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

8 COPYRIGHT BY ROBERT CAMILLE ANKONY 1997 All Rights Reserved

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to many for their time, assistance, and patience in completing this dissertation. to express sincere Dr. gratitude M. to I would first like of my of Doctoral Criminal

members

Committee:

Thomas

Kelley,

Department

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.

ii

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donald Schmidt et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clifford Mottaz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard Schmitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bruce Berg et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kai Erikson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Pogrebin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stan Shernock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Crank et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 16 17 19 20 22 23 24 25

iii

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 . . . . . INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 39

Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Operationalization of Alienation . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Operationalization of Mastery . . . . . . . . . . . . Operationalization of Proactive Enforcement . . . . . 42 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 . . . . . . . . . . . Survey Response Rate of Each Department . . . . . . . 51 52

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Validity and Reliability Tests of Scales . . . . . . . 55

iv

Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Independent and Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . Hierarchical Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . .

57 58 59 60

Diagnostic Tests for Regression Assumptions . . . . .

Test of Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Validity and Reliability: Alienation Scale . . . . . . 63 Validity and Reliability: Mastery Scale . . . . . . . Validity and Reliability: Proactive Enforcement Scale 65 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regression Findings: DV Mastery . . . . . . . . . . . Regression Findings: DV Proactive Enforcement . . . . 86 86 91

Regression Findings: DV Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Findings to Other Research . . . . . Implications of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102 102 104 105

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 122 126 128

vi

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: TABLE 5: TABLE 6: TABLE 7: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALIENATION ITEMS . . . . 73

CROSS-GROUP CORRELATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 RESULTS OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TEST . . . . 75 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 ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 16: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF BY 95

MASTERY

vii

AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT SINCE VERDICTS" . . . . 100

VARIABLE

TABLE 17: PREDICTED "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT SINCE VERDICTS" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . 101

viii

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

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 to would be associated enforce with the their law. degree of

motivation

proactively

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. study also investigates whether recent highly The

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 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 willingness alienation, to less sense of mastery, to and less crime.

respond

proactively

serious

Finally, the study examines the relationship of gender, age, race, rank, to seniority, the education, marital status, and

residency,

predicted

alienation-mastery-proactive

policing sequence.

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 The in

willingness to participate in proactive enforcement. study also investigates if police officers working

communities having a higher degree of urbanism report more perceived willingness alienation, to less sense of mastery, to and less crime.

respond

proactively

serious

Finally, the study examines the relationship of gender, age, race, rank, to seniority, the education, marital status, and

residency, enforcement

predicted (see

alienation-mastery-proactive A for definitions of

sequence

Appendix

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);

Durkheim 1955); Erikson greater

(1893,

1897);

Simmel Merton of a

(1950, (1968);

1971); Schmitt

Fromm

(1941, and how in

Seeman

(1959); Each in

(1983);

(1986). complexity

these social

theorists

portrayed results

environment

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). authors confirm the above theoretical Findings by these 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.

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 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 selfestrangement. 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 This is when

say, estranged from himself" (Fromm 1955:120).

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 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) [Selfalienation] . . . 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 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), is whereas featured modern by post

industrial

revolution

society

"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

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

10

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 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

11

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

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: to 1) because there are fewer and

bureaucratic

hierarchies

heighten

indifference,

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 and metropolitan greater attitude" of and 1950)

heightened anonymity

"indifference," in social

estrangement ([1903]

relationships.

Simmel

expressed similar views in other writings when he argued that

12

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 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" (1941:117118). 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,

13

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). 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 on of: 1) investigating and how of alienation community, is 2)

grounded

social

complexity

lack

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

14

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

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 selfconcept 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

15

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

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. saw the ritualist as a frightened employee where Merton "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

16

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 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

17

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 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 doubleedge 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 problemsolving 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

18

by Seeman (1959). Seeman's (1959)

Schmidt et al. wrote that they selected 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 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).

19

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., Mottaz state also police, measured suburban the police, and of city police). to

relationship

alienation

various social economic variables, as well as to three of Seeman's (1959) elements of alienation (i.e., powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement). 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. department type, Mottaz found that city police had By 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 Mottaz over task activities), on his and 5) by higher pointing seniority. out that

elaborated

findings

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

20

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 alienation. (1983) discussed the causes and effects of

Schmitt, as did Simmel (1950), wrote how greater

size and complexity of a social structure (i.e., population, 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 results in how increased Schmitt population wrote and bureaucracy factors

alienation,

that

these

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

21

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" (1983:180181). 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 (1983:79). of society into isolated individuals"

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, 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 regarding it the parallels effects Simmel's of (1950, size 1971) and

discussion

greater

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,

22

and more indifference in social relationships. Alienation, Apathy, and Lack of Community Support Berg, Gerz, and True (1984) researched the linkage of alienation community and apathy among police They officers to various this by

social

structures.

performed

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

(1983), in terms of worker apathy, where workers experience "detachment from their work, intrinsic feelings of isolation, and lack of the fulfillment degree to from which working" alienation (1984:20). was related To to

determine

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

23

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. 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.

24

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. 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 mediumsized 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

25

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 out the that entire such

organization.

However,

Pogrebin

points

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 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

26

solidarity and secrecy. a relationship between

Based on this premise, that there is 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 This

police solidarity: 1) the external working environment.

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 boards, and of 2) the internal the working perceived environment. threat from This their

consisted

measuring

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

27

public hostility towards law enforcement . . . contributed . . . [the most] to police solidarity, as well as to a negative community orientation" (1988:183184). 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

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

28

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" (1995:156157). Crank et al. tested their hypothesis from data obtained 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.

29

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 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, 24,000 whereas the latter King community the had two

approximately

residents.

described

communities as being at opposite ends of the spectrum, not only in size but also in terms of the big city having much

30

higher

violent

crime,

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. writings on how large Reminiscent of Simmel's (1903) 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 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

31

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

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

32

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 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

33

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 alienation between police officers and citizens. that recent highly publicized judicial verdicts Further, 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.

34

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 in their work. empirical Except for the work of King (1995), no was on found this in the literature that

research focused

specifically

alienation-mastery-proactive Other than King discovered which

enforcement sequence for police officers. (1995), no empirical research was

35

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 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

36

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. majority of the sample were male (95%). age from 22 to 59 years (mean 37.4). The vast

The sample ranged in 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 enforcement sample was This from eleven of different one law

agencies.

consisted

university

department of public safety, nine police departments, and one sheriff department.1 The departments ranged in size from 15 The departments were located

to 850 sworn police officers.

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 The communities

police officers to every 10,000 citizens.2

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. express However, a few chiefs from the moderate group did 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 characteristics national of full data time of social sworn demographic officers

local

police

(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

42 TABLE 1: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION OF SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Characteristic Gender Male 6.3 Female College 28.7 Age 20-24 14.0 25-29 30-34 35-39 17.3 40-44 73.2 45-49 50-54 8.5 55+ Race White 61.8 Black 38.2 Other Rank 36.8 Police Officer 48.2 Sergeant or Higher 15.1 Seniority 1-5 years 6-10 11-20 21+ N % Education High School N %

259 13 137

95.2 4.8 50.4

17 Some

Bachelor 8 50 52 37 44 37 20 5 229 23 14 2.9 18.4 19.1 13.6 16.2 13.6 7.4 1.8 84.2 8.5 5.1 Degree of Urbanism High 205 65 75.4 23.9 Moderate Low Residency: Lives in Working Community Yes No Some Graduate or Higher Marital Status Single Married Divorced or Separated

78 38

47 199 23

168 104

100 131 41

63 62 77 65

23.2 22.8 28.3 23.9

43 Total 100 272

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.

44 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 Eighteen and after in highly the publicized instrument judicial were verdicts. and

items

conceived

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 dichotomous response option of "yes" or "no" (unlike the

45 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 the police more from departments would have a

residency themselves community.

requirement), as being

they the

experience of the

alienated

citizens

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 much" to "very little," indicating a low to high degree of 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).

46 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 community. as being alienated from the citizens of the

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

item was answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from

47 "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

the less police officers perceive themselves being supported

48 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?" police This item was based on the assumption that the less 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?" based on the assumption that the less

This item was officers

police

49 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. Likert scale This item was answered on a five-point from "very much" to "very little,"

ranging

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, whereas the lowest possible score of 6 would indicate the

50 highest level of mastery. M12, and M13) that had This scale had three items (M10, 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

initiative, the less their desire for proactive enforcement.

51 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 proactive enforcement desire since verdicts, whereas the

lowest possible score of 2 would indicate the highest level

52 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 in what degree are to you less willing to become crime

involved

responding

potentially

serious

(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

Likert scale ranging from "very much less willing" to "very little less willing," indicating a low to high degree of

53 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. (P17 and P18) that had reversed This scale had two items sentiments and response

coding.

54 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 was departments. by a Selection of the police sampling

departments method.

non-probability

judgmental

This method is the selection of a sample for general

comparative purposes based upon a researcher's knowledge of the population, 1989). its elements, and was aims also of the research upon the

(Babbie

Participation

based

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 that and were surveyed would with be on the a

understanding

their

participation

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

55 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 The following departments made up the

groupings were framed.

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. follows:

The recoding scheme of these variables are as

!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

1 if the respondent is white, and equals 0 otherwise (non-

56 white). !Rank -- was recategorized from police officer or corporal, sergeant, or lieutenant or above, into the dichotomous It

variable of police officer or corporal, or otherwise.

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 variable or of professional bachelor degree, or into above, the or

dichotomous otherwise.

degree

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. married, and equals 0 It equals 1 if the respondent is otherwise (single, divorced, or

separated). !Residency police -This study lived was in also their interested working in whether and

officers

community

whether they lived there by choice.

As it proposed this

information would provide an additional measure of their level of alienation. the social Originally the survey instrument used variable A1 of an officer's

demographic

"residency," along with A2 and A3 of an officer's "choice of residency," as part of the Alienation Scale. However,

57 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 with score their for each respondent The as it was

associated

residency.

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).

Method of Survey Administration

58 All potential were respondents with from a the eleven police informed

departments

presented

cover

letter,

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 at roll departments call, 2) completed officers in all four their other

questionnaires

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 completion minutes. Survey Response Rate of Each Department of each questionnaire was

Time for ten

approximately

Table 2 presents the survey response rate of the police officers from the eleven police departments subdivided by their degree of urbanism. potential respondents As the table shows, a total of 402 surveyed. Of that total 272

were

officers (68%) completed the questionnaire.

As found with

departmental participation, it would appear the degree of

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.

59 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.

60 TABLE 2: SURVEY RESPONSE RATE OF EACH DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT SPO P HIGH URBAN 36 26 45 25 22 154 MODERATE URBAN 31 41 50 75 197 N %

- - - - - - - - - - - Department 1# Department 2# Department 3R Department 4R Department 5 Subtotal 52 39 *60 35 32 218

- - - - - - - - - - - 25 21 26 10 18 100 69 81 58 40 82 66

- - - - - - - - - - - Department 6# Department 7 Department 8# Department 9R Subtotal 45 *55

- - - - - - - - - 19 37 32 43 131 61 90 64 57 68

60 *102 262

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 patrol R = Survey completed only while on patrol

61 * = Residency required = Department size is much larger (this figure only represents officers from its patrol and investigation division)

62 TABLE 2: Continued POLICE DEPARTMENT SPO P LOW URBAN 37 14 51 N %

- - - - - - - - - - - Department 10 Department 11 Subtotal *47 15 62

- - - - - - - - - - - 27 14 41 73 100 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 patrol R = Survey completed only while on patrol * = Residency required = Department size is much larger (this figure only represents officers from its patrol and investigation division)

63 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Validity and Reliability Tests of Scales Following DeVellis (1991), an exploratory factor

analysis was used to test for construct validity. validity will determine if the individual

Construct in the

items

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 validity by factor analysis 1) helps the determine number of construct dimensions

discovering:

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 exploratory methods factor are used 1) for factor-extraction component, in 2) Two

analysis:

principal

principal-axis factoring, and 3) maximum likelihood.

rotation methods are used in exploratory factor analysis as a means to finding simpler and more easily interpretable

64 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, enforcement mastery, since proactive enforcement, Further, or proactive number of

verdicts).

the

underlying factors is indicated by any eigenvalues larger than one.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.

65 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. social-behavioral scientists apply The rule of thumb most when measuring the

reliability of a particular scale is a Cronbach's alpha of . 60 or larger. Regression Analysis A regression analysis the was used to of capture interest the of net each

relationships

between

variables

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 dependent by a The mathematical relationship between and each independent variable is

variable set of

revealed

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. coefficient captures the net Therefore, each regression relationship between an

independent variable and a dependent variable.

Estimates of

66 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, and while mastery, controlling and 3) for social on

demographic

variables

alienation

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

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.

67 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. models differed in their inclusion of the These

explanatory

variables: Model 1 contained social demographic variables

68 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. 2 which contained the measures of By contrast, Model (for the

alienation

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 R2 hierarchical is uniquely models). attributable By to definition the an

incremental

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

69 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 Corrective measures must be taken

assumptions are violated.

to improve the estimates of the model, when diagnostic tests show the presence of such statistical problems. Several performed included: diagnostic running scatter tests the plot for final of OLS assumptions These values were tests the

before 1) a

models.

predicted

of

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

70 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. an absence of the harmful problem the of error Of importance was heteroscedasticity terms), as the

(i.e.,

unequal

variances

of

residuals appeared to be fairly normal in shape. multicollinearity problem was present in the

However, a 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 This test was regarding further the regression because

coefficients.
8

encouraged

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.

71 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. than the former, the statement If the latter is larger 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).

Type I error consists of falsely hypotheses that is in fact true.

rejecting

the

null

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. items under our hypothesized grouping does have If the 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. correlation high. coefficients of for each As the table shows, the pairs the is quite of

within-group item with

Correlations

concept

alienation are all greater than .70, and most are greater than .80. In addition correlations between A4, A5, and A6 In contrast, Table 5 shows the

are all larger than .60.

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 to the officer's

73

"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 Variance accounted

accounted for by this factor is 32.8%.

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 This test

given there are only four items to this scale.

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, These

Models A and H1 show that M9 groups with alienation.

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). coefficient of .52 was M11. The only item with a moderate In contrast, Table 5 shows the

correlation coefficients of cross-group pairs are quite low (most are well when below .36) except M8 and of M9, the which as

indicated Scale,

discussing items are

the

validity

Alienation with both

these

moderately

correlated

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). higher (.58 versus .52) as on F1 Whereas, M9 loads than M9 on F2

(alienation)

(mastery).

However,

previously

indicated,

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 From these

on the eigenvalue associated with this factor.

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. shows, a value of .75 was obtained, which As the table 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). moderate coefficient of .54 was P14. The only item with a 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%.

11

Variance

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. the table shows, a value of .66 was obtained, which As 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 Scale

and

Reliability:

Proactive

Enforcement

Verdicts

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. proactive enforcement This scale was not used to measure 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). the table shows, three of the models (E, F, and As 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 performed. Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale was also

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 This test

given that there are only two items to this scale.

concludes an acceptable level of reliability, or internal consistency items. for the proactive enforcement since verdicts and

Thus,

based on the results of the validity

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

82 TABLE 3: TEST OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

83 TABLE 4: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALIENATION ITEMS Item/Scale A4 A5 A6 A7 Alienation Mastery Proactive Enforcement A4 1.00 .65 .77 .47 .88 .43 .27 1.00 .65 .42 .82 .36 .21 1.00 .52 .89 .45 .31 1.00 .72 .35 .23 A5 A6 A7

Description of Items: A4 A5 A6 A7 ----Share Share Share Share family values of community religious values of community economic values of community 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)

84 TABLE 5: CROSS-GROUP CORRELATIONS

85 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: Alienation A4 A5 A6 A7 Share Share Share Share family values of community religious values of community economic values of community political values of community .86 .80 .86 .63 .10 .05 .12 .15 .10 .12 .14 .10 F1 F2 F3

Variance accounted for by the factor = 32.8% Cronbach's alpha = .85 F2: Mastery M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 Community supports you Community wants you to enforce law Community is quick to turn on you You can use your own judgment You feel helpless in dealing with crime Your crime fighting efforts are useless .58 .58 .23 -.03 .05 .27 .60 .52 .71 .48 .69 .52 .01 .02 -.06 .29 .19 .24

Variance accounted for by the factor = 12.9% Cronbach's alpha = .75 F3: Proactive Enforcement P14 Degree of your on duty involvement P15 Degree of your off duty involvement P16 Has your involvement changed in recent times P17 Are other officers less involved since verdicts P18 Are you less involved since verdicts .14 .41 .22 -.00 -.09 -.02 -.19 .29 .36 .38 .68 .61 .58 .52 .69

Variance accounted for by the factor = 9.3%

86 Cronbach's alpha = .66 Variance accounted for by the three factors = 55.0%

87 TABLE 7: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR MASTERY ITEMS Item/Scale M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 Alienation Mastery Proactive Enforcement M8 1.00 .65 .52 .20 .33 .40 .56 .78 .32 1.00 .37 .29 .26 .35 .51 .73 .29 1.00 .13 .30 .30 .29 .65 .22 1.00 .37 .18 .11 .52 .25 1.00 .39 .19 .67 .26 1.00 .31 .66 .36 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13

Description of Items: M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 ------Community supports you Community wants you to enforce law Community is quick to turn on you You can use your own judgment You feel helpless in dealing with crime 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)

88 TABLE 8: CORRELATION MATRIX FOR PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS Item/Scale P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 Alienation Mastery Proactive Enforcement P14 1.00 .35 .25 .18 .28 .18 .22 .54 1.00 .32 .10 .24 .35 .18 .64 1.00 .30 .36 .29 .41 .63 1.00 .56 .16 .29 .69 1.00 .10 .34 .78 P15 P16 P17 P18

Description of Items: P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 -----Degree of on duty involvement Degree of off duty involvement Has your involvement changed in recent times Are other officers less involved since verdicts 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)

89 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 The worse case was D20 (age).

any given item was negligible.

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. respondents answered all the items. Overall, 236 of the 272 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.

90 TABLE 9: VARIATION AND RESPONSE RATE OF SURVEY ITEMS Item Mean Standard Deviation N/A N/A N/A 1.23 1.19 1.15 1.09 1.05 1.09 1.04 .93 1.09 1.07 .76 1.44 .84 1.33 1.35 8.66 8.27 Minimum Real Score N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 Maximum Real Score N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 59 33 N

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 D20 D23

N/A N/A N/A 2.51 2.94 2.68 3.31 2.99 2.78 3.88 1.91 2.54 2.90 1.47 2.60 3.36 2.71 2.24 37.42 12.93

272 262 267 270 267 271 270 272 272 270 270 270 271 267 270 270 268 267 253 267 236

Respondents Answering All Items Description of Items: A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 -------------

Do you live in working community Do you live in working community by choice Would you ever choose to live in working community Share family values of community Share religious values of community Share economic values of community Share political values of community Community supports you Community wants you to enforce law Community is quick to turn on you You can use your own judgment You feel helpless in dealing with crime

91 M13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 D20 D23 --------You feel your crime fighting efforts are useless Degree of your on duty involvement Degree of your off duty involvement Has your involvement changed in recent times Are other officers less involved since verdicts Are you less involved since verdicts Age Seniority

92 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. this analysis is to present

The purpose of descriptive

preliminary

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). 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 (mean 19.14), followed by "White" officers (mean alienation
12

As for the variable

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.

93 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 As the having mean least less scores desire willingness indicated for for white

proactive officers

enforcement. generally had

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 revealed for no the variable of "Marital Status," police Table 10

significant

difference,

yet

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. mean scores had indicated the least divorced desire or for separated proactive As

officers

generally

enforcement

(mean 13.04), followed by married (mean 12.43), and then by single (mean 11.79). This anomaly could be due to the

relatively small sample size of the divorced or separated

94 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 concepts. 10 also shows the mean scores for the three

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. sample was 17.04, which

The mean "Mastery" score of the is just below the theoretical

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

95 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.

96 TABLE 10: MEAN SCORES OF CONCEPTS BY SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Characteristic Alienation Enforcement Gender Male Female Age 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55+ Race White Black Other N % Mastery Mean Score Proactive

259 13 8 50 52 37 44 37 20 5 229 23 14

95.2 4.8 2.9 18.4 19.1 13.6 16.2 13.6 7.4 1.8 84.2 8.5 5.1 75.4 23.9 23.2 22.8 28.3 23.9

11.39 13.09 10.25 13.47 11.08 11.51 11.30 10.53 10.30 11.20 11.72 8.57 12.36 11.83 10.14 12.72 10.90 11.03 11.24

17.00 17.92 13.13 17.34 16.57 18.50 17.14 17.30 15.55 18.80 17.02 16.09 19.14 16.40 17.22 16.87 16.31 17.46 17.32

12.34 13.33 11.14 11.89 11.63 11.64 13.07 13.64 12.25 15.00 12.58 11.52 10.23 12.38 12.38 11.63 11.63 12.30 13.84

Rank Police Officer 205 Sergeant or Higher 65 Seniority 1-5 years 6-10 11-20 21+ 63 62 77 65

Total

272

100

11.46

17.04

12.38

Note:

97 !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 TABLE 10: Continued Characteristic Alienation Mastery N % Mean Score Enforcement Education High School Some College Bachelor Some Graduate or Higher Marital Status Single Married Divorced or Separated Residency: Lives in Working Community Yes No Degree of Urbanism High Moderate Low Total

Proactive

17 137 78 38 47 199 23

6.3 50.4 28.7 14.0 17.3 73.2 8.5

10.47 11.64 10.69 12.92 12.50 11.44 9.91

17.44 17.30 16.34 17.38 16.76 17.16 16.24

13.35 12.39 11.71 13.28 11.79 12.43 13.04

168 104

61.8 38.2

10.40 13.21

16.34 18.15

11.94 13.09

100 131 41 272

36.8 48.2 15.1 100

11.67 11.89 9.61 11.46

16.85 17.67 15.44 17.04

12.17 12.93 11.10 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.

99 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. these bivariate correlations have In a less strict sense 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 Alienation 1.00 .49 1.00 .42 1.00 Mastery Proactive Enforcement

Proactive Enforcement .32

100

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)

101 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 of shows, when the regression equation (Model only 1),

consists

six

social

demographic

variables

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 jumps to equation, .2692. the coefficient R2 increment of of determination, .2656 is R2

This

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 confirm from that a social-science is standard. indeed an These important findings factor

alienation

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

102 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 significant 12 and (Model 2) also shows a with statistically the social Other

positive

relationship

demographic variable of "Age" and the Mastery score.

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" and the Mastery score. Other things being equal, a white

103 police officer would generally be 1.55 of a unit lower on the Mastery Scale than a non-white. generally officers. have a higher sense This means white officers of mastery than non-white

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

104 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.

105
TABLE 12: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF ALIENATION AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLE "MASTERY" Explanatory Variables Social Demographic Variables: Age Race: White vs. Non-White (D) Rank: Police Officer vs. Sgt or higher (D) Education: Bachelor or higher vs. Other (D) Marital Status: Married vs. Other (D) Degree of Urbanism: High vs. Other (D) Measures of Alienation: Residence and Choice Variable Alienation Scale Constant Adjusted R5 R5 Increment Note: t * ** D Statistics in parentheses Significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test Significant at the 0.01 level, two-tailed test Denotes a dichotomous variable 13.96 .0036 .28 (1.33) .54** (7.82) 8.47 .2692 .2656 .06 (1.4) -.49 (-.61) 1.63* (2.10) -.49 (-.89) .58 (.90) -.12 (-.20) .08* (2.39) -1.55* (-2.18) .82 (1.19) -.82 (-1.69) .15 (.27) -.79 (-1.53) Hierarchical Regression Models Model 1 Model 2

106
TABLE 13: PREDICTED "MASTERY" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Simulation Based On Regression Model 2 Of Table 12) Personal Characteristics 5 White, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Police Officer, Proactive Enforcement score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do Not live there and would not choose to Non-white, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Police Officer, Proactive Enforcement score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to White, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Sergeant or higher, Proactive Enforcement score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to Non-white, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Sergeant or higher, Proactive Enforcement score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to Given Alienation Score 10 15 20

12.22 12.50 12.78 13.06

14.92 15.20 15.48 15.76

17.62 17.90 18.18 18.46

20.32 20.60 20.88 21.16

13.77 14.05 14.33 14.61

16.47 16.75 17.03 17.31

19.17 19.45 19.73 20.01

21.87 22.15 22.43 22.71

11.40 11.68 11.96 12.24

14.10 14.38 14.66 14.94

16.80 17.08 17.36 17.64

19.50 19.78 20.06 20.34

12.95 13.23 13.51 13.79

15.65 15.93 16.21 16.49

18.35 18.63 18.91 19.19

21.05 21.33 21.61 21.89

107 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 Lastly, by adding

these two variables measuring alienation.

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 of all other variables. This positive relationship is also

108 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. are The coefficients for at both a of these level,

variables

statistically

significant

0.01

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 the is not significant. police This

indicates

that

relationship

between

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. stated with a fair

Taking Model 3 as a whole, it can be degree of confidence, that the

hypothesized relationship between alienation and proactive enforcement was confirmed by the data. Table significant 14 and (Model 3) also shows a with statistically the social

positive

relationship

demographic variables of "Age" and "Race," and the Proactive Enforcement score. Other things being equal, a one year

increase in age increased the Proactive Enforcement score

109 by .12, and a white police officer would generally be 1.32 of a unit higher on the Proactive Enforcement Scale than a nonwhite. 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 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 Social Demographic Variables: Age Race: White vs. Non-White (D) Rank: Police Officer vs. Sgt or higher (D) Education: Bachelor or higher vs. Other (D) Marital Status: Married vs. Other (D) Degree of Urbanism: High vs. Other (D) Measures of Alienation: Residence and Choice Variable Alienation Scale Measure of Mastery: Mastery Scale Constant Adjusted R5 R5 Increment Note: t * ** D Statistics in parentheses Significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test Significant at the 0.01 level, two-tailed test Denotes a dichotomous variable 5.74 .0368 2.01 .1660 .1292 .28** (4.59) -.46 .2347 .0687 -.08 (-.36) .37** (5.45) -.13 (-.68) .21** (2.87) .12** (3.30) 1.45* (1.95) 1.37* (1.98) -.18 (-.37) -.15 (-.27) .37 (.69) .14** (4.14) .87 (1.22) .78 (1.17) -.30 (-.62) -.28 (-.50) -.05 (-.10) .12** (3.72) 1.32* (1.92) .60 (.94) -.03 (-.07) -.44 (-.81) .14 (.28) Hierarchical Regression Models Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

111
TABLE 15: PREDICTED "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT" SCORES BY ALIENATION AND SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Simulation Based On Regression Model 3 Of Table 14) Personal Characteristics 5 White, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Police Officer, Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to Non-white, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Police Officer, Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to White, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Sergeant or higher, Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to Non-white, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Sergeant or higher, Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to Given Alienation Score 10 15 20

9.38 9.25 9.11 8.98

10.43 10.29 10.16 10.03

11.48 11.34 11.21 11.08

12.53 12.39 12.26 12.12

8.06 7.92 7.79 7.65

9.11 8.97 8.84 8.70

10.16 10.02 9.89 9.75

11.20 11.07 10.94 10.80

8.78 8.64 8.51 8.37

9.82 9.69 9.51 9.42

10.87 10.74 10.61 10.47

11.92 11.79 11.65 11.52

7.45 7.32 7.18 7.05

8.50 8.37 8.23 8.10

9.55 9.42 9.28 9.15

10.60 10.47 10.33 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 As

rating score, taking the sum of responses to P17 and P18.

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 socialscience standard. Table 16 (Model 2) also shows a positive relationship between the Alienation Scale and the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts Scale, where one unit of increase in the

113 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. is added into the

However, when the Mastery Scale equation (Model 3), the A

regression

coefficient of the Alienation Scale becomes insignificant.

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. variable is statistically The coefficient for this at the 0.01 level,

significant

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. Table significant 16 and (Model 3) also shows a with statistically the social

positive

relationship

114 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 alienation than on older officers. Overall, the impact of is

proactive

enforcement

since

verdicts

complicated: Model 2 can confirm the research hypothesis, but Model 3 cannot. This is probably because and the causal

relationships

between

alienation,

mastery,

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

17 presents predicted Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts scores by different values of alienation and selected

personal characteristics.

For instance, for a police officer

115 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. having the same other For a non-white officer the Proactive Likewise,

characteristics,

Enforcement Since Verdicts score would be 4.98.

for a sergeant or higher who is white with the same other characteristics, the Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts

score would be 5.40. characteristics, the

For a non-white with the same other Proactive Enforcement Since Verdicts

score would be 4.55. inverse police relationship officers' since as

This table also clearly shows the hypothesized of by this study, that

degree

willingness would steadily

for

proactive with

enforcement

verdicts16

decrease

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' degree of willingness for proactive enforcement since

verdicts.

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
TABLE 16: ESTIMATED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF MASTERY AND OTHER VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLE "PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT SINCE VERDICTS" Explanatory Variables Social Demographic Variables: Age Race: White vs. Non-White (D) Rank: Police Officer vs. Sgt or higher (D) Education: Bachelor or higher vs. Other (D) Marital Status: Married vs. Other (D) Degree of Urbanism: High vs. Other (D) Measures of Alienation: Residence and Choice Variable Alienation Scale Measure of Mastery: Mastery Scale Constant Adjusted R5 R5 Increment Note: t * ** D Statistics in parentheses Significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test Significant at the 0.01 level, two-tailed test Denotes a dichotomous variable .69 .0430 -.60 .0760 .0330 .19** (4.74) -2.17 .1531 .0771 .11 (.82) .11* (2.47) .06 (.47) .00 (.04) .08** (3.73) .73 (1.62) .80 (1.91) -.01 (-.04) -.20 (-.58) .46 (1.41) .09** (4.02) .55 (1.21) .60 (1.40) -.10 (-.34) -.30 (-.83) .26 (.80) .07** (3.47) .86 (1.94) .43 (1.04) .09 (.30) -.37 (-1.06) .37 (1.17) Hierarchical Regression Models Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

117
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 5 White, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Police Officer, Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to Non-white, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Police Officer, Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to White, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Sergeant or higher, Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to Non-white, Age 37, Married, Education: Bachelor or higher, Rank: Sergeant or higher, Mastery score 10 Live in working community by choice Do not live there, but would choose to Live there, but did not choose to Do not live there and would not choose to Given Alienation Score 10 15 20

5.83 5.89 5.95 6.01

5.84 5.90 5.96 6.02

5.85 5.91 5.97 6.03

5.86 5.92 5.98 6.04

4.98 5.03 5.09 5.15

4.99 5.04 5.10 5.16

5.00 5.05 5.11 5.17

5.01 5.06 5.12 5.18

5.40 5.46 5.52 5.58

5.41 5.47 5.53 5.59

5.42 5.48 5.54 5.60

5.43 5.49 5.55 5.61

4.55 4.61 4.66 4.72

4.56 4.62 4.67 4.73

4.57 4.63 4.68 4.74

4.58 4.64 4.69 4.75

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 States. police departments located in the Midwest United

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, theoretical proposed. present the and statistical hypothetical analysis confirmed this the study

relationships

In specific reference to the five hypotheses, the study found: 1) police in officers reporting where more they after

alienation patrolled

from also

citizens reported a

the

community of

lower

level

mastery,

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

118

community where they patrolled also reported less willingness for proactive enforcement, and after controlling This for social was

demographic statistically officers

variables

mastery. at the 0.01 with

finding 3)

significant more

level,

police in the

reporting

alienation

citizens

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. hypothesis were not However, the findings of this significant, and 5) in

statistically

regard to the social demographic variables, a significant relationship was found in Model 3 of the regression analysis with age and race. having Age a was found to be statistically with the

significant

and

positive

relationship

Mastery score, Proactive Enforcement score, and Proactive Since Verdicts score, meaning younger officers generally had

119

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 nonwhite officers. significant and Race was also found to be statistically 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 citizens females. by are Schmidt more et al. to (1982) who found from that male than

likely

withdraw

others

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.

120

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

121

(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 hypothesized. since verdicts, in an inverse direction as

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

122

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 of can often entire affect the morale and and work by

productivity

their

department,

research

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 status." of "Gender," "Race," "Education," and "Marital

Accordingly, gender was eliminated because only Race was collapsed from the

4.8% of the sample were female.

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. school, Education was collapsed from the categories of high some college, bachelor degree, or some graduate

school or higher, into the dichotomous groupings of high

123

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, groupings because or of divorced married, only or or separated, single, into the or dichotomous separated, and

divorced of

single

comprised

17.3%

the

sample,

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. instance, since this study did not anticipate For

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 responses to live were there?" eliminated These from

logically

inconsistent

124

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

125

(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 exhaustive the Proactive they Since were Verdicts negative Scale (i.e., were they not only

because

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 study should regarding also in be this the external validity the by of this

recognized study were

because selected from

police a non-

departments probability

used

judgmental

sampling

method

departments

located in one county. biased.

As a result, the findings may be

More meaningful extrapolations would be possible if

the sampled departments were selected on a random basis from a larger population. possible with the However, such sampling method was not research. The results remain

current

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).

126

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. primarily namely used one type of construct analysis, Since this study method, by

validation other

exploratory

factor

research

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

127

versus them." the department

In other words, the social environment within 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 officers. on the effect of alienation on female police

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.

128

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.

129

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, verdicts. measures mastery, and proactive enforcement since

In addition, because this scale only had two (P17 and P18), future research having more

components would increase its validity.

130

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 involved in fighting

of a police officer to be actively crime since recent highly

publicized judicial verdicts such as Rodney King (Los Angeles

against police officers, 3/3/91), Malice Green (Los Angeles

(Detroit 11/5/92), and O. J. Simpson 6/12/94).

131

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. community, older. the urban Relative to a suburban or rural community is usually larger and

It also possesses a higher degree of population

density; heterogeneity of ethnicity, race, and values; lines of communication; zoning districts (i.e.,

132

residential, "substantial

business, personal

and

manufacturing); in

and

anonymity

interpersonal

contacts" (Gould & Kolb 1964:738-739).

133

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

134

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 administered questionnaire. be conducted with a self

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.

135

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.

136

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 4.To 0. Not applicable the

what degree do you share the family values of citizens in the community where you work? 2. Much 5. Very little 3. Moderately

1. Very much 4. Little

5.To what degree do you share the religious values of the citizens in the community where you work? 1. Very much2. Much 4. Little5. Very little 3.Moderately

137

6.To what degree do you share the economic values (work ethic) of the citizens in the community where you work? 1. Very much 4. Little 2. Much 5. Very little 3. Moderately

7.To what degree do you share the political values of the citizens in the community where you work? 1. Very much 4. Little 2. Much 5. Very little 3. Moderately

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 4. Little 2. Much 5. Very little 3. Moderately

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 4. Little 2. Much 5. Very little 3. Moderately

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 2. Little 4. Much 1. Very little 3. Moderately

138

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 4. Little 2. Much 5. Very little 3. Moderately

12.To what degree do you feel helpless in dealing with potentially serious crime (felonies) in the community where you work? 5. Very much 2. Little 4. Much 1. Very little 3. Moderately

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 2. Little 4. Much 1. Very little 3. Moderately

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 4. Little 2. Much 5. Very little 3. Moderately

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?

139

1. Very much 4. Little

2. Much 5. Very little

3. Moderately

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 than in the past 3. About the same desire as 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 3. Moderately less willing 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 3. Moderately less willing willing 1. Very little less willing 4. Much less willing 2. A little less 4. Much less willing 2. A little less 2. Much more desire than in the past 4. Much less than in the past desire

140

AGAIN, PLEASE CIRCLE, OR WRITE IN WHERE APPROPRIATE, YOUR ANSWER TO EACH ITEM -- THANK YOU. 19.Are you male or female? 20.What year were you born? 21.What is your race (circle one)? 1. White 4. Arabic 22.What is your rank? 1. Police Officer or corporal 2. Sergeant 3. Lieutenant or above 2. Black3. Hispanic 5. Asian6. Other 1. Male 2. Female

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

141

BIBLIOGRAPHY Babbie, Earl; 1989, The Practice of Social Research, Fifth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Bartol, Curt; 1982, "Psychological Characteristics of SmallTown 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, "PoliceCommunity 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 Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. and

Durkheim, Emile; Translated by W.D. Halls, [1893] 1984, The Division of Labour in Society. Houndsmills, England: Macmillan.

142

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." Sociological Review, (February):1-8. Fromm, Eric; 1941, Escape From Freedom. Rinehart and Winston Inc. Fromm, Eric; 1955, The Sane Society. Rinehart & Winston, Inc. American

New York, NY: Holt, New York, NY: Holt,

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 Reconstruction. New York, NY: Harcourt and Brace. Age of

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.

143

Meszaros, Istvan; 1970, Marx's Theory of Alienation. England.

London,

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 Officers." The Police Chief, (February):38-42. Schaff, Adam; 1980, Alienation Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press Inc. as a Social Police

Phenomenon.

Schmidt, Donald, Michael Conn, Lawrence Greene, and Kay Mesirow; 1982, "Social Alienation and Social Support." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, (September):515521. Schmitt, Richard; 1983, Alienation and Class. MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc. Cambridge,

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, [19021917] 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.

144

Srole, Leo; 1956, "Social Integration and Corollaries: An Exploratory Study." Sociological Review, (December): 709-16.

Certain American

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.

145

ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF ALIENATION ON POLICE OFFICERS' SENSE OF MASTERY AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT by ROBERT CAMILLE ANKONY May 1997 Advisor: Thomas M. Kelley Major: Degree: Sociology (Criminology) 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). existed It between investigated the level if of an inverse as

relationship

alienation

perceived by police officers from citizens in the community where they patrolled, and their sense of mastery and It

willingness to respond proactively to serious crime.

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

146

to proactively enforce the law since recent highly publicized judicial verdicts against police officers, such as incidents involving Rodney King, Malice Green, and O.J. Simpson. addition, it hypothesized that officers working In 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 surveying hypotheses 272 were tested police with data obtained ranked from as a

uniformed

officers

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. regarding was Significance the degree "Age" of was of not found with the

hypothesis significance generally proactive

urbanism. younger

However, officers for

found

with

where

had

more

sense and

mastery, willingness

willingness for

enforcement,

proactive

147

enforcement

since

verdicts;

and

with

"Race"

where

white

officers generally had a higher level of mastery but less willingness for proactive enforcement.

148

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 19651968 Decorations: The Bronze Star Medal, Quang Tri, Vietnam 1968

149

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

150