton, Robert; 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, NY: The Free Press.
145
Meszaros, Istvan; 1970, Marx's Theory of Alienation. London, England.
Mottaz, Clifford; 1983, "Alienation Among Police Officers." Journal of Police Science and Administration, (March): 23-30.
Pedhazur, Elazar and Liora Schmelkin; 1991, Measurement, Design and Analysis, Newark, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Pogrebin, Mark; 1987, "Alienation Among Veteran Police Officers." The Police Chief, (February):38-42.
Schaff, Adam; 1980, Alienation as a Social Phenomenon. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press Inc.
Schmidt, Donald, Michael Conn, Lawrence Greene, and Kay Mesirow; 1982, "Social Alienation and Social Support." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, (September):515-521.
Schmitt, Richard; 1983, Alienation and Class. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.
Schweitzer, David and Felix Geyer (Editors); 1989, Alienation Theories and De-Alienation Strategies: Competitive Perspectives in Philosophy and the Social Sciences. Middlesex, England: Science Reviews Ltd.
Seeman, Melvin; 1959, "On the Meaning of Alienation." American Sociological Review, (December):783-791.
Shernock, Stan; 1988, "An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Police Solidarity and Community Orientation." Journal of Police Science and Administration, (September):182-194.
Simmel, Georg; Translated and edited by Kurt Wolff, [1902-1917] 1950, The Sociology of George Simmel. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Simmel, Georg; [1903-1918] 1971, On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
146
Srole, Leo; 1956, "Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study." American Sociological Review, (December): 709-16.
Theodorson, George and Achilles Theodorson; 1979, A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. New York, NY: Barnes and Noble Books.
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1996, Local Police Departments, 1993 Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation; 1996, Crime in the United States 1995 Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Webster-Merriam; 1987, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc.
Wilson, Leon; 1989, "Family Structure and Dynamics in the Caribbean: An Examination of Residential and Relational Matrifocality in Guyana." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI:1-187.
Zeitlin, Irvin; 1968, Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
147
ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF ALIENATION ON POLICE OFFICERS' SENSE OF MASTERYAND THEIR SUBSEQUENT WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT
by
ROBERT CAMILLE ANKONY
May 1997
Advisor: Thomas M. Kelley
Major: Sociology (Criminology)
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy
The primary purpose of the present study was to test the
sociological concept of alienation as developed by several
classical and contemporary social scholars, particularly Marx
(1844, 1846, 1867); Simmel (1950, 1971); Fromm (1941, 1955);
and Seeman (1959). It investigated if an inverse
relationship existed between the level of alienation as
perceived by police officers from citizens in the community
where they patrolled, and their sense of mastery and
willingness to respond proactively to serious crime. It
hypothesized as the level of alienation increased between
police officers and citizens in the community where they
patrolled, they would also report a lower level of mastery,
willingness to proactively enforce the law, and willingness
to proactively enforce the law since recent highly publicized
148
judicial verdicts against police officers, such as incidents
involving Rodney King, Malice Green, and O.J. Simpson. In
addition, it hypothesized that officers working in
communities having a higher degree of urbanism would also
report more perceived alienation, less sense of mastery, and
less willingness to proactively enforce the law. Finally,
the study examined the relationship of gender, age, race,
rank, seniority, education, marital status, and residency, to
the predicted alienation-mastery-proactive policing sequence.
The hypotheses were tested with data obtained from
surveying 272 uniformed police officers ranked as a
lieutenant or below from eleven police departments in the
Midwest United States. Selection of the departments was by a
non-probability judgmental sampling method.
Findings demonstrated that alienation correlated with
the dependent variables of mastery, proactive enforcement,
and proactive enforcement since verdicts in the correct
direction, and were statistically significant at 0.01 levels
with the former two variables and at a 0.05 level with the
latter variable. Significance was not found with the
hypothesis regarding the degree of urbanism. However,
significance was found with "Age" where younger officers
generally had more sense of mastery, willingness for
proactive enforcement, and willingness for proactive
enforcement since verdicts; and with "Race" where white
149
officers generally had a higher level of mastery but less
willingness for proactive enforcement.
150
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT
ROBERT CAMILLE ANKONY
Education
Master of Arts in Sociology Wayne State University, 1990 Essay: "The Demise of Communism and why it did not attain its Goals"
Master of Science in Criminal Justice Wayne State University, 1984 Research: "Perceived Inequities in Law Enforcement's use of Deadly Force"
Master of Correctional Sciences University of Detroit, 1982 Research: "Penology"
Bachelor in General Studies University of Michigan, 1978
Associate in Arts in Law Enforcement Henry Ford Community College, 1974
Employment History
Det/Sgt., Wayne County Sheriff Dept., Detroit, MI 1970-1984
Decorations: Sheriff's Personal Citation, 1981 Departmental Citation, 1980 Department Citation, 1978 Departmental Citation of Valor, 1975
Dispatcher, Detroit News, Detroit, MI 1968-1970
Sgt., United States Army Rangers, Europe and Vietnam 1965-1968
Decorations: The Bronze Star Medal, Quang Tri, Vietnam 1968
151
The Air Medal, Quang Tri, Vietnam 1968 The Bronze Star Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster and "V" device, A-Shau Valley, Vietnam 1968
Born
Detroit, Michigan 1948