- Email: [email protected]
Personality patterns of British police officers
Person.
individ. DI# Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 507-512. Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
1983
o191-8869183 $3.0O+o.~
Copyright C 1983Pcrgamon PressLtd
PERSONALITY PATTERNS OF BRITISH POLICE OFFICERS GISLI H. GUDJONSSON Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, England and
K. R. C. ADLAM Police Staff College, Bramshill, Hampshire, England (Received
IO
November
1982)
Summary-This study investigates personality patterns in four different British police groups. The subjects comprised: (i) 84 police recruits; (ii) 84 probationary constables; (iii) 73 experienced constables; and (iv) 112 officers of senior rank. Of particular interest were personality traits measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and the Eysencks’ 15. The former measures Psychoticism (P), Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N), whereas the latter monitors Impulsiveness (Imp), Venturesomeness (Vent) and Empathy (Emp). All groups tended to be low on P, but whereas the recruits were highly extraverted, venturesome and impulsive, the remaining groups were more reserved, controlled and exhibited fewer empathetic responses. The findings are discussed in terms of ‘wastage’ and occupational socialization.
INTRODUCTION
During recent years a number of American social scientists have, in conjunction with their own research findings, presented careful reviews of studies dealing with the psychological attributes of police officers; their conclusions have never quite agreed with each other and, whilst not necessarily contradictory, have led to a more comprehensive appreciation of the personality and attitudinal characteristics of police officers. Researchers in other countries have also made their contribution to the debate and in Britain the last decade has seen the beginnings of the psychological exploration of British police officers. Various American reviewers arrived at different conclusions: Balch (1972) focussing almost exclusively upon Authoritarianism indicated that the research data were inconclusive; certainly it would be false to claim categorically that American police officers were more authoritarian than the public they police. In addition Balch believed that, in a sense, the American police officer was like the middle- or working-class white citizen. However, whilst Balch emphasized the likely similarity of the police officer to everyone else, Lefkowitz (1975) contended that there was evidence to conclude that police officers distinguished themselves psychologically. Lefkowitz indicated that officers might be characterized according to, “Trait Syndrome I: Isolation and Secrecy; Defensiveness and Suspiciousness; Cynicism” and “Trait Syndrome II: Authoritarianism, Status Concerns and Violence”. In addition Lefkowitz drew attention to the self-assertiveness of police officers and noted that there were fewer incidents of psychopathology among officers than among the general population. Fenster, Wiedemann and Locke (1976), partly in response to the fact that many studies had painted a picture of the “police personality as psychologically unhealthy” and partly to provide original data of their own, used a variety of psychological testing instruments on samples of New York City police officers and non-police civilians and concluded that police officers were in general, more intelligent, more masculine, less neurotic and more extraverted than the civilian sample. Indeed, Fenster et al. concluded that police officers may represent a “superior subsample of the population”. Finally, Hanewicz (1978) pursuing the notion that police officers might well display characteristics common to members of their own occupation but not exclusively so (that is, that police officers were a relatively homogeneous group but that other occupations attracted the same type of individual as well), presented evidence that a certain type was well represented among recruit PAID 4/s-E
507
508
(;ISLIH. GWJONSSON
and K. R. C. ADLAM
and veteran police officers in Michigan and Florida. This ‘type’ was essentially matter-of-fact, impersonal and orderly, preferring routine and rules to spontaneity structured situations.
practical, and un-
Very little work on the attributes of British police officers has been published. Butler and Cochrane (1977), using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Rokeach Value Survey, concluded that socialization within the police organization makes police officers become independent in decision making and more willing to argue their point of view. There also appears to be an overall increase in self-esteem. More recently, Butler (1982) asserted that exposure to police work involves a period of socialization which leads to significant changes in personality and the attitude of police officers. In a similar fashion, Coleman and Gorman (1982) concluded that whilst “basic training has a temporary liberalizing effect” on the social attitudes of recruits “continued police service results in increasingly illiberal/intolerant attitudes towards immigrants.” Potter (1977) in an unpublished study using the Wilson-Patterson Attitude Inventory, noted that police officers generally had a conservative outlook and concluded that, “the police are more conservative in outlook than the sources from which they are drawn.” Gibson (1982) tested almost 100 constables with 18 month service using the 16PF and found that his sample were “generally more intelligent, more emotionally stable, more enthusiastic, adventurous, dependent on groups and relaxed” than the general public. In general, the British researchers reach similar conclusions about British police officers as American researchers do about American police officers. Thus, for example, it is interesting to note the similarities between Gibson’s (1982) conclusions and those of Fenster et al. (1976). Adlam (1983) in his study of the various ranks in the British police had found the predominance of the same type reported by Hanewicz (1978). The difference between American and British researchers seems to lie in the notions of causation; whilst the Americans entertain a variety of hypotheses the British seem to place the greatest emphasis on the impact of occupational socialization. The present study has two major objectives. Firstly, there exists in Britain a relative absence of information comparing personality characteristics of police officers with non-police citizens. The present study aims to bridge this gap by comparing personality scores of various groups of police officers with normative groups. Secondly, the authors are interested in exploring the impact of police experience upon police officers. To date, Lefkowitz (1975) remains the only researcher who has systematically articulated the ‘overlapping’ determinants that could be advanced to account for the characteristics observed among police officers. In essence, Lefkowitz envisages a number of filters that are operating and a number of ‘presses’ which are shaping the overall psychological landscape of police officers. In brief, it may be said that certain ‘types’ may be drawn to police work. Certain types are ‘looked for’ by the selection process, certain inappropriate types resign, certain powerful experiences and pressures leave their indelible mark and certain elements of the police role ‘call-out’ requisite behaviours. It is on this last issue that there is probably considerable room for individual variation in terms of distance between self and role. The present study postulates a number of hypotheses; some hypotheses were arrived at on an a priori basis. Others were derived from previous research. Hypothesis 1
Recruit normative changing demands
police officers will be more extraverted and adventurous (‘stimulus-hungry’) than the population. They are attracted to police work because policing is imagined to be a social, and exciting occupation. They will tend to be stable in view of the perceived stressful commonly associated with police work.
Hypothesis2
All police groups will be more conforming and obedient (low Psychoticism score) than the normative group. This hypothesis hinges on the assumption that recruits imagine that policing is necessarily an occupation embracing a pro-social ideology and that experienced officers, to survive within the organization, could not easily display marked anti-social characteristics. Hypothesis 3
Given the claim that police experience is a powerful determinant certain differences should be observed between recruits. probationary
of personality development constables and experienced
Personality
patterns
of policemen
officers. The tnajor differences would relate to impulsive officers would have greatest control and recruits least.
509
and
emotional
control.
Experienced
METHOD
Subjects The Ss comprised
the following
four police groups:
(i) 84 recruits who were engaged upon a 16-week training course at the Hendon Police Training School. Seventy-four were male and 10 were female, the mean ages being 21.4 (SD = 3.3) and 19.7 yr (SD = 3.02), respectively. Thirty-seven were tested during the first few days of training and 47 at the end of the 16 weeks. The purpose was to monitor any possible effects of police training; (ii) 84 probationary constables who had had approx. 18 months police experience. The probationers were tested at the Hendon Police Training School and comprised 64 males and 20 females, with mean ages of 23.5 (SD = 4.5) and 23.7 yr (SD = 3.3), respectively; (iii) 73 were experienced constables from eight different police forces in England and Wales. The constables were all male with the mean length of police service being 19.9 yr (SD = 4.59). They were tested individually at their own police stations. Therefore, in order to ensure anonymity many failed to specify their age on the inventories, but their ages were approx. 40 yr; (iv) 112 senior police officers attending promotion courses at the Bramshill Police Staff College. They were all male and of the rank of Inspector or above, with a mean age of 39.5 yr (SD = 5.85). The average length of service was 19.5 yr. Testing
instruments
(i) Eysenck
Persona&, Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975). The EPQ was used to the personality dimensions of Psychoticism (P), Neuroticism (N) and Extraversion (E). (ii) The 15. This was used to measure the traits of Impulsiveness (Imp), Venturesomeness (Vent) and Empathy (Emp). This is a 63-item inventory constructed by Eysenck and Eysenck (1978).
measure
Procedure
The recruits, the probationary constables and the senior officers were tested in fairly large groups. They were told that the purpose of testing was to investigate personality and occupational stress. The procedure had to be a little different for the experienced constables since they were not available in group settings. They were all approached individually, but as with all the Ss it was emphasized that all individual results would be strictly confidential. RESULTS Recruits
and probationar!,
constables
The personality scores of male recruits and probationary constables are shown in Table 1. When compared with normative groups of similar age, the recruits were found to be high on E, Imp and Vent, but low on P. The probationary constables, on the other hand, were introverted and had low Emp. They did not differ significantly from the normative group in Imp and Vent. The constables were significantly more introverted than the recruits (t = 4.28, P < 0.001) and scored lower on Emp (t = 2.31, P < 0.05). Female recruits and probationary constables only differed significantly from the normative groups on E and there were no significant differences between the two groups on any of the scales. The mean and SD scores are shown in Table 2. In order to monitor the effects of police training on the personality scores, recruits at the beginning of their training were compared with those at the end of their training. No marked or significant differences were noted. Experienced
constables
and senior officers
The personality scores of experienced constables and senior officers are shown in Table 3. Both groups scored very low on Imp, Vent, Emp and P. In addition, the senior officers scored significantly lower than the normative group (matched for age) on the Lie (L) scale. Experienced
GELI
510 Table
H. GUUJONSSON and K. R. C. ADLAM
I. Personality
scores
of male recruits stables
probationary
Probationary constables (N=64)
Recruits (N = 74) Mean
SD
P E N L
3.70** 15.95** 10.49 6.81
Imp Vent
12.23** 12.10** 11.33
Scale
and
con-
Normative scores
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
2.23 3.55 4-8 I 3.21
4.06 13,08’ 10.20 5.86
2.91 4.23 5.58 2.70
4.63 14.46 10.69 6.05
3.27 4.27 5.08 3.80
4.45 2.21 3.00
11.11 11.33 10.06**
3.68 3.50 3.35
10.49 10.82 11.61
5.40 3.68 3.13
EPQ
I5
Emp
different
*Significantly **p < 0.001. Table
2. Personality
scores
from
normative
of female
recruits
Recruits (N = IO) Scale
at
scores
P cO.01,
and probationary
Probationary constables (N = 20)
constables
Normative
scores
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
P E N L
2.30 15&l* 14.50 9.10
1.60 3.34 4.58 3.51
2.45 15.40; 12.85 6.85
1.82 4.60 3.82 3.95
2.79 12.89 12.87 7.17
2.41 4.70 4.49 3.85
Imp Vent Emp
13.70 9.10 13.90
4.90 2.88 2.08
II.35 8.75 13.15
3.87 4.08 2.41
10.70 9.02 14.07
4.95 3.74 2.73
EPQ
I5
*Significantly Table
different
3. Personality
from normative
scores of experienced
Experienced constables (N = 73) Mean
scores at P < 0.01. constables
Senior officers (A’ = 112)
SD
Mean
and senior officers
_
Normative
scores
SD
Mean
SD
EPQ P E N L
2.51;; 12.88 9.48 7.66
1.99 4.83 5.52 4.05
2.34*** 11.85 9.75 6.49**
1.74 5.65 5.27 3.44
3.27 12.85 9.33 7.53
2.15 4.73 5.18 4.51
4.41 3.42 2.73
7.91** 8.79* 10.00**
4.14 3.81 2.84
10.49 10.82 11.61
5.40 3.68 3.13
I5 Imp Vent Emv *Significantly
7.41*** 7.22*** 9.33*** different
from normative
scores
at P < 0.05. **P -c 0.01, ***P
i 0.001.
constables scored significantly lower on the Vent scale than the senior officers (t = 2.91, P < O.Ol), but had higher L scores (t = 2.05, P c 0.05). No other significant differences were observed between the two groups. Separate analyses were carried out for uniformed officers and detectives among the senior group. No significant differences emerged on any of the scales.
DISCUSSION
The results from the present study broadly confirm the hypotheses being tested. It seems that the males who are training to become policemen tend to be highly extraverted, venturesome and impulsive, but conforming. Except for E, female recruits did not appear to differ markedly on the personality measures. Part of the reason could be that the number of female recruits was very low and significant differences would consequently only emerge if the differences were very large. The most noteworthy differences between male recruits and probationary constables related to
Personality patterns of policemen
511
the E and Emp scores. Although they did not differ significantly from recruits on Imp and Vent, probationary constables, unlike recruits, did not differ from the normative group. What can be concluded is that probationary constables appear relatively more reserved and controlled than recruits. The scores for female officers showed the same pattern, but the numbers were too small for significant differences to emerge. The most striking characteristics among the experienced constables and senior officers are the low Imp, Vent, P and Emp scores. Part of the explanation for the low Imp and Vent scores could relate to the fact that they tend to be negatively correlated with age (Zuckerman, Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978). The mean age of 26.41 yr (SD = 10.43) for the normative male group on the 15 (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978), falls between the recruits and the experienced officers. It would seem that the difference between the police groups is larger than one would expect if it was related to age alone. Considering the nature of police work, impulsiveness would tend to be an undesirable characteristic for effective and successful police work. Self-control is generally encouraged within the British police and occupational socialization may therefore lead to a fall in impulsiveness with experience, or alternatively, police officers may become more reluctant to admit to such traits. An alternative explanation is that highly-impulsive officers are forced to resign, or leave on their own accord. Only a longitudinal study could separate the relative importance of these explanations. It is acknowledged that some of the traits measured in the present study probably have a strong genetic basis (Eysenck, 1967; Eaves, Martin and Eysenck, 1977), but environmental influence and occupational socialization should not be overlooked. The large differences between groups on the Vent scale need further comment. It was argued in the Introduction that recruit police officers would tend to be extraverted and adventurous because the image of the police is that it is an exciting and varied occupation. The hypothesis was clearly confirmed. However, the marked decline in Vent with experience, and in particular the very low score among experienced constables, raises some interesting questions. Does it simply reflect the mellowing effect of accumulated experience, which after a while makes police officers want to settle for a quiet life? Alternatively, experience may show them that it is perhaps wiser not to rush into things. Another explanation is that police work does not fulfill the promise of an exciting career, making officers high on Vent leave the force. Further research is required before definite conclusions can be drawn about these issues. Future studies should also attempt to investigate, on a longitudinal basis, to what extent, if at all, venturesomeness in police officers declines at a different rate to that in other occupations. The present results suggest that, as far as personality dimensions are concerned Emp is most affected by occupational socialization. All the police groups, except for recruits, exhibited consistently low Emp scores. The scores were similar for the probationary constables, experienced constables and senior officers, suggesting that Emp is quite readily affected by police experience. As there was no significant difference in Emp scores between recruits commencing their training and recruits finishing their training it may be concluded that police training has no noticeable effects on personality over a 16-week period. This finding concurs with that of Butler (1982) who found that it was police experience rather than training that had most noticeable effects upon personality and attitudes. It may be speculated that through occupational demands police officers soon learn not to express tender feelings, keeping up with the tough and ‘macho’ image common to police officers (Rohland, 1982). The finding that the N (trait anxiety) scores were normally distributed is contrary to the prediction made in the Introduction. Police recruits, probationary constables, experienced constables and senior officers, are as likely to be anxious as they are emotionally stable. It does however, confirm the observations made by Levy (1967) that success in police work relates to “emotional suitability” rather than “emotional stability”. What seems to be more pertinent than emotional lability is good impulse control and lack of pathology as measured by the Eysenck P factor. The overall low L scores among the police groups indicates that on the whole the subjects were insightful and exhibited few test-faking responses. There was some trend for the L scores to be reduced with experience; this was most evident among the senior officers. The L score among the experienced constables appeared to be relatively high, indicating a greater degree of defensiveness, which may to some extent have been due to the fact that they were tested individually.
512
GISLI H. GUDJONSSONand K.
R. C.
ADLAM
What are the implications of the overall findings? Firstly, they sound a warning to those who would attempt to stereotype police officers, for clearly in some areas, there is a distinct variety of fundamental traits of personality. Secondly, the data corroborated one of the prevailing social images of the police officer in Britain, a controlled somewhat unfeeling individual. The findings sound both positive and negative notes for the police service. On the negative side it is worth explaining some of the consequences of the rather low empathy characteristic of some police officers. A lack of feeling may impede the responsiveness of the police to some of the developments within the community designed to aid victims both ofcrimes and circumstances. Low empathy also implies a lack of responsiveness to innovations within the police-such as a re-evaluation of the deployment of resources-as well as to police/community relation schemes, designed to secure the assent of the community to policing behaviour. Additionally the data suggests that police officers are not too likely to attack the police subculture’s image of the ‘good copper’. i.e. the rather tough masculine individual who practices law enforcement rather than the service-orientated dimension of policing. The findings should, however, not be interpreted to suggest that police officers are in general necessarily unconcerned about the public. Furthermore, not being inclined to become emotionally involved may be an effective adaptive mechanism that helps police officers to cope more successfully with stressful situations. On the positive side, the data imply a certain richness of personalities within the various police groups, where a personality pattern is discernible the qualities seem appropriate to the exigencies of police work. The ability to display control as well as the low P score indicate types of individuals who are both steady and able to cope with a range of demanding situations (Evans, 1981). Finally, the present study has raised a number of questions which can only be confidently answered by a large longitudinal study. Some of the findings are sufficiently striking to warrant such a study. For example, within the police force there is a substantial ‘wastage’ through voluntary and involuntary resignations. It would be of enormous benefit to the police if it could be predicted on the basis of personality scores what ‘types’ are likely to leave the force prematurely. In addition, the effects of occupational socialization upon some of the major personality traits may have important implications for police stress and management. Ac~,lo~l,/e~gemenrs-The authors are grateful to the course directors and staff at Bramshill and to Sir Kenneth Newman, Commander Wells and Superintendant Lewis and their staff at the Metropolitan Police for their help and cooperation during this study. The authors arc also indebted to the Police Foundation of Great Britain for providing administrative support.
REFERENCES Adlam K. R. C. (1983) An extension of Hanewicz’s notion of the police personality. In preparation. Balch R. W. (1972) The police personality: fact or fiction? J. Grim. Law, Crimin. Police Sci. 63, 106119. Butler A. J. P. (1982) An examination of the influence of training and work experience on the attitudes and perceptions of police constables. Paper presented at the Int. Conf. on Psychology and Law, Swansea, 19-23 July. Butler A. J. P. and Cochrane R. (1977) An examination of some elements of the personality of police officers and their implications. J. Police Sci. Admin. 5, 441-450. Coleman A. M. and Gorman L. P. (1982) Conservatism, dogmatism and authoritarianism in British police officers. Sociology 16, l-l 1. Eaves L., Martin N. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1977) An application of the analysis of covariance structures to the psychogenetical study of impulsiveness. Br. J. Mach. srarisr. Ps_whol. 30, 185-197. Evans W. (1981) Stress and psychoticism. Person. indirid. Diff: 2, 21-24. Eysenck H. J. (1967) The Biological Basis of Personuliry. Thomas, Springfield, III. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1975) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton, London. Eysenck S. B. G. and Eysenck H. J. (1978) Impulsiveness and Venturesomeness: their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psycho/. Rep. 43, 1247-1255. Fenster C. A., Wiedemann C. F. and Locke B. (1976) Police personality-social science folklore and psychological measurement. In Psychofogy in the Legal Process (Edited by_Salis B. D.). Science Paperbacks, New York. Gibson J. (1982) Sauare negs in souare holes. Police Rec. 90. 1702-1707. Hanewicz W. B: (1978) PolLe personality: a Jungian perspective. Crinre Delinquency 24, 152-172. Lefkowitz J. (1975) Psychological attributes of policemen: a review of research and opinion. Social Iss 31, 3-26. Levy R. J. (1967) Predicting police failures. J. Crim. tilt., Crimin. Police Sci. 58, 265-276. Potter L. (1977) Police officer personality? Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Bradford. Rohland S. (1982) One man’s war against police stress. Police 14, 14. Zuckerman M., Eysenck S. B. G. and Eysenck H. J. (1978) Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural, age and sex comparison. J. consulr. clin. PsychoI. 46, 139-149.
individ. DI# Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 507-512. Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
1983
o191-8869183 $3.0O+o.~
Copyright C 1983Pcrgamon PressLtd
PERSONALITY PATTERNS OF BRITISH POLICE OFFICERS GISLI H. GUDJONSSON Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, England and
K. R. C. ADLAM Police Staff College, Bramshill, Hampshire, England (Received
IO
November
1982)
Summary-This study investigates personality patterns in four different British police groups. The subjects comprised: (i) 84 police recruits; (ii) 84 probationary constables; (iii) 73 experienced constables; and (iv) 112 officers of senior rank. Of particular interest were personality traits measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and the Eysencks’ 15. The former measures Psychoticism (P), Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N), whereas the latter monitors Impulsiveness (Imp), Venturesomeness (Vent) and Empathy (Emp). All groups tended to be low on P, but whereas the recruits were highly extraverted, venturesome and impulsive, the remaining groups were more reserved, controlled and exhibited fewer empathetic responses. The findings are discussed in terms of ‘wastage’ and occupational socialization.
INTRODUCTION
During recent years a number of American social scientists have, in conjunction with their own research findings, presented careful reviews of studies dealing with the psychological attributes of police officers; their conclusions have never quite agreed with each other and, whilst not necessarily contradictory, have led to a more comprehensive appreciation of the personality and attitudinal characteristics of police officers. Researchers in other countries have also made their contribution to the debate and in Britain the last decade has seen the beginnings of the psychological exploration of British police officers. Various American reviewers arrived at different conclusions: Balch (1972) focussing almost exclusively upon Authoritarianism indicated that the research data were inconclusive; certainly it would be false to claim categorically that American police officers were more authoritarian than the public they police. In addition Balch believed that, in a sense, the American police officer was like the middle- or working-class white citizen. However, whilst Balch emphasized the likely similarity of the police officer to everyone else, Lefkowitz (1975) contended that there was evidence to conclude that police officers distinguished themselves psychologically. Lefkowitz indicated that officers might be characterized according to, “Trait Syndrome I: Isolation and Secrecy; Defensiveness and Suspiciousness; Cynicism” and “Trait Syndrome II: Authoritarianism, Status Concerns and Violence”. In addition Lefkowitz drew attention to the self-assertiveness of police officers and noted that there were fewer incidents of psychopathology among officers than among the general population. Fenster, Wiedemann and Locke (1976), partly in response to the fact that many studies had painted a picture of the “police personality as psychologically unhealthy” and partly to provide original data of their own, used a variety of psychological testing instruments on samples of New York City police officers and non-police civilians and concluded that police officers were in general, more intelligent, more masculine, less neurotic and more extraverted than the civilian sample. Indeed, Fenster et al. concluded that police officers may represent a “superior subsample of the population”. Finally, Hanewicz (1978) pursuing the notion that police officers might well display characteristics common to members of their own occupation but not exclusively so (that is, that police officers were a relatively homogeneous group but that other occupations attracted the same type of individual as well), presented evidence that a certain type was well represented among recruit PAID 4/s-E
507
508
(;ISLIH. GWJONSSON
and K. R. C. ADLAM
and veteran police officers in Michigan and Florida. This ‘type’ was essentially matter-of-fact, impersonal and orderly, preferring routine and rules to spontaneity structured situations.
practical, and un-
Very little work on the attributes of British police officers has been published. Butler and Cochrane (1977), using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Rokeach Value Survey, concluded that socialization within the police organization makes police officers become independent in decision making and more willing to argue their point of view. There also appears to be an overall increase in self-esteem. More recently, Butler (1982) asserted that exposure to police work involves a period of socialization which leads to significant changes in personality and the attitude of police officers. In a similar fashion, Coleman and Gorman (1982) concluded that whilst “basic training has a temporary liberalizing effect” on the social attitudes of recruits “continued police service results in increasingly illiberal/intolerant attitudes towards immigrants.” Potter (1977) in an unpublished study using the Wilson-Patterson Attitude Inventory, noted that police officers generally had a conservative outlook and concluded that, “the police are more conservative in outlook than the sources from which they are drawn.” Gibson (1982) tested almost 100 constables with 18 month service using the 16PF and found that his sample were “generally more intelligent, more emotionally stable, more enthusiastic, adventurous, dependent on groups and relaxed” than the general public. In general, the British researchers reach similar conclusions about British police officers as American researchers do about American police officers. Thus, for example, it is interesting to note the similarities between Gibson’s (1982) conclusions and those of Fenster et al. (1976). Adlam (1983) in his study of the various ranks in the British police had found the predominance of the same type reported by Hanewicz (1978). The difference between American and British researchers seems to lie in the notions of causation; whilst the Americans entertain a variety of hypotheses the British seem to place the greatest emphasis on the impact of occupational socialization. The present study has two major objectives. Firstly, there exists in Britain a relative absence of information comparing personality characteristics of police officers with non-police citizens. The present study aims to bridge this gap by comparing personality scores of various groups of police officers with normative groups. Secondly, the authors are interested in exploring the impact of police experience upon police officers. To date, Lefkowitz (1975) remains the only researcher who has systematically articulated the ‘overlapping’ determinants that could be advanced to account for the characteristics observed among police officers. In essence, Lefkowitz envisages a number of filters that are operating and a number of ‘presses’ which are shaping the overall psychological landscape of police officers. In brief, it may be said that certain ‘types’ may be drawn to police work. Certain types are ‘looked for’ by the selection process, certain inappropriate types resign, certain powerful experiences and pressures leave their indelible mark and certain elements of the police role ‘call-out’ requisite behaviours. It is on this last issue that there is probably considerable room for individual variation in terms of distance between self and role. The present study postulates a number of hypotheses; some hypotheses were arrived at on an a priori basis. Others were derived from previous research. Hypothesis 1
Recruit normative changing demands
police officers will be more extraverted and adventurous (‘stimulus-hungry’) than the population. They are attracted to police work because policing is imagined to be a social, and exciting occupation. They will tend to be stable in view of the perceived stressful commonly associated with police work.
Hypothesis2
All police groups will be more conforming and obedient (low Psychoticism score) than the normative group. This hypothesis hinges on the assumption that recruits imagine that policing is necessarily an occupation embracing a pro-social ideology and that experienced officers, to survive within the organization, could not easily display marked anti-social characteristics. Hypothesis 3
Given the claim that police experience is a powerful determinant certain differences should be observed between recruits. probationary
of personality development constables and experienced
Personality
patterns
of policemen
officers. The tnajor differences would relate to impulsive officers would have greatest control and recruits least.
509
and
emotional
control.
Experienced
METHOD
Subjects The Ss comprised
the following
four police groups:
(i) 84 recruits who were engaged upon a 16-week training course at the Hendon Police Training School. Seventy-four were male and 10 were female, the mean ages being 21.4 (SD = 3.3) and 19.7 yr (SD = 3.02), respectively. Thirty-seven were tested during the first few days of training and 47 at the end of the 16 weeks. The purpose was to monitor any possible effects of police training; (ii) 84 probationary constables who had had approx. 18 months police experience. The probationers were tested at the Hendon Police Training School and comprised 64 males and 20 females, with mean ages of 23.5 (SD = 4.5) and 23.7 yr (SD = 3.3), respectively; (iii) 73 were experienced constables from eight different police forces in England and Wales. The constables were all male with the mean length of police service being 19.9 yr (SD = 4.59). They were tested individually at their own police stations. Therefore, in order to ensure anonymity many failed to specify their age on the inventories, but their ages were approx. 40 yr; (iv) 112 senior police officers attending promotion courses at the Bramshill Police Staff College. They were all male and of the rank of Inspector or above, with a mean age of 39.5 yr (SD = 5.85). The average length of service was 19.5 yr. Testing
instruments
(i) Eysenck
Persona&, Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975). The EPQ was used to the personality dimensions of Psychoticism (P), Neuroticism (N) and Extraversion (E). (ii) The 15. This was used to measure the traits of Impulsiveness (Imp), Venturesomeness (Vent) and Empathy (Emp). This is a 63-item inventory constructed by Eysenck and Eysenck (1978).
measure
Procedure
The recruits, the probationary constables and the senior officers were tested in fairly large groups. They were told that the purpose of testing was to investigate personality and occupational stress. The procedure had to be a little different for the experienced constables since they were not available in group settings. They were all approached individually, but as with all the Ss it was emphasized that all individual results would be strictly confidential. RESULTS Recruits
and probationar!,
constables
The personality scores of male recruits and probationary constables are shown in Table 1. When compared with normative groups of similar age, the recruits were found to be high on E, Imp and Vent, but low on P. The probationary constables, on the other hand, were introverted and had low Emp. They did not differ significantly from the normative group in Imp and Vent. The constables were significantly more introverted than the recruits (t = 4.28, P < 0.001) and scored lower on Emp (t = 2.31, P < 0.05). Female recruits and probationary constables only differed significantly from the normative groups on E and there were no significant differences between the two groups on any of the scales. The mean and SD scores are shown in Table 2. In order to monitor the effects of police training on the personality scores, recruits at the beginning of their training were compared with those at the end of their training. No marked or significant differences were noted. Experienced
constables
and senior officers
The personality scores of experienced constables and senior officers are shown in Table 3. Both groups scored very low on Imp, Vent, Emp and P. In addition, the senior officers scored significantly lower than the normative group (matched for age) on the Lie (L) scale. Experienced
GELI
510 Table
H. GUUJONSSON and K. R. C. ADLAM
I. Personality
scores
of male recruits stables
probationary
Probationary constables (N=64)
Recruits (N = 74) Mean
SD
P E N L
3.70** 15.95** 10.49 6.81
Imp Vent
12.23** 12.10** 11.33
Scale
and
con-
Normative scores
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
2.23 3.55 4-8 I 3.21
4.06 13,08’ 10.20 5.86
2.91 4.23 5.58 2.70
4.63 14.46 10.69 6.05
3.27 4.27 5.08 3.80
4.45 2.21 3.00
11.11 11.33 10.06**
3.68 3.50 3.35
10.49 10.82 11.61
5.40 3.68 3.13
EPQ
I5
Emp
different
*Significantly **p < 0.001. Table
2. Personality
scores
from
normative
of female
recruits
Recruits (N = IO) Scale
at
scores
P cO.01,
and probationary
Probationary constables (N = 20)
constables
Normative
scores
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
P E N L
2.30 15&l* 14.50 9.10
1.60 3.34 4.58 3.51
2.45 15.40; 12.85 6.85
1.82 4.60 3.82 3.95
2.79 12.89 12.87 7.17
2.41 4.70 4.49 3.85
Imp Vent Emp
13.70 9.10 13.90
4.90 2.88 2.08
II.35 8.75 13.15
3.87 4.08 2.41
10.70 9.02 14.07
4.95 3.74 2.73
EPQ
I5
*Significantly Table
different
3. Personality
from normative
scores of experienced
Experienced constables (N = 73) Mean
scores at P < 0.01. constables
Senior officers (A’ = 112)
SD
Mean
and senior officers
_
Normative
scores
SD
Mean
SD
EPQ P E N L
2.51;; 12.88 9.48 7.66
1.99 4.83 5.52 4.05
2.34*** 11.85 9.75 6.49**
1.74 5.65 5.27 3.44
3.27 12.85 9.33 7.53
2.15 4.73 5.18 4.51
4.41 3.42 2.73
7.91** 8.79* 10.00**
4.14 3.81 2.84
10.49 10.82 11.61
5.40 3.68 3.13
I5 Imp Vent Emv *Significantly
7.41*** 7.22*** 9.33*** different
from normative
scores
at P < 0.05. **P -c 0.01, ***P
i 0.001.
constables scored significantly lower on the Vent scale than the senior officers (t = 2.91, P < O.Ol), but had higher L scores (t = 2.05, P c 0.05). No other significant differences were observed between the two groups. Separate analyses were carried out for uniformed officers and detectives among the senior group. No significant differences emerged on any of the scales.
DISCUSSION
The results from the present study broadly confirm the hypotheses being tested. It seems that the males who are training to become policemen tend to be highly extraverted, venturesome and impulsive, but conforming. Except for E, female recruits did not appear to differ markedly on the personality measures. Part of the reason could be that the number of female recruits was very low and significant differences would consequently only emerge if the differences were very large. The most noteworthy differences between male recruits and probationary constables related to
Personality patterns of policemen
511
the E and Emp scores. Although they did not differ significantly from recruits on Imp and Vent, probationary constables, unlike recruits, did not differ from the normative group. What can be concluded is that probationary constables appear relatively more reserved and controlled than recruits. The scores for female officers showed the same pattern, but the numbers were too small for significant differences to emerge. The most striking characteristics among the experienced constables and senior officers are the low Imp, Vent, P and Emp scores. Part of the explanation for the low Imp and Vent scores could relate to the fact that they tend to be negatively correlated with age (Zuckerman, Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978). The mean age of 26.41 yr (SD = 10.43) for the normative male group on the 15 (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978), falls between the recruits and the experienced officers. It would seem that the difference between the police groups is larger than one would expect if it was related to age alone. Considering the nature of police work, impulsiveness would tend to be an undesirable characteristic for effective and successful police work. Self-control is generally encouraged within the British police and occupational socialization may therefore lead to a fall in impulsiveness with experience, or alternatively, police officers may become more reluctant to admit to such traits. An alternative explanation is that highly-impulsive officers are forced to resign, or leave on their own accord. Only a longitudinal study could separate the relative importance of these explanations. It is acknowledged that some of the traits measured in the present study probably have a strong genetic basis (Eysenck, 1967; Eaves, Martin and Eysenck, 1977), but environmental influence and occupational socialization should not be overlooked. The large differences between groups on the Vent scale need further comment. It was argued in the Introduction that recruit police officers would tend to be extraverted and adventurous because the image of the police is that it is an exciting and varied occupation. The hypothesis was clearly confirmed. However, the marked decline in Vent with experience, and in particular the very low score among experienced constables, raises some interesting questions. Does it simply reflect the mellowing effect of accumulated experience, which after a while makes police officers want to settle for a quiet life? Alternatively, experience may show them that it is perhaps wiser not to rush into things. Another explanation is that police work does not fulfill the promise of an exciting career, making officers high on Vent leave the force. Further research is required before definite conclusions can be drawn about these issues. Future studies should also attempt to investigate, on a longitudinal basis, to what extent, if at all, venturesomeness in police officers declines at a different rate to that in other occupations. The present results suggest that, as far as personality dimensions are concerned Emp is most affected by occupational socialization. All the police groups, except for recruits, exhibited consistently low Emp scores. The scores were similar for the probationary constables, experienced constables and senior officers, suggesting that Emp is quite readily affected by police experience. As there was no significant difference in Emp scores between recruits commencing their training and recruits finishing their training it may be concluded that police training has no noticeable effects on personality over a 16-week period. This finding concurs with that of Butler (1982) who found that it was police experience rather than training that had most noticeable effects upon personality and attitudes. It may be speculated that through occupational demands police officers soon learn not to express tender feelings, keeping up with the tough and ‘macho’ image common to police officers (Rohland, 1982). The finding that the N (trait anxiety) scores were normally distributed is contrary to the prediction made in the Introduction. Police recruits, probationary constables, experienced constables and senior officers, are as likely to be anxious as they are emotionally stable. It does however, confirm the observations made by Levy (1967) that success in police work relates to “emotional suitability” rather than “emotional stability”. What seems to be more pertinent than emotional lability is good impulse control and lack of pathology as measured by the Eysenck P factor. The overall low L scores among the police groups indicates that on the whole the subjects were insightful and exhibited few test-faking responses. There was some trend for the L scores to be reduced with experience; this was most evident among the senior officers. The L score among the experienced constables appeared to be relatively high, indicating a greater degree of defensiveness, which may to some extent have been due to the fact that they were tested individually.
512
GISLI H. GUDJONSSONand K.
R. C.
ADLAM
What are the implications of the overall findings? Firstly, they sound a warning to those who would attempt to stereotype police officers, for clearly in some areas, there is a distinct variety of fundamental traits of personality. Secondly, the data corroborated one of the prevailing social images of the police officer in Britain, a controlled somewhat unfeeling individual. The findings sound both positive and negative notes for the police service. On the negative side it is worth explaining some of the consequences of the rather low empathy characteristic of some police officers. A lack of feeling may impede the responsiveness of the police to some of the developments within the community designed to aid victims both ofcrimes and circumstances. Low empathy also implies a lack of responsiveness to innovations within the police-such as a re-evaluation of the deployment of resources-as well as to police/community relation schemes, designed to secure the assent of the community to policing behaviour. Additionally the data suggests that police officers are not too likely to attack the police subculture’s image of the ‘good copper’. i.e. the rather tough masculine individual who practices law enforcement rather than the service-orientated dimension of policing. The findings should, however, not be interpreted to suggest that police officers are in general necessarily unconcerned about the public. Furthermore, not being inclined to become emotionally involved may be an effective adaptive mechanism that helps police officers to cope more successfully with stressful situations. On the positive side, the data imply a certain richness of personalities within the various police groups, where a personality pattern is discernible the qualities seem appropriate to the exigencies of police work. The ability to display control as well as the low P score indicate types of individuals who are both steady and able to cope with a range of demanding situations (Evans, 1981). Finally, the present study has raised a number of questions which can only be confidently answered by a large longitudinal study. Some of the findings are sufficiently striking to warrant such a study. For example, within the police force there is a substantial ‘wastage’ through voluntary and involuntary resignations. It would be of enormous benefit to the police if it could be predicted on the basis of personality scores what ‘types’ are likely to leave the force prematurely. In addition, the effects of occupational socialization upon some of the major personality traits may have important implications for police stress and management. Ac~,lo~l,/e~gemenrs-The authors are grateful to the course directors and staff at Bramshill and to Sir Kenneth Newman, Commander Wells and Superintendant Lewis and their staff at the Metropolitan Police for their help and cooperation during this study. The authors arc also indebted to the Police Foundation of Great Britain for providing administrative support.
REFERENCES Adlam K. R. C. (1983) An extension of Hanewicz’s notion of the police personality. In preparation. Balch R. W. (1972) The police personality: fact or fiction? J. Grim. Law, Crimin. Police Sci. 63, 106119. Butler A. J. P. (1982) An examination of the influence of training and work experience on the attitudes and perceptions of police constables. Paper presented at the Int. Conf. on Psychology and Law, Swansea, 19-23 July. Butler A. J. P. and Cochrane R. (1977) An examination of some elements of the personality of police officers and their implications. J. Police Sci. Admin. 5, 441-450. Coleman A. M. and Gorman L. P. (1982) Conservatism, dogmatism and authoritarianism in British police officers. Sociology 16, l-l 1. Eaves L., Martin N. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1977) An application of the analysis of covariance structures to the psychogenetical study of impulsiveness. Br. J. Mach. srarisr. Ps_whol. 30, 185-197. Evans W. (1981) Stress and psychoticism. Person. indirid. Diff: 2, 21-24. Eysenck H. J. (1967) The Biological Basis of Personuliry. Thomas, Springfield, III. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1975) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton, London. Eysenck S. B. G. and Eysenck H. J. (1978) Impulsiveness and Venturesomeness: their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psycho/. Rep. 43, 1247-1255. Fenster C. A., Wiedemann C. F. and Locke B. (1976) Police personality-social science folklore and psychological measurement. In Psychofogy in the Legal Process (Edited by_Salis B. D.). Science Paperbacks, New York. Gibson J. (1982) Sauare negs in souare holes. Police Rec. 90. 1702-1707. Hanewicz W. B: (1978) PolLe personality: a Jungian perspective. Crinre Delinquency 24, 152-172. Lefkowitz J. (1975) Psychological attributes of policemen: a review of research and opinion. Social Iss 31, 3-26. Levy R. J. (1967) Predicting police failures. J. Crim. tilt., Crimin. Police Sci. 58, 265-276. Potter L. (1977) Police officer personality? Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Bradford. Rohland S. (1982) One man’s war against police stress. Police 14, 14. Zuckerman M., Eysenck S. B. G. and Eysenck H. J. (1978) Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural, age and sex comparison. J. consulr. clin. PsychoI. 46, 139-149.