Journal oj Applied Psychology 1P75, Vol. 60, No. 5, 641-643
Authority Orientations of Police Officers Nancy Cochran Adelphi University Forty-six police officers from Nassau County and 40 officers from New York City, all attending college, responded to the Hierarchical Control Scale, an attitude scale measuring preferences for control based on knowledge, status, and authority. The New York City sample also took the Dogmatism Scale. It was found that while Dogmatism Scale scores of police officers were not different from those of nonpolice subjects of the same age and education, Hierarchical Control Scale scores differed significantly, ((200) =10.52 and ^(194) = 8.58, respectively. "Authoritarianism" of police officers is reinterpreted in terms of the hierarchical control construct.
Strict subordination and rigid chains of command are basic components of the police department organization (Bordua & Reiss, 1966). In addition, the police officer holds a special position of authority vis a vis others in the community. It seems reasonable that such relationships would influence a disproportionately large number of people with strong authority orientations to choose police work as an occupation. However, scores on the two commonly used measures of authoritarianism, the Fascism Scale (Adorno, Frankel-Brunswik, Levenson, & Stanford, 1950) and the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960), consistently indicate that police officers are no more authoritarian than other subjects of the same age and education (Guller, 1972; Lefkowitz, 1972; Locke & Smith, 1970). The absence of any significant difference between scores for police and for other subjects on scales of authoritarianism may be due to the unique definition of authority inherent in the scales, rather than to any actual homogeneity of authority orientations between police and most members of society. In the research in which no difference has been found between police and other groups, authoritarian individuals have been characterized by rigid adherence to conventional middle-class values, a preoccupation with power and status, and a general hostility toward people unlike themselves. Prejudice is considered an essential part of the "authoritarian personality" because beliefs in absolute authority justify feelings of intolerance or qualified tolerance toward others. A preliminary draft of this material was presented at the 82nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, 1974. Requests for reprints should be sent to Nancy Cochran, 33 Boylston Street, Garden City, New York 11530.
Authoritarianism may also be described as an endorsement of a well defined social hierarchy without invoking prejudice as a definitive concept. In such a scheme absolute authority is valued because it maintains social distance and specialization. The concept does not necessarily imply force or coercion, as authoritarian hierarchies may originate from experience, prestige, and the accumulation of knowledge, as well as from superior strength or intellectual exclusiveness. However, rigidity and traditionalism are components of a hierarchical system, just as they exist in the cluster of traits associated with Adorno et al.'s (1950) original concept. In the present investigation it was hypothesized that police officers would display stronger preferences for authority than most members of society when authority was described in terms of social distance and expertise. METHOD Measure The Hierarchical Control Scale was developed to distinguish preferences for situations in which decisions are made by persons with power and authority from situations in which decisions rest with the person most affected, regardless of status. A high score on the scale indicates .a preference for control that is "filtered down" through a pyramid-like social structure, as opposed to control patterns that are "flattened," minimizing the potency of social distance and specialization. For instance, in the item "If the U.S. government were going to try to help underdeveloped countries, would it be better to (a) supply money to be used ;by the countries as they saw fit, or (b) send necessary materials, plus personnel to oversee the work?" the second choice is the keyed (hierarchical) choice because relatively more guidance from a distant, tradi-
641
642
SHORT NOTES
tional, authoritative person or group is suggested by the alternative. The 34-item forcedchoice scale samples a broad range of legal, moral, and interpersonal situations. The scale asks, for example, whether children should be taught to say thmik you, whether college instructors have the right to require that students attend class, and whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent of serious crimes. Some construct validation for the Hierarchical Control Scale has been obtained (Cochran, in press). While variations in scores are not usually related to differences in age or sex, expected differences related to group membership appear consistently. For instance, 18 men who remained in the Armed Forces 11 years or more had significantly higher average scores than did 29 inductees at the same base. In another study, elementary school teachers who used "traditional" teaching methods had significantly higher scores than did teachers who preferred "individualized instruction" or "open education"; each of these three groups of teachers had significantly higher scores than teachers endorsing a "free school" environment. Reliability measures for the Hierarchical Control Scale are approixmately .80. Procedure In the present study the Hierarchical Control Scale was administered to police officers enrolled in psychology classes designed specifically for policemen in conjunction with a degree program sponsored by the New York Institute of Technology. Data were collected from one sample of 46 men from Nassau County, a large suburban community, and from a second sample of 39 men and 1 woman from the New York City Police Department. Scores obtained from each group were compared with a male standardization group collected by Cochran (in press). Individuals in the second sample also responded to the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960). RESULTS The average Hierarchical Control Scale score of the police officers was 24.72 (SD = 4.53) for the Nassau County sample and 23.30 (SD ~ 4.30) for the New York City sample. Scores for the two samples did not differ significantly from each other but were significantly (p < .001) higher than scores for 156 college males in the comparison group (M — 16.55, SD = 4.95). The calculated values were £(200) = 10.52 and t(194) =8.58, respectively. An item-by-item
tabulation of the responses indicated that the higher scores of the police officers were not the result of differential responding to selected items. Nassau County police officers endorsed hierarchical alternatives more often than the standardization group on 33 of the 34 items, and the New York City police preferred more control on all items except two. The mean score of the police officers on the Dogmatism Scale was 141.11 (55 = 22.25). These scores were not significantly different from the scores of six college samples reported by Rokeach (1960), which ranged from 141.5 (5D = 27.8) to 143.8) (S£ = 22.1). The correlation between the scores on the Hierarchical Control Scale and the Dogmatism Scale was .08. DISCUSSION Mean differences of more than 1.5 standard deviations between police and nonpolice subjects on the Hierarchical Control Scale indicate that the police officers prefer control filtered down through a structure of decreasing status and power more than do other members of society. In addition, frequent endorsement of hierarchical alternatives regardless of the substantive content of the item, indicates a preference for authority in interpersonal relationships as well as law enforcement. However, as expected from previous research, the concept of the "authoritarian personality" (Adorno et al., 1950) did not apply to the police as a group. The low correlation between dogmatism and hierarchical control indicates that the two scales are substantially different, despite qualities of traditionalism and rigidity attributed to both constructs. Since intolerance toward others is a component of dogmatism not incorporated into the construct definition of hierarchical control, it is assumed that the presence or absence of prejudice is the characteristic that distinguishes the two. Therefore, the data suggest that the police are most accurately described as supporting rigid, authoritative, social control without being any more prejudiced than other members of society. The data also give information about the Hierarchical Control Scale itself. The low correlation between scores on the Hierarchical Control Scale and the Dogmatism Scale and the finding of a difference on hierarchical control but not on dogmatism between the police and the comparison group suggests that hierarchical control represents a valid construct, capable of discriminating among groups in today's culture. At this time there is no indication that people
643
SHORT NOTES with high scores on hierarchical control are any more or less suited than others for police work. Only when scores of police officers are correlated with some specific criteria of job effectiveness will it be possible to determine if a particular kind of attitude is characteristic of an effective police officer. REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Stanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950. Eordua, D. J., & Reiss, A. J., Jr. Command, control and charisma: Reflections on police bureaucracy. American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 72, 68-76.
Cochran, N. Measuring preferences for hierarchical control: An attitude scale for contemporary times. Psychological Reports, in press. Culler, I. B. Higher education and policemen: Attitudinal differences between freshman and senior police college students. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Sciences, 1972, 63, 396-401. Lefkowitz, J. Evaluation of a supervisory training program for police sergeants. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 95-106. Locke, B., & Smith, A. B. Police who go to college. In A. Niederhoffer & A. S. Blumberg (Eds.), The ambivalent force: Perspectives on the police. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn, 1970. Rokeach, M. The open, and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. (Received December 31, 1974)
ERRATUM In the article by Sidney Gael, Donald L. Grant, and Richard J. Ritchie, "Employment Test Validation for Minority and Nonminority Telephone Operators," which appeared in the August 197S issue (Volume 60) of the Journal of Applied Psychology, there is a typographical error in Table S on page 417. In the last column, the predicted criterion value for the white sample should be 339 rather than 399,
Authority Orientations of Police Officers Nancy Cochran Adelphi University Forty-six police officers from Nassau County and 40 officers from New York City, all attending college, responded to the Hierarchical Control Scale, an attitude scale measuring preferences for control based on knowledge, status, and authority. The New York City sample also took the Dogmatism Scale. It was found that while Dogmatism Scale scores of police officers were not different from those of nonpolice subjects of the same age and education, Hierarchical Control Scale scores differed significantly, ((200) =10.52 and ^(194) = 8.58, respectively. "Authoritarianism" of police officers is reinterpreted in terms of the hierarchical control construct.
Strict subordination and rigid chains of command are basic components of the police department organization (Bordua & Reiss, 1966). In addition, the police officer holds a special position of authority vis a vis others in the community. It seems reasonable that such relationships would influence a disproportionately large number of people with strong authority orientations to choose police work as an occupation. However, scores on the two commonly used measures of authoritarianism, the Fascism Scale (Adorno, Frankel-Brunswik, Levenson, & Stanford, 1950) and the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960), consistently indicate that police officers are no more authoritarian than other subjects of the same age and education (Guller, 1972; Lefkowitz, 1972; Locke & Smith, 1970). The absence of any significant difference between scores for police and for other subjects on scales of authoritarianism may be due to the unique definition of authority inherent in the scales, rather than to any actual homogeneity of authority orientations between police and most members of society. In the research in which no difference has been found between police and other groups, authoritarian individuals have been characterized by rigid adherence to conventional middle-class values, a preoccupation with power and status, and a general hostility toward people unlike themselves. Prejudice is considered an essential part of the "authoritarian personality" because beliefs in absolute authority justify feelings of intolerance or qualified tolerance toward others. A preliminary draft of this material was presented at the 82nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, 1974. Requests for reprints should be sent to Nancy Cochran, 33 Boylston Street, Garden City, New York 11530.
Authoritarianism may also be described as an endorsement of a well defined social hierarchy without invoking prejudice as a definitive concept. In such a scheme absolute authority is valued because it maintains social distance and specialization. The concept does not necessarily imply force or coercion, as authoritarian hierarchies may originate from experience, prestige, and the accumulation of knowledge, as well as from superior strength or intellectual exclusiveness. However, rigidity and traditionalism are components of a hierarchical system, just as they exist in the cluster of traits associated with Adorno et al.'s (1950) original concept. In the present investigation it was hypothesized that police officers would display stronger preferences for authority than most members of society when authority was described in terms of social distance and expertise. METHOD Measure The Hierarchical Control Scale was developed to distinguish preferences for situations in which decisions are made by persons with power and authority from situations in which decisions rest with the person most affected, regardless of status. A high score on the scale indicates .a preference for control that is "filtered down" through a pyramid-like social structure, as opposed to control patterns that are "flattened," minimizing the potency of social distance and specialization. For instance, in the item "If the U.S. government were going to try to help underdeveloped countries, would it be better to (a) supply money to be used ;by the countries as they saw fit, or (b) send necessary materials, plus personnel to oversee the work?" the second choice is the keyed (hierarchical) choice because relatively more guidance from a distant, tradi-
641
642
SHORT NOTES
tional, authoritative person or group is suggested by the alternative. The 34-item forcedchoice scale samples a broad range of legal, moral, and interpersonal situations. The scale asks, for example, whether children should be taught to say thmik you, whether college instructors have the right to require that students attend class, and whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent of serious crimes. Some construct validation for the Hierarchical Control Scale has been obtained (Cochran, in press). While variations in scores are not usually related to differences in age or sex, expected differences related to group membership appear consistently. For instance, 18 men who remained in the Armed Forces 11 years or more had significantly higher average scores than did 29 inductees at the same base. In another study, elementary school teachers who used "traditional" teaching methods had significantly higher scores than did teachers who preferred "individualized instruction" or "open education"; each of these three groups of teachers had significantly higher scores than teachers endorsing a "free school" environment. Reliability measures for the Hierarchical Control Scale are approixmately .80. Procedure In the present study the Hierarchical Control Scale was administered to police officers enrolled in psychology classes designed specifically for policemen in conjunction with a degree program sponsored by the New York Institute of Technology. Data were collected from one sample of 46 men from Nassau County, a large suburban community, and from a second sample of 39 men and 1 woman from the New York City Police Department. Scores obtained from each group were compared with a male standardization group collected by Cochran (in press). Individuals in the second sample also responded to the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960). RESULTS The average Hierarchical Control Scale score of the police officers was 24.72 (SD = 4.53) for the Nassau County sample and 23.30 (SD ~ 4.30) for the New York City sample. Scores for the two samples did not differ significantly from each other but were significantly (p < .001) higher than scores for 156 college males in the comparison group (M — 16.55, SD = 4.95). The calculated values were £(200) = 10.52 and t(194) =8.58, respectively. An item-by-item
tabulation of the responses indicated that the higher scores of the police officers were not the result of differential responding to selected items. Nassau County police officers endorsed hierarchical alternatives more often than the standardization group on 33 of the 34 items, and the New York City police preferred more control on all items except two. The mean score of the police officers on the Dogmatism Scale was 141.11 (55 = 22.25). These scores were not significantly different from the scores of six college samples reported by Rokeach (1960), which ranged from 141.5 (5D = 27.8) to 143.8) (S£ = 22.1). The correlation between the scores on the Hierarchical Control Scale and the Dogmatism Scale was .08. DISCUSSION Mean differences of more than 1.5 standard deviations between police and nonpolice subjects on the Hierarchical Control Scale indicate that the police officers prefer control filtered down through a structure of decreasing status and power more than do other members of society. In addition, frequent endorsement of hierarchical alternatives regardless of the substantive content of the item, indicates a preference for authority in interpersonal relationships as well as law enforcement. However, as expected from previous research, the concept of the "authoritarian personality" (Adorno et al., 1950) did not apply to the police as a group. The low correlation between dogmatism and hierarchical control indicates that the two scales are substantially different, despite qualities of traditionalism and rigidity attributed to both constructs. Since intolerance toward others is a component of dogmatism not incorporated into the construct definition of hierarchical control, it is assumed that the presence or absence of prejudice is the characteristic that distinguishes the two. Therefore, the data suggest that the police are most accurately described as supporting rigid, authoritative, social control without being any more prejudiced than other members of society. The data also give information about the Hierarchical Control Scale itself. The low correlation between scores on the Hierarchical Control Scale and the Dogmatism Scale and the finding of a difference on hierarchical control but not on dogmatism between the police and the comparison group suggests that hierarchical control represents a valid construct, capable of discriminating among groups in today's culture. At this time there is no indication that people
643
SHORT NOTES with high scores on hierarchical control are any more or less suited than others for police work. Only when scores of police officers are correlated with some specific criteria of job effectiveness will it be possible to determine if a particular kind of attitude is characteristic of an effective police officer. REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Stanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950. Eordua, D. J., & Reiss, A. J., Jr. Command, control and charisma: Reflections on police bureaucracy. American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 72, 68-76.
Cochran, N. Measuring preferences for hierarchical control: An attitude scale for contemporary times. Psychological Reports, in press. Culler, I. B. Higher education and policemen: Attitudinal differences between freshman and senior police college students. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Sciences, 1972, 63, 396-401. Lefkowitz, J. Evaluation of a supervisory training program for police sergeants. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 95-106. Locke, B., & Smith, A. B. Police who go to college. In A. Niederhoffer & A. S. Blumberg (Eds.), The ambivalent force: Perspectives on the police. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn, 1970. Rokeach, M. The open, and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. (Received December 31, 1974)
ERRATUM In the article by Sidney Gael, Donald L. Grant, and Richard J. Ritchie, "Employment Test Validation for Minority and Nonminority Telephone Operators," which appeared in the August 197S issue (Volume 60) of the Journal of Applied Psychology, there is a typographical error in Table S on page 417. In the last column, the predicted criterion value for the white sample should be 339 rather than 399,
