Last name:
Berry
First
name: Laura
YOG:
1999
Keywords: Personality, Police, Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised, JPI-R, Subject Information Sheet, Social Influence.
Instrument: Jackson Personality Inventory- Revised (JPI-R), Subject Information Sheet.
Attention: This webpage contains my thesis, as well as some helpful links, and advice for working on research in this area. I hope that it will be useful to you, and that you will enjoy viewing it.
This page
is divided into the following sections:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encouragement for Students |
Running Head: Police Personality : Social Influence
Police Personality: An Example of the Role of Social Influence
in Shaping Personality Characteristics of Police Officers.
Laura M. Berry
Saint Anselm College
Manchester, NH
A
thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor
of Arts in Psychology
November 24, 1998
The present study could not have come to fruitation without the help
of a number of people. Therefore, thanks is due to the
following people. To Professor Scott Krauchunas, for offering insight
and encouragement in the early stages of this project. To
Professor Paul Finn, for providing professional guidance, and making
a difficult task seem possible. To Professor Kathleen
Flannery, who assisted with the statistical analysis of the data. To
the entire Psychology Department for their encouragement
and assistance throughout the study. To department secretary Barbara
Bartlett for her invaluable assistance in locating and
obtaining the necessary testing materials. To my parents, for financing
the education that has made this study possible.
ToTrooper James M. Jaworek for offering an ‘insiders’ perspective that
was instrumental in interpreting the obtained data in a
socially valid way: thank you for your unflagging encouragement and
enthusiasm. You have given me a new perspective on the
field of law enforcement. To the Chiefs of Police who allowed materials
for this study to be distributed to their officers: thank
you for your interest and cooperation. To the officers who participated
in the study: thank you for taking time out of your busy
schedules to participate- you are truly a credit to your profession.
To the students who participated in the study: thank you for
your attentiveness and cooperation during the study. To the staff of
the Weiler Computer Center and the ACC: thank you for
your assistance in overcoming the numerous technical glitches that
occurred during the conducting of this study. To Kathleen
Jaworek: thank you for your assistance in organizing the data for analysis.
Most of all, deepest personal thanks is due to my husband Brian, who
offered support and encouragement throughout this
study. Without you by my side, this project would not have been possible.
You have been my strength. Thank you for always
being there whenever I need you.
( #top )
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Introduction
What is Police
Personality?
Demographics
of Police Officers
Predispositional
View
Social Influence
View
What is Personality?
Support for
existence of Police Personality
Effects of:
Stress
Power in Dyads
Ethnicity
Gender
Impact of variations
Importance of
the study
Studies supporting
existence of Police Personality
Methods:
JPI-R
SIS
References
Results
Discussion
Appendices
Helpful Links
Encouragement for students
The relationship between the number of years of law enforcement experience
an individual possesses and the degree to which
characteristics associated with the construct of police personality
was investigated. Personality characteristics were identified
using the Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised (JPI-R). Correlations
were conducted to determine the degree of
intercorrelation between JPI-R scales for the police officer sample,
and compared to intercorrelation data for the JPI-R
normative sample. Linear regression analysis was conducted to determine
the degree to which highly correlated scores on
JPI-R scales were predictive of one another. Mann-Whitney non-parametric
analysis was conducted to detect similarities and
differences between the JPI-R scores of police officers and those of
college students and a normative sample. Results are
discussed in terms of cross-sectional similarities and differences.
Limitations of the present study and implications for future
research are also addressed.
( #top )
Running Head: Police Personality: An example of the Role of Social Influence
in Shaping Personality Characteristics of Police
Officers
What is "Police Personality"?
The "police personality" is generally defined as a typical pattern of
personality characteristics found in individuals who work as
police officers. This concept developed from research findings indicating
that police officers have a distinct and readily
recognizable pattern of personality characteristics, and that these
characteristics make them psychologically different from the
general population. (Leftkowitz 1975, Adlam 1982,Murrell 1978). This
pattern of behaviors associated with individuals
employed as law enforcement officers has thereby come to be collectively
known as the "police personality".
Characteristics associated with the police personality generally fall
into two categories. (McKew 1981, Leftkowitz 1975,
Bartol 1991) One category contains the internal characteristics, which
involved behaviors and responses that are present even
when the individual is not interacting with others. The other contains
the interactional characteristics, which are exhibited only
when the individual is in contact with others.
Among the internal characteristics are conservatism, or the adherence
to mainstream values; physical courage, the willingness to
take necessary risks; and loyalty, devotion to his or her group as
a whole as well as to individual members. (Leftkowitz 1975,
McKew 1981) Police officers are also generally found to be more suspicious
than non-law enforcement individuals, thereby
being more likely to look for the ‘hidden’ characteristics of people
or situations. Officers also tend to exhibit two other closely
related traits: secretiveness, characterized by a desire to isolate
oneself from people who one does not know well, and
cynicism, categorized by expecting and preparing for the worst outcome
in a given situation.
Research (Nowicki 1966) also notes that police officers tend to have
an exceptional ability to control emotional impulses as
compared to members of the general population. These characteristics
represent elements of personality that many law
enforcement officers share in common, but do not provide the full picture
of what characterizes the behavior and personality
characteristics of a police officer. Therefore, it is also necessary
to note the interactional characteristics of the police personality.
The interactional traits associated with the police personality include
authoritarianism, which is characterized by a need to take
the role of leader and be in charge in interactions with others.(MeKew
1981, Leftkowitz 1975, Bartol 1991) Another trait
closely related to it is self-assertiveness, which is characterized
by taking the initiative in interactions with others. Police officers
are also found to have a narrow breadth of interest, preferring to
interact with those who are similar to themselves,and to
engage in a narrow set of activities. (McKew 1991) In addition, police
officers tend to be opposed to taking a ‘subjective,
tender-hearted approach to life’ (McKew 1991) and prefer action to
contemplation. (Hogan 1971 680) This approach is
known as anti-intraception. These characteristics, in combination with
the internal characteristics provide a vivid picture of the
police personality.
Demographic Characteristics of Police Officers
In addition to those previously mentioned, it is also important to recognize
the demographic characteristics of police officers.
These include the tendency of police officers to be of above normal
intelligence, have better than average emotional stability,
enjoy working with people in a service role, and have a strong desire
to contribute to the betterment of society. (Leftkowitz
1975 7) As a group, police officers are also considered to be masculine
in style and manner of behavior, free from pretense,
get along well in the world and prefer action to contemplation. (Hogan
1971 680
Where does "Police Personality" come from? : Competing Perspectives
The identification of the characteristics of the police personality
is the first logical step towards understanding how the police
personality comes to exist. Next, the question " How does the police
personality come to exist?" must be addressed. Two
distinct explanations have been offered by the social science community
to explain the development of the police personality:
the predispositional view and the social influence view.
The Predispositional Perspective. The predispositional view puts forth
the idea that those who enter law enforcement possess
distinct personality characteristics which cause them to seek law enforcement
as a career. This view also suggests that these
personality characteristics are not only responsible for drawing an
individual to a law enforcement career, but also for
maintaining the same pattern of behavior during the individual’s career.
(Bennett 1975 439)
Those who support this view believe that law enforcement officers possess
clearly identifiable police personality traits even
before beginning such a career, and that these traits guide behavior
for the length of the career.(Adlam 1982) Accordingly, the
role of social influence through training and other interactions are
minimized by this view, and an emphasis is placed on the role
of individual personality characteristics in shaping the police personality.
The Social Influence Perspective
In contrast, to the predispositional view, the social influence view
suggests that those who intend to become police officers are
not significantly different from the general population in terms of
personality traits. It asserts that any differences that may be
observed between police officers and other individuals are the result
of on the job socialization and role expectation.
Consequently, it is believed by those advocating the social influence
view, that officers perceive social pressure to behave in
ways that they consider to be appropriate to their position as law
enforcement officers. In response to this pressure, police
officers then develop the characteristics associated with the police
personality over the course of time, to meet the requirements
of the job. Supporters of this position assert that one must learn
to be a police officer, and that all the necessary personality
traits and skills will be developed over time. Emphasis is placed on
the role of inborn personality characteristics is minimized.
What is "Personality"?
In order to fully understand the concept of "police personality", it
is first necessary to understand what is meant by "personality"
itself. According to theorists in the field of personality psychology,
personality can be defined in a number of ways. Some of the
most widely accepted definitions of personality include the following.
Personality is "the dynamic organization within the
individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic
behavior and thought" according to Allport. (1961).
Personality is "the distinctive pattern of behavior (including thoughts
and emotions) that characterize each individual’s adaptation
to the situations of his or her life" according to Mischel (1986).
Theorist Lawrence A. Pervin defines personality as "Those characteristics
of the person or of people generally that account for
consistent patterns of behavior". (1989). According to Cattell, personality
it ""hat which permits a prediction of what a person
will do in a given situation." (1950).
Taken collectively, personality as defined by theorists in the field
refers to both internal characteristics of an individual, as well
as external behavioral patterns which the individual exhibits. In addition,
personality is also a means by which the behavior of
individuals can be predicted. Most importantly, there is considerable
agreement that personality is characterized by both
uniqueness in characteristics, and consistency in behavior. Therefore,
personality is a term used to refer to the personal
characteristics which an individual possesses that make him or her
unique and allow him or her to engage in relatively distinctive,
predictable patterns of behavior. Personality is both what makes an
individual who he or she is, and what makes him or her
behave the way that he or she does.
Support for the Existence of "Police Personality"
An extensive body of literature examining the components that make up
the police personality has been compiled over the past
three decades (Adlam 1982,Bell 1982,Bennett & Greenstein 1975,Gerber
1996,Hogan 1971,Kaufman 1992,Leftkowitz
1975, Manuel 1993,McKew 1981, Murrell, Lester & Arcuri 1978, Wexler
1985) In this time, researchers have come to a
general consensus and assert that a police personality does in fact
exist and is characterized by distinct personality traits.
However, the literature has neglected to address itself to the task
of discovering how the police personality is formed.
Difficulties in Assessing "Police Personality"
Police personality is a difficult area to investigate for a number of
reasons. One such reason is that the very nature of the
population of interest makes it difficult to delve into. Police officers
are generally considered to be more suspicious and cynical
than members of the general population (Leftkowitz 1975, McKew 1981),
thereby making many officers unlikely to volunteer
for participation in a study of their personality characteristics.
Another reason for difficulty in examining the characteristics and development
of police personality is that a number of factors
may effect the development and expression of police personality characteristics.
These characteristics may also interact with
one another, causing further complication of any investigation that
is undertaken. Factors which might affect the police
personality characteristics include: stress, gender differences, distribution
of power in dyads, & ethnic backgrounds. Therefore,
any study of police personality requires examination of such potential
mitigating factors.
The Potential Impact of Stress on the Expression of Police Personality
There are three specific categories of stress: stressors, perceived
stress, and ascribed stress, each of which possesses its own
distinct characteristics.(Brown 1990 306) Stressors are environmental
circumstances directly or indirectly affecting an
individual. For example, the loss of a job needed to support one’s
family would have the universal effect of causing an individual
to experience feelings of stress.(Brown 1990 306) Perceived stress
refers to the degree to which individuals interpret
experiences as stressful for one individual, but hardly be worth noticing
to another individual. (Brown 1990 307) Ascribed
stress is the assessment by an objecting investigator as to the stressfulness
of some environmental, social, or personal
circumstance until another individual characterizes them as such. The
individual then attributes his or her feelings to stress in
fulfillment of the expectations of others. (Brown 1990 307)
These three categories of stress provide three ways in which an individual
may interpret the stressfulness of a situation- in terms
of its direct or indirect effects, his or her perception of the event
as taxing or threatening, or objectively categorized as such by
and outside observer. In reference to stress, the most important factor
in determining an individual’s ability to cope with a
situation is whether or not he or she interprets the event as stressful.
Therefore, the way in which an individual interprets events
will determine the appropriate response to these events. If an event
is not interpreted as stressful, the individual will continue to
behave in his or her normal fashion.
If an event is interpreted as stressful and the individual feels unable
to handle it, normal behavior may be disrupted. How a
person responds will determine the personality features that will be
most appropriate to guide and facilitate the appropriate
course of action. Therefore, even where a distinct set of personality
traits is apparent, perception of the stressfulness of events
may effect the degree to which these traits are manifested.
Power Distribution in Police Dyads
Variations in the way officers express police personality characteristics
may also be seen in the distribution of power in dyadic
interactions. In police dyads, power is distributed among the two partners,
with the most high status partner (determined either
on the basis of gender, with the male officer holding the high status
position, or seniority) exhibiting instrumental traits,
characterized by self- assertion and initiation of actions. In response,
the lower status partner exhibits more expressive traits
such as accommodation and support of the other member. (Gerber 1996
350) Such distribution of power would then effect the
type of personality traits that individuals would manifest. For instance,
although the lower status partner might be more naturally
assertive, dyadic interaction patterns dictate that he or she should
exhibit more expressive traits. Therefore, in compliance with
the role expectations, he or she may downplay his or her natural assertiveness
and behave in a more expressive manner. In this
way, the expression of personality characteristics , even if they are
long standing, may be situationally dependent .
Ethnicity and Police Personality
The ethnic origin of the individual officer, both in and of itself and
in the context of his or her working environment may also be
an important influence on the expression of police personality traits.
For example, members of minority groups might feel a need
to prove themselves to be especially fit for the job in order to counteract
existing stereotypes, thereby exhibiting stronger
expressions of "police personality" characteristics. Therefore, although
the characteristics themselves are not confounding
factors, influences such as ethnic background that may cause extreme
variation in the expression of police personality may act
as a confound.
Ethnic background may be a particularly salient factor if the minority
individual is serving as a police officer in a community
whose ethnic makeup is greatly dissimilar to his or her own background.
This might cause the individual to feel out of place,
thereby resulting in behavior that is either retreating, in order to
avoid conflict, or excessively bold to prove him or her self to be
competent.
Gender and Police Personality
Another important factor that may affect the expression the police personality
is gender. Research indicates that although for the
most part, men and women in policing experience many of the same stressors,
some important gender differences have been
found to exist. For example, female officers typically report more
experiences of stress when exposed to tragedy (such as fatal
motor vehicle accidents, witnessing the death of a fellow officer,
etc.), as a result of feeling responsible for the safety of others,
including their colleagues, as well as a result of working in a male
dominated occupation . (Bartol 1992 246) Male officers
reported their relationships with colleagues, the size of the department
and the perceived lack of proper training as the main
sources of work related stress. The available literature did not examine
whether or not male officers felt stress reactions in
situations in a similar manner to female officers. More research in
therefore needed in this area. However, it must be recognized
that such concerns, although they are not reported, may not be experienced
by male officers as well. Failure to report such
concerns, even if experienced, might be the result of officers behaving
in a manner that they believe is appropriate to their
gender.
Social Distress Theory and Gender: Their relationship to Police Personality
The responses of the male officers when questioned about factors that
caused them stress, are in keeping with social distress
theory. Social distress theory proposes that stress is generated by
the social system in which the individual functions. (Brandt
1993 305) The emphasis which the male officers placed on the stressfulness
of factors within the institution itself is to be
expected, since the "institutional" functions of law enforcement are
typically filled by men. Women in contrast, as relative
newcomers to law enforcement are more sensitive to the stress factors
presented by the task performance dimensions of the
job than to the dynamics of the institution.
Gender differences result in the foundation of distinct variations in
the expression of police personality by male and female
officers. Such differences often develop in response to the unique
demands placed on males and females by police work. For
example, a male officer may be particularly eager to take control in
day to day situations to compensate for the lack of control
he feels within the institutional dimension of his work environment.
This may result from the fact that he may be unable to
exercise his personal power when in contact with administrators or
superiors, but is able to take a position of leadership and
control when in contact with criminals or subordinate officers.
Likewise, female officers often adopt specific patterns of behavior
to "fit in" in the police environment. Research has found that
four such patterns are typically used among female law enforcement
officers to try to gain the acceptance of their male
counterparts. These patterns are distinct variations on the police
personality, but they do not constitute separate police
"personalities". Rather than being separate entities, they are variations
which differ in their expression of police personality
characteristics, but leave the core characteristics intact.
Variations of "Police Personality" in Female Officers
The most commonly used variation on the police personality which female
officers use is the neutral-impersonal style. It is
characterized by businesslike interaction with male coworkers, concern
with being respected as a full member of the work
group, rejection of special treatment as women officers and use of
"femaleness" only when appropriate for doing a better job
but not for limiting participation. (Wexler 1985 572) Those who adopt
this style are concerned with being seen as an officer
first and as a woman second.
The second most common pattern of behavior in female police officers
is the semi masculine style. It is characterized by a
desire to be ‘one of the guys’, although there is an expectancy to
not be totally accepted as equals to male officers, desire for
acceptance as people and emphasis or "going with the flow". (Wexler
1985 752)
The third most common behavior pattern among female officers is the
feminine style. In this pattern, female officers place more
emphasis on their identity as women than they do on their identity
as police officers and are concerned with being attractive at
work. Most of their interactions with male coworkers exhibit sexual
undertones, although none are reported to have been acted
upon. (Wexler 1985 752)
The least common pattern of interaction for female police officers has
been found to be the mixed style. This style is unusual in
that it does not exhibit a specific pattern of behavior. Rather, it
is a combination of two of the other three styles. In this pattern,
one may be the primary style with the other being secondary, or both
may be expressed equally.
Impact of Variations of Police Personality
Therefore, although a number of variations of the police personality
exist, one should not speak of a multiplicity of "police
personalities". These variations do not depart significantly from the
general model of police personality, and therefore should not
be considered to be separate, unrelated entities. Instead, such variations
represent a response on the part of police officers to
the demands of the job and the way in which he or she wishes to identify
him or her self as a police officer.
These variations represent the flexibility of the police personality
to adapt to the life of each individual, while remaining firm in its
fundamental characteristics. The several variations of the police personality
differ from one another only in that they express the
fundamental characteristics of police personality in a slightly different
manner from one another. Therefore, such variations
represent social adaptation of the personality characteristics of police
officers to the demands of their environment, further
reinforcing the idea that the police personality develops as a result
of socialization.
Importance of the Study to be undertaken
The study of police personality is important, particularly in a time
when the need for a well- trained and effective police force is
increasingly needed. As the United States population continues to grow,
the need for individuals to maintain law and order and
to act swiftly to restore the balance when crime
occurs. US census bureau data indicates that the United States population
has a net gain of one person every 15 seconds. It is
projected that the United States population will increase by as much
as 306,575 people by the year 2008. Along with this
population growth comes an increase in crime, and thereby an increased
need for crime control. US Department of Justice data
indicates that in 1995, there was a total rate of 5,278 criminal offenses
committed for every 100,000 individuals. Therefore,
even if the rate of crime commission does not rise, the number of crimes
committed will increase as a result of the increase in
population. In addition, population increase will also increase the
demands on police officers to respond in emergency situations
of a non-criminal nature.
More specifically, it is of great importance to attempt to understand
how the personality of a police officer develops over the
course of a career for several reasons. One is for the purposes of
aiding officers in performing at their highest level and avoiding
the pitfalls of a law enforcement career.
Another is for identifying what characteristics set the most effective
and successful police officers apart from others, so that
these characteristics can be sought out in those who are recruited
and cultivated in those who are trained as police officers.
Only through understanding what characteristics contribute to effectiveness
and success in law enforcement, and determining
how these characteristics are developed can the strong and efficient
police force that is so greatly needed be formed and
maintained.
Studies Supporting the Role of Socialization in Producing "Police Personality"
Predictions in the present study are made on the basis of several earlier
studies of police officers and their personality
characteristics. These include Niederhoffer (1967) who held that in
police officers, whatever typical characteristics exist are
fostered almost entirely by the social system. (McKew 81-82)
This approach to police personality is also supported by Sterling (1972)
who used social psychology’s role theory to state that
social roles are predetermined entities which are defined and limited
by culture. (McKew 81-82). Such roles are then
eventually adopted as a fundamental part of the personality of the
individual. Gray (1975) also supports the idea that the police
personality is primarily a socially driven development , stating that
personality characteristics provide a certain predisposition,
and they are reinforced through training and socialization. (McKew
81-82). This suggests that although certain personality
characteristics may initially influence the expression of the police
personality, its long- term identity will be determined by the
training that an individual receives and the socialization process
which he or she undergoes. It is expected that if such a trend is
not observed, one or more confounding factors may be responsible.
Despite some support in the literature for the idea that socialization
plays an important role in producing the "police personality",
the area has not been extensively investigated. Therefore, the present
study is designed to look at the possible correlation
between the number of years an individual has served as a law enforcement
officer and the degree to which he or she exhibits
"police personality" characteristics.
Hypothesis: It is hypothesized that on the job socialization is primarily
responsible for the formation of the "police personality".
(Leftkowitz 5, Adlam 1982) Therefore, it is hypothesized that officers
will differ in their JPI-R scores from those with differing
number of years of law enforcement experience as well as from those
with no law enforcement experience (college students
enrolled in general psychology).
It is hypothesized that police officers as a group, differ in their
expression of the personality characteristics measured by the
JPI-R from college students with no police experience. Therefore, it
is predicted that when compared to individuals with no law
enforcement experience (college students), police officers are predicted
to score higher than college students on all JPI-R
scales except for Anxiety and Empathy, on which students are expected
to have elevated scores.
It is also hypothesized that police officers differ in their expression
of the personality characteristics in question according to the
number of years of working as a police officer. It is therefore hypothesized
that there will be observable differences in the
scores of officers with less than 7 years, 7 to 14 years, 15-20 and
more than 20 years of working as a police officer.
Basis for Hypothesis: The present study places primary emphasis on the
importance of the social influence approach to police
personality formation in which the distinctive personality traits of
police officers are developed over time. Theoretically, this
stance is based on a favoring of "nurture" (social influence) over
"nature" (inborn traits or characteristics) as the most powerful
determinant of behavior. Although "nature" does play a role by providing
an individual with certain biological and psychological
characteristics, "nurture" determines whether or not and to what extent
inborn characteristics may be expressed
( #top ).
Subjects: Subjects will be divided into five groups according to their
level of law enforcement experience: College students
(original group: 39. Randomly reduced to 19 for matching purposes)
enrolled in a general psychology course at a small, liberal
arts college in Manchester, NH, officers with less than 7 years of
law enforcement experience, officers with 7-14 years of law
enforcement experience, and officers with 15-20 years of law enforcement
experience, and those with more than 20 years of
law enforcement experience. Police subjects (19 subjects total) were
drawn from : Massachusetts State Police, Marlborough
Police Department, Lexington Police Department, Port Orange Police
Department, Dothan Police Department. Student
subjects were drawn from Introductory Psychology sections at Saint
Anselm College, NH.
Materials: Jackson Personality Inventory- Revised (JPI-R) test booklets,
answer sheets, Subject information sheet (see
Appendix A) for gathering demographic data about the participants,
informed consent forms (Appendix B), Debriefing
statements (Appendix C).
Procedure: 1. Each participant was given one test packet for anonymous
completing. Each packet contained one JPI-R test
booklet, one JPI-R answer sheet, one Subject information sheet, one
informed consent form, one debriefing statement, (and
one stamped, self-addressed envelope for those completing the packet
from a distance.)
2. Subjects were
instructed to read the Informed Consent Form carefully, and sign and date
it if they were willing
to participate
in the study. Those who were willing to participate were instructed to
read the instructions on both
the Subject
information sheet and the JPI-R carefully before beginning. Subjects were
then instructed to complete
the subject
information sheet and the JPI-R as completely and honestly as possible.
Subjects were informed that
the entire procedure
should take approximately 1 hour.
3. After completion,
subjects were asked to relinquish the testing packets and were provided
with the debriefing
statement for
the study, which contained a full description of its purpose.
4. Completed
JPI-R forms were scored according to the instructions contained in the
JPI-R manual section
pertaining to
JPI-R self-scoring answer sheets. Completed scoring yields an outcome value
for the 15 JPI-R
personality
scales.
5. Results of
JPI-R were analyzed for correlation between scores on the 15 scales and
the number of years of
police service
(as reported on the subject information sheet). Additionally, results were
examined for correlations
between scales
of the JPI-R. Results were also examined for correlation between JPI-R
scores and size of
department,
level of education for police officers.
6. Compare the results of the JPI-R from subjects to normative data provided by the JPI-R.
Measures used for Hypothesis Testing
The Jackson Personality Inventory- Revised
Testing this hypothesis will be performed using the Jackson Personality
Inventory, a standardized personality test which is
designed for use with no-psychiatric populations of average to above
average intelligence. It is composed of 300 true/false
statements and examines individual personality characteristics as well
as interactions in settings including work, school,
organizations, interpersonal and high level performance. It has a validity
of .98-.99 and a reliability of approximately .80. The
JPI measures personality characteristics on 15 scales. The 15 scales
fall into 5 categories: Analytical, Emotional, Extroversion,
Opportunistic, and Dependability.
The Analytical category is designed to measure complexity, breadth of
interest, innovation and tolerance. The Emotional
category focuses on empathy, anxiety, and cooperativeness. The Extroverted
category contains sociability, social confidence
and energy level. The Opportunitistic category contains questions addressing
social astuteness and risk taking, and the
Dependability category measures organization, traditional values and
responsibility.
The Subject Information Sheet
To aid the process of matching, a subject information sheet (SIS) (Appendix
A) was developed by the researcher. This form
requires subject responses to questions such as: sex, age, educational
level, socioeconomic status of family of origin, race,
parental occupation(s), if a police officer, number of years of service,
location(s) of service and area of specialization. The only
possible confound that will not be addressed experimentally will be
the effect of stress. Since this is a constantly changing
situationally effected variable, it should not vary systematically
and therefore should not act as a confound in this experiment.
Therefore, although stress should not vary systematically to the extent
that it may act as a confound, it is still worthy of attention
and should be studied wherever possible, since it may have powerful
universal effects on the shaping of the police personality
and its expression.
Merits of Using the JPI-R for this Study
The JPI is ideal for the purposes of this study for several reasons.
First, police officers meet the general demographic
characteristics which the test provides for choosing subjects. Police
officers are consistently found to be of average or above
average intelligence, and are members of a non-psychiatric population
which contains work, organizational , interpersonal and
high level interactions with others.
Secondly, the JPI has been found to have good reliability and validity
and is supported by a large body of normative data. This
data was compiled through the administration of a number of nationwide
trials with high school and college students and
working/professional persons. Subjects were coded according to their
occupation, and results were examined to identify
personality trait trends. A number of trends emerged, including the
‘good cop’. This data thereby provides a basis for
comparing results of police subjects on this test with members of the
general population on police personality characteristics.
Additionally, the 15 scales contained in the JPI specifically address
many of the major characteristics of the police personality.
(Bayley & Bittner 1984, Bennett and Greensteing 1975, Hogan 1971,
Leftkowitz 1975, McKew 1e981, Murrell; Lester and
Arcuri 1978, Nowicki 1966). Unlike the commonly used MMPI (Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory), the JPI
examines personality characteristics that apply to nearly all members
of the population, making it a particularly useful tool. The
MMPI in contrast, is geared specifically for identifying gross psychopathology.
Therefore, use of the MMPI would require
examination of subject characteristics that are not of interest for
the purpose of this study.
The JPI in contrast allows for the focus of the study to be on the characteristics
of interest, and provides the opportunity to
examine each characteristic individually as well as all the characteristics
as a whole. This allows for the researcher to examine
subtle variations that may exist between and within testing groups,
thereby providing a clearer representation of police
personality as a whole.
Finally, the JPI is ideally suited for use with police officers because
it allows the researcher to gain insight into the personality of
the individual being tested, without being overly intrusive in its
approach to gaining information. This is of special importance
when dealing with a special population such as police officers who
may become offended or suspicious when presented with
questions that they interpret as prying.
( #top )
Adlam, K. Robert C. (1982) The police personality: psychological consequences
of being a police officer. Journal of police
science and administration. Vol.10. No.3 . p. 344-349.
Allport, G.W. (1961). Patterns and growth in personality. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bartol,Curt R. (1991). Prediction validation of the MMPI for small-town
police officers who fail. Professional
psychology:research and practice. Vol. 22. No.2. p.127-32.
Bartol, Curt R. (1992). Women in small-town policing. Criminal justice
and behavior. Vol 19. No.3. p. 240-59.
Bayley, David H and Egon Bittner (1984). Learning the skills of policing.
Law and contemporary problems. Vol 47. No.4.
p.35-59.
Bennett, Richard R and Theodore Greenstein (1975) The police personality:
a test of the predispositional model. Journal of
police science and administration.Vol.3. No.4. p 439-45.
Brandt, David E (1993) Social distress and the police. Journal of social
distress and homelessness. Vol.2. No.4. p.305-13.
Brown, Jennifer M. and Elizabeth A. Campbell (1990) Sources of occupational
stress in the police. Work and stress. Vol.4.
No.4. p.305-18.
Cattell, R.B. (1950). Personality: a systematic, theoretical, and factual study. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gerber,Gwendolyn (1996) Status in same-gender and mixed-gender police
dyads: effects on personality attributions. Social
psychology quarterly. Vol.59. No.4. p.350-63.
Hogan, Robert (1971) Personality characteristics of highly rated policemen.
Personnel psychology. Vol.24. p.6799-86.
Leftkowitz, Joel (1975) Psychological attributes of policemen: a review
of research and opinion. Journal of social issues.
Vol.31. No.1. p.3-21.
Manuel, Laura; Retzlaff, Paul and Eugene Sheehan. (1993) Policewomen
personality. Journal of social behavior and
personality. Vol.8. No.1. p.149-53.
McKew, Chief Inspector A (1981-82) A police personality: fact or myth?
Brahmshill Journal.. Vol.1. No.3. p.23-9.
Mischel, W. (1986). Introduction to personality(4th ed.). New York:Holt,
Rinehart &Winston.
Murrell,Mary E. ; Lester, David and Alan F. Arcuri (1978) Is the police
personality unique to police officers? Psychological
Reports. Vol.43. p.298.
Nowicki,Stephen (1966) A study of the personality characteristics of
successful policemen. Police Vol 10. P.39
Pervin, L.A. (1989). Personality: theory and research (5th ed.) New
York:Joh Wiley & Sons.
Wexler,Judie Gaffin (1985) Role styles of women police officers. Sex
roles Vol.12. No.7-8. P.749-55.
( #top )
In the present study, the independent measure was the Jackson Personality
Inventory-Revised (JPI-R), a standardized test of
personality characteristics, and the subject information sheet which
was used to obtain demographic data. The dependent
measures were the scores of participants on the 15 scales of the JPI-R:
Anxiety, Breadth of Interest, Cooperativeness,
Complexity, Empathy, Energy Level, Innovation, Organization, Risk-taking,
Responsibility, Social Astuteness, Social
Confidence, Sociability, Tolerance, and Traditional Values (See Appendix
D for complete description of scales).
Demographics: Police officers were drawn from 6 police departments in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Alabama, and Florida.
Subjects were chosen for participation on the basis of indication of
interest when provided with a preliminary description of the
study. N= 19. (16 men, 3 women). Department size ranged from 55 to
2400 employees. Mean 433. Mode 55. Educational
level ranged from high school graduate to completed Master’s degree.
The mode was a Bachelor’s degree. The mean was 3
years completed at a 4 year college. Ages ranged from 29 to 51. The
mean was 38 (s.d of 6.35). Officers were divided into 2
categories: new officers and experienced officers. The new officer
group (N=7) had a mean age of 33 (sd 3.79). Subjects
ranged in age from 29 to 38. There were 4 males, 3 females. Department
size ranged from 55 to 2400. Mean = 688.57.
Educational level ranged from high school graduate to masters degree.
The mean educational level was a bachelors degree .
The mean number of years worked as a police officer was 5.25 (sd 4.50).
The experienced officers group (N=12) had a mean
age of 40.92 (sd 5.74). Subjects ranged in age from 32 to 51. There
were 12 male officers. Department sized ranged from 55
to 2400. Mean department size was 284.58. Educational level ranged
from high school graduate to masters degree. Mean
educational level = bachelors degree completed. The mean number of
years worked as a police officer was 20.75 (sd 4.137).
Students were drawn from General Psychology classes at a small liberal
arts college in NH. Students participated in the study
as part of their course credit .N=19. (15 women 4 men). Educational
level ranged from high school graduate .Mean associates
degree. Mode high school graduate. Ages ranged from 18 to 47. Mean
was 19.9 years. One 47 year old participated, but did
not differ significantly from the scores of the other subjects.
Data was analyzed using linear correlations to determine inter-relationships
among the scales of the JPI-R for police officer
subjects. Linear regression analysis was conducted to determine the
degree to which scores on scales found to correlate with
one another could be used to predict one another. Data was analyzed
using the Mann-Whitney U test to determine the
significance of differences among group scores (police/student comparison,
new/experienced police comparison, police/norm
comparison). .
Correlations. Correlations were first conducted on the police officer
subject group to determine whether or not relationships
existed among scores on the different scales of the JPI-R. Analysis
revealed that the following significant relationships existed:
(Table 1)
TABLE 1
_________________________________________________________________
N= 19 Subject type= police officers
Factors Correlated Pearson Correlation coeff. / 2 tail significance
Innovation x Anxiety
.497 * /.031
Innovation x Breadth of Interest
.461 * /.047
Innovation x Complexity
.470 * /.042
Innovation x Energy Level
.636 **/ .003
Risk-Taking x Anxiety
.675 **/.002
Risk-taking x Complexity
.472 */.041
Risk-taking x Energy Level
.581 **/.009
Risk-taking x Innovation
.830**/.000
Responsibility x Breadth of Interest
.675 **/.002
Social Astuteness x Innovation
.488*/.034
Tolerance x Breadth of Interest
.505 */.027
Traditional Values x Complexity
-. 533 */.019
Sociability x Complexity
.489 */.034
Social Astuteness x Complexity
.474*/.040
* p< .05_ ** p<_.001
Correlation between Innovation and Anxiety, Risk-taking and Anxiety
were not expected. The remaining correlations are
expected outcomes on the basis of the inter-relatedness of these traits
in the behavior of police officers. The consequences of
these correlations in terms of there effects on the outcome of data
analysis
Correlations were also conducted to examine differences between the
scores of police officers and the scores that were used
as a normative sample in the development of the JPI-R. Results indicated
that the following differences exist. (Table 2)
Table 2
__________________________________________________________________
N= 20
Subject type: Police officers (19) and JPI-R normative group (1)
_________________________________________________________________ Correlation
of Scales (Police)
Correlation of Scales (JPI-R Norms)
INV x AXY = .497 *
INV x AXY = -.19
INV x BDI = .461*
INV x BDI = .42
INV x CPX = .470 *
INV x CPX = .42
INV x ENL = .636 **
INV x ENL = .35
RKT x AXY = .675 **
RKT x AXY =-.30
RKT x CPX = .472 *
RKT x CPX = .25
RKT x ENL = .581**
RKT x ENL = .25
RKT x INV = .830 **
RKT x INV = .38
RSY x BDI = .675 **
RSY x BDI = .20
SAS x INV = .488 *
SAS x INV = .17
TOL x BDI = .505 *
TOL x BDI = .37
TRV x CPX= -.533*
TRV x CPX =-34
SOC x CPX= .489 *
SOC x CPX = .02
SAS x CPX = .474 *
SAS x CPX = .10
* p<.05
** p<.001
As evident above, the scores of the police officers on the examined
scales are much more highly correlated with one another
than are those on the JPI-R normative group. This indicates that police
officers differ from the normative group in some ways. It
is also important to note that on one of the correlations (INV x AXY)
the relationship for police officers is positive, while for
the normative group it is negative.
Regressions: As a result of the large number of intercorrelations between
scales within the police officer subject pool, regression
analysis was performed to determine the degree to which the factors
are inter-related. Results were then compared to
inter-relation data provided based on the JPI-R normative sample. When
linear regression was performed for Risk-taking
(RSK), results indicated that 23.5% of the variance was accounted for
by INV, AXY, CPX and ENL. Individually, INV
accounted for approximately 1% of the variance, AXY accounted for less
than 1% of the variance, CPX accounted for 18.8 %
of the variance, and ENL accounted for 3.7% of the variance. Analysis
of Innovation (INV) indicated that 43.5% of the
variance is accounted for when ENL, CPX, BDI and AXY are considered.
Individually, BDI accounts for 25% of the
variance, BDI and ENL account for 34.2% of the variance (ENL = 9.2%),
BDI, ENL and CPX account for 40.9% of the
variance (CPX= 6.7%), and BDI, ENL, CPX and AXY accounting for 43.5%
of the variance (AXY=2.6%).
Mann-Whitney U Analysis
The Mann-Whitney U analysis was conducted for comparing the scores of
police officers with those of college students
(TABLE 3), new police officers with those of more experienced police
officers.. The following differences were found to be
significant. (Results are presented graphically in FIG 1).
TABLE 3
__________________________________________________________________
N= 38
Subject groups: Police officers and College students
__________________________________________________________________
Factor Mann-Whitney U / Significance
Anxiety
9.500 X 0.00**
Breadth of Interest
203.000 .875
Cooperativeness
141.000 .075 +
Complexity
166. 000 .258
Empathy
56. 00 X 0.00 **
Energy Level
83.500 XX .001 **
Innovation
154.500 .153
Organization
157.500 .176
Risk-taking
174.00 .359
Responsibility
91.000 XX .002 *
Social Astuteness
169.00 .293
Social Confidence
90.000 XX . 002 *
Sociability
112.000 X . 011 *
Tolerance
207.500 .968
Traditional Values
203.000 . 875
* p<_ .05
X Student score higher
** p<_ .001
XX Officer score higher
+ p is near significance, may be due to
estimation.
Results indicated that officers scored higher on energy level, responsibility,
social confidence, while students scored higher on
anxiety, empathy and sociability. (Figure 1: Graphic Comparison of
Officer/Student)
(FIGURE 1)
* p.05 ** p<.001
Note: Range of possible scores = 0 to 100
No significant differences were found when police subjects were grouped
as either new officers or experienced officers and
compared using the Mann-Whitney. Possible reasons for this will be
addressed in the discussion section.
A Mann-Whitney non-parametric test was also conducted to determine any
possible differences existing between the scores of
officers and the normative scores for the JPI-R. The following differences
were found to be significant. Officers differed
significantly from the norms on Complexity to the p<.05 level (.002),
Innovation to the p<.05 level (.053), Risk-taking to the
p<.001 level (0.00), Responsibility to the p<.05 level (.002)
and Traditional Values to the p<.001 level (0.00)
Additional Findings: A small sample size prevents assumptions from being
made about the relationship between the number of
years one has worked as a law enforcement officer and the scores on
the JPI-R. However, when the Mann-Whitney was
conducted, the following differences were observed.
Finding 1: When officers with 15-20 years of law enforcement experience
were compared to students with no law enforcement
experience, the two groups were found to differ on Anxiety, Empathy,
Responsibility. Students were found to be more anxious,
more empathetic, and less responsible than the officers.
Finding 2: When officers with more than 20 years of law enforcement
experience were compared to the no experience group
the two groups were found to differ on Anxiety, Breadth of Interest,
Responsibility and Social confidence. Students were found
to be more anxious, had a narrower breadth of interest, were less responsible,
and had less social confidence than the officers.
Finding 3: When officers with less than 7 years experience were compared
to the no experience group differences were
observed only on measures of Anxiety and Responsibility. Students were
found to be more anxious and less responsible than
the officers.
Finding 4: No significant differences were observed for comparison of
officers with 7-14 years of law enforcement experience
and the no experience group.
Further investigation with a larger subject pool will be necessary to
determine whether or not these results are representative of
the populations in question.
Finding 5: Differences were also observed between the scores of officers,
according to the number of years of law enforcement
experience possessed .Investigation of these observed trends also require
a larger subject pool.
( #top )
The present study was designed to examine the personality characteristics
of police officers. A cross-sectional design was used
to examine the similarities and differences in the expression of personality
characteristics by police officers and college students
as measured by the Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised (JPI-R). The
JPI-R consists of 15 scales which address specific
aspects of human personality. (See Appendix D for description of characteristics
measured by each scale)
It was hypothesized by this study that police officers would differ
significantly from college students in their expression of
personality characteristics measured by the JPI-R. This prediction
was made based on the assumption that the personality
characteristics associated with working as a police officer are primarily
the result of socialization and develop over time.
Therefore it was expected that officers, having been socialized in
their role on the job would differ from college students who
had not been exposed to the experiences of police work Results supported
the hypothesis that police officers would differ from
college students in their JPI-R scores. Results were not sufficient
to determine whether or not these differences were the result
of socialization, or if some other factor was responsible. Officers
were found to differ significantly in their expression of JPI-R
personality characteristics on 6 of the 15 scales. Although it must
be acknowledged that some of these differences may be due
to chance, it is unlikely that all 6 occurred for this reason, indicating
that the police officer and college student subjects differed
from one another in some way. The two groups were found to be highly
similar in their responses to 3 of the scales. The
remaining scales indicated differences, but these did not reach statistical
significance. The lack of significant differences between
the two groups is contrary to the anticipated results, since a willingness
to take risks and a keen ability to evaluate others are
traits commonly associated with those who work as police officers.
It was also hypothesized that officers would differ from one another
in their expression of JPI-R personality characteristics
according to the number of years worked as a police officer. Subjects
were classified as either new or experienced officers and
analyzed. No significant differences were found. However, it is important
to note that a small sample size was used, and results
are therefore not necessarily representative of police officers as
a group.
On the basis of a high degree of intercorrelation among scores on the
JPI-R scales, officers were also compared to the
normative sample used by the JPI-R. It was found that officers showed
a higher degree of intercorrelation than did the
normative sample on all correlations, and differed significantly from
the norms on Complexity, Innovation, Risk-taking,
Responsibility, and Traditional Values. This may reflect the differences
in the requirements which each groups environment
places on it in a way similar to that illustrated through the differences
observed between police officer and college student JPI-R
scores.
Explanation of JPI-R differences by Scale:
The differences observed between police officer and college student
subjects suggest a pattern of behavior that is most
representative of individuals working in law enforcement as presented
by the available sample. Anxiety: The low scores of
police officers on Anxiety may occur because police officers often
find themselves in stressful situations, but must maintain a low
to moderate level of arousal in order to be able to work effectively.
For example, if a police officer became highly anxious and
overwhelmed each time he found himself in a stressful situation, he
would not be able to perform his job of bringing the situation
under control effectively. College students in contrast find themselves
in an academic atmosphere which requires them to
motivate themselves in order to accomplish necessary tasks. This may
be because a moderate to high level of anxiety is
necessary to motivate college students and keep them focused on what
needs to be accomplished. Therefore, police officers
and college students likely differ on anxiety because of the vastly
different requirements of their social environments.
Empathy: The police officers may score lower on Empathy as compared
to college students as a result of a pattern of behavior
unique to police officers as well.. Officers do work which requires
them to deal with large numbers of people every day, many
of whom have broken the law in some way. Therefore, police officers
frequently come in contact with people who are engaging
in deception, and may under some circumstances be violent and dangerous.
As a result of the population with which the police
officer is interacting, he or she must be somewhat skeptical about
the quality of these individuals character. In addition, it is the
officers job to enforce the law in a fair, unbiased manner, and allowing
emotion to play a role in their interactions with others
while on the job would make this responsibility more difficult to fulfill.
Finally, police officers frequently encounter situations
which others find horrifying, but which require the officers immediate
attention. Under these circumstances, the officer must not
allow him or her self to feel emotional, or is at risk for being unable
to carry out his or her duties.
College students in contrast are highly concerned with establishing
and maintaining relationships with others. Therefore, for this
group Empathy is very important, and causes individuals to seek out
situations in which it is possible to interact with others and
form meaningful relationships with them. This is especially significant
in terms of the establishment of romantic relationships.
During the college years, it is likely to be highly important to individuals
to find a 'significant other' and perhaps a potential mate.
Therefore, the scores of officers and college students on Empathy differ
as a result in the difference in the end goal of interaction
with others. College students are primarily seeking to form relationships
with others while police officers are seeking to maintain
control in social situations. To college students, the expression of
emotion facilitates the end goal, while for police officers, such
expression of emotion would function contrary to the end goal.
Energy Level: The higher scores of police officers on Energy Level in
comparison to college students may illustrate the way in
which police officers behavior is tailored to the requirements their
job. Officers are frequently required to work long, often
erratic hours and engaging in physically and mentally taxing activities.
Therefore, they require the maintenance of a high level of
energy in order to do their job properly. Additionally, the situations
in which officers may find themselves may sometimes
require the ability to respond rapidly, and may even be a matter of
life and death. Therefore, officers need to maintain a
constant high level of energy in order to be ready to take action as
needed.
College students in contrast may exhibit lower scores on energy level
when compared to police officers as a result of the
differences in the environments in which the two groups function. This
may reflect the fact that college students typically find
themselves in environments which require only a moderate level of energy
to perform effectively. More emphasis is placed on
the ability to maintain a constant level of effort than on responding
rapidly to unexpected and potentially threatening situations.
Therefore, the environmental circumstances under which individuals
find themselves acting likely has an impact on the manner in
which they act.
Responsibility: The officers higher scores on responsibility in comparison
to college students may reflect the nature of the
officers job itself. Police officers are supposed to serve an protect
members of society, and therefore are more likely to feel a
moral obligation to individuals and society as a whole. This high level
of responsibility should guide an officers actions and help
him or her to perform effectively. An officer who felt no moral obligation
to others would then have little reason to carry out the
activities of his or her job, and would perhaps be better suited to
life as criminal than as a guardian and enforcer of the law.
College students may score lower on Responsibility than police officers
as a result of differences in age and in differences in the
amount of exposure to real-life situations. College students are typically
younger than the police officers and therefore may not
have reached the same level of moral maturity, resulting in a less
developed sense of moral obligation to others. Additionally,
college students have had less exposure to situations in which feelings
of moral obligation to others and society might be
experienced. Police officers however are frequently faced with moral
dilemnas in which they must make choices on the basis of
whom their greatest moral obligation belongs to: the individual with
whom they are interacting, or the society as a whole.
Social Confidence: The higher scores of officers on Social Confidence
in comparison to college students may illustrate the
importance of highly developed social skills to the police officer.
Since police officers are often called upon to enforce rules and
regulations which others are unwilling to obey, it is essential that
the officer be able to present him or her self as confident and
self assured. This is necessary for getting the individual in question
to obey, and in its absence, an officer is likely to have little
success in getting the individual to comply.
College students may score lower on Social Confidence than police officers
for several reasons. First, they are likely to have
less experience in social situations in which they must take control
than are the police officers. Second, they, as college students
are still trying to establish their own identity and place in society.
Therefore, they are likely to be less confident than individuals
who have an established career and are accorded a certain measure of
authority and respect on the basis of that position.
Sociability: Police officers lower scores on Sociability may illustrate
the possible consequences of working as a police officer.
Since police officers are required to interact with a large number
and wide variety of people regularly, and are exposed to some
of the least desirable elements of society, many officers retreat from
social contact when not working. This may be partially a
result of an officers desire to avoid further contact with unpleasant
social situations during his or her off hours. Additionally,
officers may also refrain from seeking out the company of others as
a way of attaining some measure of privacy. Since police
officers are such public figures, many man feel the need to pull away
from others when the opportunity for privacy arises.
Finally, officers may feel uncomfortable seeking out the company of
individuals whose life experiences differ considerably from
theirs. It is likely that non-officers may be horrified by occurences
described by officers, and that they will shun further exposure
to such information. As a result, police officers may choose to seek
the companionship only of a small circle of individuals with
whom they can share their experiences.
College students in contrast may score higher on Sociability than do
the police officers. This may occur for reasons similar to
those for the high score on empathy. College students are highly concerned
with forming relationships and establishing an
individual identity, therefore making it of great importance to interact
with numerous people and groups. Unlike police officers
who are thrust into interaction with others as a result of job requirements,
college students must actively seek out
companionship, since the social interaction, however important it might
be, is not the primary goal of college itself
Similarities
Results also indicated that Police officers and College students showed
similarity on three of the JPI-R scales, Tolerance,
Traditional Values, and Breadth of interest. This may be a result of
the homogeneous nature of the college population, selection
bias resulting from some characteristic shared by officers and students
who volunteered for the study. If these results are not
due to a homogeneous sample, these similarities may exist for several
reasons.
Tolerance: First, a similarity between the JPI-R scores of police officers
and college students on Tolerance may be due to
college students and police officers are both exposed to diverse groups
of people who may differ from themselves in attitudes
and customs. This may lead both groups to be similarly tolerant of
those who differ from themselves in order to function
effectively in their environments. In the case of college students,
tolerance is important in order to accomplish the goal of
broadening ones mind intellectually, through exposure to new academic
ideas. This issue is particularly relevant to the college
sample in question since these students are exposed to a liberal arts
centered approach to education which may cause them to
be particularly tolerant of new ideas.
In the case of police officers, tolerance plays an important role since
they are frequently exposed to people and situations that
are outside their typical sphere of experience. Under these conditions,
officers must maintain some degree of open-mindedness
about these new experiences in order to avoid allowing their personal
perspectives from inappropriately biasing their responses
to situations. Therefore, although several possible explanations exist
for the observed similarities between the groups, further
investigation is necessary to determine the reliability of this finding,
as well as to determine the causes of such an observation.
Traditional Values: The similarity of officer and college student scores
observed on the Traditional Values scale of the JPI-R
may be a result of the highly structured populations from which the
subjects were drawn. Police officers as a consequence of
their jobs are accustomed to a clearly defined system of rules and
regulations and may express this in their JPI-R responses.
The college students in the sample similarly were drawn from a college
population characterized by a system of rules and
regulations. This is expressed through the presence of a religious
order on campus, emphasizing the presence of religious rules,
as well as through the presence of pariatals which govern inter-visition
between the sexes. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
two groups show similarly high scores on the measure of Traditional
values.
Breadth of Interest: The similarity of officer and student scores on
the Breadth of Interest scale of the JPI-R may be due to the
intellectual challenges which both groups face. Police officers may
be exposed to a wide variety situations in the course of their
work, requiring some degree of understanding of numerous topics. Therefore,
in order to perform his or her job with the highest
degree of efficiency and skill, an individual may pursue knowledge
in a number of diverse areas. A second possibility is that
officers may engage in activities that are routine and monotonous in
their work, and may therefore pursue a number of outside
interests in their free time as a means of combating boredom.
College students may exhibit a Breadth of Interest score similar to
those of the police officers as a consequence of their
exposure to a wide variety of topics in their college curriculum. The
liberal arts focus of the college population sampled makes
this especially likely. The fact that many of the college students
in the sample were in their first on second year of college raises
the possibility that this score may also be due to the students investigation
of possible college majors. Finally, this may also be
due to the new sense of personal freedom which the students might experience
as a result of being away at school. As a result
of this feeling of freedom, the students may pursue their interests
in a wide variety of diverse topics. Therefore, it is
understandable that both groups would receive high scores on Breadth
of Interest, although it is not possible to determine the
precise reason for each groups score.
General conclusions: On the basis of the data obtained, it is not possible
to determine how these differences between police
officers and college students develop, ,or whether or not they are
caused by socialization. However, it does provide a valuable
illustration of how and why these differences might occur as a result
of environmental socialization. The differences in JPI-R
scores of the police officers from both the college students and the
normative sample suggest that the police officers represent a
unique sample with personality characteristics that differ from those
of the general population. Therefore, although further
research to determine the representativeness of the police sample and
the way in which the differences between the groups
develop, it is cautiously suggested that socialization appears to be
a highly plausible possible explanation for the differences
observed.
Explanation of Differences between Officer scores and JPI-R Normative scores
Pearson correlation analysis of the JPI-R scores of police officer subjects
showed a high degree of inter-correlation among the
scores of many of the scales. These measures of intercorrelation were
also compared to those for the normative group used by
the JPI-R. It was found that the police subjects exhibited a much higher
occurence of intercorrelation than the normative group
did, sometimes up to three times greater. This indicates that the police
subjects differ in some way from the normative sample
used by the JPI-R There are several possible reasons for this finding.
First, the high degree of intercorrelation may be a result of the homogeneous
nature of the subject group. Intercorrelation could
then occur because the officers share similar experiences which may
shape their responses on a number of scales of the JPI-R.
In this case, there may be grounds for investigation of the issue of
whether or not this pattern is typically of police officers as a
group. Second, it raises the question of how such a unique pattern
of characteristics occurs. For example, do officers possess
these characteristics upon entering law enforcement, or are they developed
at particular points in a police officers career?
Additionally, the inter-correlation observed among the JPI-R responses
of police officers provides preliminary indications of the
pattern of personality characteristic expression among police officers
in the sample.
Important findings include: the correlation of several scales with the
Risk-taking scale, as well as several scales with the
Innovation scale (Table 1). It was found that Risk-taking was most
highly correlated with Innovation, while Innovation was
most highly correlated with Energy Level. The high correlation between
Risk-taking and Innovation may suggest that police
officers who score high on Innovation are likely to also score high
on measures of Risk-taking. This might occur because an
individuals tendency toward creative thinking leads an individual to
engage in somewhat risky behavior as an outlet for
expressing these creative thoughts and actions. The relationship between
Innovation and Energy level might occur as a result of
an individuals high level of energy acting as a motivating factor for
the expression of creative thoughts and ideas. Overall, these
results may indicate that Risk-taking and Innovation scores have an
important impact on the expression of these other
characteristics among police officers. However, further investigation
is necessary to determine the way in which these scales are
related to one another.
Officer JPI-R scale Intercorrelation in View of Regression Analysis
It is important to note that despite the high degree of intercorrelation
between the scales previously noted when, regression
analysis was conducted the scales with the highest correlation coefficient
did not exhibit the greatest degree of prediction for
one another. Instead, the variance in the Risk-taking score was accounted
for primarily by the complexity score. In the case of
Innovation, although it was most highly correlated with Energy level,
its variance was primarily accounted for by Breadth of
Interest. These conflicting results may have occurred as a result of
the large number of correlations that were conducted on the
data. Therefore, further research is necessary to determine the true
relationship between the scales examined here.
Trends observed According to Variations in Number?of Years of Law Enforcement Experience
Although a small sample size prevented statistical analysis from being
conducted on the differences between groups of police
officers according to number of years worked in law enforcement, and
those between officers and college students, several
trends were observed. The most unusual of these was that when the officer
groups were compared to college students, it was
observed that officers with 7-14 years of law enforcement experience
were most similar to the college students, followed by
those officers with less than 7 years of working as a police officer.
This trend differs from what was expected, in that it was
anticipated that those officers with the least law enforcement experience
would be most similar to the college students in their
scores.
One possible reason for this unexpected outcome is that individuals
who have worked as police officers for 7-14 years may be
finding themselves at a crossroads both personally and professionally.
Having been exposed to the ups and downs of police
work, these individuals may be torn between their desire to maintain
an identity as a police officer, and their desire to identify
themselves as individuals in the way that they did prior to entering
law enforcement. In this case, the lack of difference observed
between the officers and college students may represent a temporary
backlash against the characteristics associated with police
officers, and a return to those characteristic of individuals outside
law enforcement. In addition, this result may also be
influenced by the cross-sectional design of the study. Consequently,
the differences observed may not be characteristic of these
groups within the larger world population, and should not be relied
upon.
With the exception of the previously mentioned finding, the anticipated
trend was observed both in comparisons of officer
groups with one another and in officers with college students. The
greater the difference in the number of years of law
enforcement experience, the greater the differences in the JPI-R scores
of the groups. This indicates that some difference may
exist between the groups on the basis of the number of years of law
enforcement experience subjects possessed. This may
suggest that the personality characteristics expressed by police officers,
as measured by the JPI-R undergo some change as the
number of years worked as a police officer increases. This might be
caused by police officers adapting their personality styles
to better suit the requirements of their environment. Such a finding
would tentatively support the hypothesis that the personality
characteristics of police officers change over time and that socialization
is responsible for this change. However, further
research is necessary to determine the reliability and validity of
these findings.
Conclusions
In sum, the results of the present study indicate that differences do
exist between the police officers and the college students
examined, as well as between the police officers and the normative
sample of the JPI-R. This cautiously suggests that some
important change in the expression of the personality characteristics
measured by the JPI-R occurs when one works as a police
officer, setting him or her apart from the general population. The
trends observed which suggest variations in the expression of
JPI-R personality traits change as a consequence of the number of years
an individual has worked as a police officer also
suggest that the differences between police officers and college student
and normative groups may be gradually occuring.
However, future research is necessary to determine the reliability
and validity of the obtained results.
Examination of the Present Study in View of Current Literature
The results of the present study are in keeping with the body of literature
that claims the existence of a unique pattern of
personality characteristics in persons working as police officers.
(Adlam 1982, Bennett & Greenstein 1975, Gerber 1996,
Hogan 1971, Kaufman 11992, Leftkowitz 1975, Manuel 1993, McKew 1981,
Murrell, Lester & Arcuri 1978, Wexler 1985)
However, the results are not sufficient to determine conclusively whether
the "nature" or the "nurture" approach to explaining
police personality is correct. In fact, it is possible that a combined
influence rather than either approach individually is
responsible. Therefore, although the data gathered from the present
subjects of the study indicates that socialization may play
some role in the development of patterns of personality characteristics
that cause officers to differ from other members of the
population, this has not been proven.
Limitations of the Present Study
The present study contains a number of problems and limitations. The
first, and most severe limitation of the study was its small
sample size. This prevented several of the factors of interest from
being statistically analyzed, therefore making the results of the
study less applicable to the research question.
These include factors such as gender, race, age, size of police department,
geographical location of police department or
college, number of years worked as a police officer, officer reported
stress level, officer area of specialty (if any), officer dyadic
distribution, etc. .
A second limitation of the present study is the homogenous composition
of both the college student and police officer groups.
This makes it difficult to generalize results to the populations which
the subject groups are meant to represent. The college
students were all drawn from the same small college population in which
the majority of students are white and middle class.
Therefore, this sample is not representative of college students in
general. Similarly, the police population was drawn entirely
from Police departments in the eastern United States and is therefore
not necessarily representative of police departments as a
whole. In the future, a more heterogeneous sample of subjects would
be necessary.
A third limitation of the study is the uneven gender distribution across
groups. The police officer subject pool was composed
primarily of males, while the college students were predominantly female.
This may have had an impact on the JPI-R scores of
each group, although analysis of this factor was not possible, due
to the small group sizes.
A fourth limitation is that a sampling bias is present in both the college
and police samples. College students given the choice of
participating in a research study or write a paper for their General
Psychology class. Therefore, these students are not
necessarily a representative sample of the population from which they
were drawn. The sample obtained represents only those
students enrolled in a General Psychology course at the college which
they attend, and only those students from that population
who were attracted to participation in the present study. Similarly,
the police subjects are representative of only those members
of the police population who were willing to participate in the study
and to fulfill all study requirements. Therefore, the study
results cannot be readily generalized to college and police populations
in general.
A fifth limitation of this study is that it is cross-sectional in nature
and therefore may be effected by cohort effects. However, this
possibility cannot be investigated at present because of the small
sample size. A longitudinal design would likely be more
reliable and valid than the present design since it would allow a group
of subjects to be monitored over the course of several
years. This would then make it possible to determine more conclusively
whether or not the personality characteristics of police
officers change over time.
A sixth limitation of the present study is that only one measure of
personality characteristics was used, and was administered on
only one occasion. This makes the study vulnerable to possible instability
in the personality traits observed through JPI-R
scores, thereby making the obtained results less reliable than they
might otherwise be. A test-retest procedure, or the use of
more than one test to measure personality characteristics could remedy
this problem to some degree, by increasing the
likelihood that the observed JPI-R scores represent relatively stable
personality characteristics.
A seventh limitation of the study is the conflicting results of correlational
and regressional data analysis for the police officer
sample. These results make it difficult to determine?the true nature
of the relationship between the scales examined. In the
future, action should be taken to prevent such conflict from occuring.
This might include a reduction of the number of
correlations conducted to reduce the likelihood that some of the results
occurred due to chance.
Use of the Present Study for Future Research
In the future, it would be necessary to improve the present study in
several ways to fully address the central research question,
as well as to pursue the secondary variables which might impact results.
Necessary improvements include larger, more
heterogeneous samples that are more representative of the populations
being studied, an examination of possibly influential
factors such as gender, race, stress level, department size, age, area
of officer specialization (if any), geographical location, etc.
Also, a longitudinal design might be more effective in tracing the
variations of personality characteristics of police officers over
time. However, even if not used exclusively, a longitudinal design
would help to either support or deny the findings of a
conducted cross-sectional study.
Additionally, it would also be important to administer the JPI-R to
subjects on more than one occasion to ensure the stability of
the personality characteristics observed, or to use more than one measure
of personality characteristics for this purpose.
Examination of comments obtained through the Subject Information Sheet
(Appendix A) might also reveal useful information
about the way in which police officers view their jobs, and be important
to a future study of police personality characteristics.
Another important addition to future studies might also be to reduce
the number of correlations conducted to avoid the
conflicting data that may result from correlations occurring due to
chance.
Upon completion of the necessary changes in the study design, further
research might reveal a number of important findings.
First, it might be determined with a greater degree of certainty whether
or not police officers do in fact differ from college
students and normative samples in their expression of personality characteristics.
Additionally, a clearer picture of the
relationship between the number of years an individual has worked as
a police officer and the pattern of personality
characteristics expressed might be provided through further study.
The results of such research could then be applied in several
practical ways.
First, if it was found that no differences existed between police officers
and other populations, less time, energy and money
would need to be devoted to teaching police recruits how to "be" police
officers. That is, more emphasis would be placed on
teaching the skills of policing, with little time being devoted to
teaching techniques such as how to be more assertive in
interactions with others. Such a finding would make this type of training
unnecessary since it would be assumed that recruits
already possessed the personality characteristics of a police officer.
However, if differences were found between officers and other groups,
more emphasis would be placed on either choosing
candidates who already possessed the desired personality characteristics
(if it is assumed that such characteristics are innate),
or on teaching new recruits to develop the characteristics in question.
Second, regardless of the specific nature of the results, future research
could be used to illustrate the pattern of personality
characteristics present in the police population and allow individual
departments to identify areas in which change is needed. In
this way, those characteristics that are viewed as conducive to successful
performance of police work could be reinforced, and
characteristics viewed as detrimental could be discouraged.
In conclusion, although the present study provides some useful preliminary
data about possible differences between police
officers and college students or a normative sample in the expression
of JPI-R personality characteristics, and the possible
variations in these characteristics over time, much work remains to
be done. Therefore, the present study should be regarded as
a pilot study to which any necessary changes should be made.
( #top )
APPENDIX A
Subject Information Sheet
1.What characteristics
do you feel an ideal police department should have?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
2)In what ways does your department represent this ideal? ____________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
In what ways is it in need of improvement?
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
3)What do you feel is the most important
task or lesson for a new officer to learn?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
4) Number of years you have served
as a police officer: _______________
5) Locations at which you have worked as a police officer: __________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6) Type of area in which you have
served: rural urban suburban other (please specify) _______
7) Areas of law enforcement in which
you have specialization: (ie narcotics, accident reconstruction, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
8) What is the size of your department?: less than 10 officers
10-20 officers
21-40 officers
41-50 officers
51-60 officers
61-75 officers
75-100 officers
more than 100 officers (please estimate)
__________
9) How many siblings, if any, do
you have? # of male siblings: _______ # of female siblings: ________
10) Are you the: oldest middle youngest
only child
11) In what city/town and state
were you raised? _____________________________________________
12) Which of the following best describes your present level of education:
Elementary school completed
Middle school/Jr. High completed
Some High school completed
High school graduate
Some Jr. college completed
Junior college completed (degree or certificate)
1 year completed at 4 year college
2 years completed at 4 year college
3 years completed at 4 year college
Associates degree received
Graduate of 4 year college (Bachelor’s degree)
Some technical school completed
Graduate of technical school program
Training gained through military service
Some graduate school completed
Completed Master’s Degree
Completed J.D or Ph.D
13) Are you currently: single
divorced
seperated
single/dating seriously
cohabitating
engaged
married
widowed
14) Occupation(s) of your parent(s):
(please specify which parent held which job)
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
15) Racial group to which you belong: Caucasian (white)
Hispanic
African American
Asian
Native American
Eskimo
Pacific Islander
Other (please specify): __________________________________
16) Income group of the family to which you were born: less than $10,000/year
$10,000-$20.0000/year
$21,000-$30,000/year
$31,000-$40,000/year
$41,000-$50,000/year
$51,000-$60,000/year
$61,000-$70,000/year
More than $70,000/year
17) Age: _______
18) Sex:Male Female
Appendix B
Informed Consent Form
Dear Participant,
The study in which you are about
to take part will require you to respond to a number of true and false
questions and to complete a brief form
requesting demographic data. Please
answer both the true/false questions and respond to the data sheet to the
best of your ability. The entire
process of this study should take
approximately 45minute to 1 hour. Do not write your name on either of these
forms. Please be advised that
participation in this study is
entirely voluntary, and you have the right to cease participation at any
time and withdraw all information which
you have provided to the study.
All information provided by you will be kept strictly confidential. If
at any time you have questions or
concerns about the study, the final
results will be made available to you upon request.
If you are satisfied with the above
description of what will be required of you by this study and understand
your rights as a participant as they
are described above, please sign
your name below. By signing your name, you are stating that you are aware
of the requirements of the study,
and agree to participate of your
own free will.
I ________________________________________
certify that I have read the above description of the study which I am
about to participate
in and understand the statements
contained in it. I am willing to act as a participant in this study, and
perform the above mentioned tasks as
required of me. If at any time
I choose to withdraw from participation in the study, I am aware of my
right to do so, as well as to withdraw all
information that I have provided.
Date: ______________________
Experimenter: Laura M. Berry
Saint Anselm College
Manchester, New Hampshire
(603) 641-7697
APPENDIX C
Debriefing Statement
The study in which you have just participated was designed to examine
the characteristics associated with "police personality"
and how they may change over time. It was hypothesized by the experimenter
that police personality characteristics change
over time, with those who have more law enforcement experience exhibiting
a greater degree of these than those who have little
or no experience. This hypothesis was based on the idea that socialization
plays a large role in the shaping of an individual’s
personality characteristics, thereby resulting in variations in the
expression of personality characteristics over time. To test this
hypothesis, the Jackson Personality Inventory was given to all participants
to identify the degree to which characteristics
associated with the police personality are present. An additional form
was provided for the collection of demographic data on
all participants. Neither method of investigation involved any risk
to participants at any time, and did not threaten participant
privacy in any way.
Groups of college students enrolled in General Psychology courses were
used as comparison groups.
Thank you for your participation in this study. I hope that you enjoyed
it. I will make the results of this study available to you
upon its completion if you so desire. If you have any questions, comments,
or concerns, please contact me:
Laura M. Berry
100 Saint Anselm Drive #923
Manchester, NH
03102 (603)641-7697
Laura M. Berry
364 Grant Ave. #147
Junction City,
KS 66441-4241
APPENDIX D
Explanation of Meanings of JPI-R Scales
(Taken from the JPI-R Handbook pg.21-23)
Complexity: involves a preference for elaborate or ‘deep’ explanations
and interpretations of things and events. Although
slightly related to intelligence, this trait denotes more a certain
way of thinking than it does cognitive ability. Like most other
personality traits, Complexity will be functional in some situations
but not others. A high scorer might be expected to
demonstrate an analytical and probing style of thinking, whereas a
low scorer might be expected to adopt a more concrete,
bottom-line approach in dealing with other people and with day-to-day
issues.
Breadth of Interest: denotes concerns of a more-or-less intellectual
nature, rather than those involving , for example, physical
activities. People scoring high on this scale would be expected to
show intellectual curiousity about a diversity of topics.
Breadth of Interest does not refer to the intensity of interest in
any one area. Hence, high scorers are not necessarily ‘deep’
thinkers, and low scorers are not necessarily ‘shallow’ thinkers.
Innovation: denotes a tendency to be creative in thought and action.
A high scorer on this scale might be expected to prefer
novel solutions to problems, and to appreciate original ideas on the
part of others. A low scorer could be expected to prefer
tried-and-true ways of doing things, and to dislike original thinking
styles.
Tolerance: denotes an individual’s acceptance of persons holding attitudes
and customs that are different from his or her own .
A high scorer will readily adopt new and diverse points of view. A
low scorer is more likely to evaluate others negatively if they
disagree with him or her and /or if they express unusual opinions.
Empathy: refers to a person’s emotional responsiveness toward other
people. A person scoring high on this scale might be
expected to seek out situations or activities involving deep, personally
meaningful interactions with others. Someone scoring low
on this scale might be expected to prefer activities more impersonal
in nature. If unwillingly confronted with an emotional
situation, the low scorer would be less inclined than the high scorer
to allow it to affect his or her behavior.
Anxiety: scale was intended to assess mild to moderate manifestations
of stress, not to be confused with the more debilitating
varieties encountered in psychiatric patients. A person scoring high
on Anxiety may be viewed as being generally worrisome
with regard to day-to-day activities and personally relevant events.
A person scoring low on Anxiety may be viewed as being
unusually free from even the normal range of fears and uncertainties
that affect most people from time to time.
Cooperativeness: denotes sensitivity and responsiveness to social pressures
and norms, especially as expressed by people in
the lerson’s immediate social environment. Although related to conformity,
it goes beyond the superficial and observable kinds
of compliance, such as might be revealed in a person’s dress. A person
scoring high on Cooperativeness could be expected to
readily accept the desires of other group members, and adopt willingly
the group’s views regarding particular people, places,
and events. A person scoring low on Cooperativeness would be expected
not only to remain independent of group pressures,
but also at times, to resist them more actively.
Sociability: refers to the tendency to seek out the companionship of
other people in a variety of situations. High scorers tend to
derive pleasure form sharing their time with others, and will actively
pursue development of interpersonal relationships. Low
scorers, on the other hand, would prefer being alone, actively avoiding
the company of other people whenever possible. In
situations where social contact is unavoidable, low scorers are more
likely to terminate the interaction earlier.
Social Confidence: focuses on the more interpersonal aspects of self
assuredness. A high scorer on this scale would be
expected to demonstrate confidence and composure in dealing with others.
A low scorer would be expected to be more timid
and self-conscious in such cases and to experience discomfort and embaressment
. Interpersonal self esteem is important in
evaluating personality, but it should be recognized that other types
of confidence may be important in certain situations.
Energy Level: refers to an individual’s characteristic overall level
of functioning in carrying out day-to-day activities. Someone
scoring high on this scale would be expected to be lively and energetic
in a variety of self-selected tasks and to demonstrate
appreciable enthusiasm and endurance. Someone scoring low on this scale
would be expected to avoid undertaking numerous
and /or strenuous activities and to fatigue easily if such activities
were unavoidable.
Social Astuteness: is perhaps the most difficult of the JPI scales to
define and validate. In general, it denotes a form of social
intelligence. A person scoring high on this scale is likely to be an
effective negotiator, aware of other’s motives, diplomatic in
presenting issues to others, and to resolve conflict situations through
persuasion rather than aggression. Such a person will tend
to get his or her way with people without their necessarily becoming
aware of the subtle means used to achieve that purpose.
Low scorers are likely to be considered less tactful in dealing with
others, preferring a more direct style of communication.
Risk-taking: has been considered to include four facets: physical, monetary,
social and ethical risk taking (Jackson, Hourany,
& Vidmar, 1972). although the Risk-Taking scale assesses all four
facets, it tends to weight monetary risk taking somewhat
more heavily than the others. Individuals who score highly on this
scale are prone to exposing themselves to situations having
uncertain outcomes . Low scorers prefer to be more cautious in their
approach to things.
Organization: reflects an orderly and systematic approach to undertaking
daily activities. A person who scores highly on this
scale is inclined to plan ahead and to complete assignments on schedule.
A person who scores low on Organization may be
inclined to leave things until the last minute , and to avoid structure
in work activities.
Traditional Values: pertains to cultural change. People differentially
reflect changes in societal values that occur over time.
Traditional values persist, but not equally in every person. Similarly,
values that will predominate in the future already are
present in varying degrees in current attitudes of individuals. The
Traditional Values: scale assesses the degree to which an
individual incorporates ‘old’ values, as opposed to more modern views
regarding topics such as patriotism and relations
between the sexes. It is a scale in which significant differences would
be expected between old and young adults. In general, a
high scorer would be expected to be more conservative, and a low scorer
more liberal in his or her views of major cultural
themes.
Responsibility: is identified largely in terms of the degree to which
a person feels an abstract moral obligation to other people
and to society at large. A high scorer feels a sense of obligation
‘to do the right thing’, regardless of possible personal
consequences. A low scorer may be not only indifferent to such obligations,
but also unduly frank in reporting ethical
transgressions. Although it is possible that responses to items on
this scale may be influenced, in part, by a desire to create a
favorable impression, it should be noted that all items for all JPI
scales were selected on the basis of a higher association with
their own scale than with social desirability.
http://services.login-inc.com/iacpnet/
http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/msp/
http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/state.html
For those of you who will be writing a senior thesis , here are some words of advice and encouragement:
1. Choose your topic early, and start gathering literature right away
2.Set goals for yourself and set a schedule for working on your thesis
research- stick to it
3. Talk to others who have already written a thesis- they will be happy
to share what they have learned with you, and flattered
that you asked them for advice
4. Talk to your professors if you have questions or concerns- the only
stupid questions are the ones you don't ask.
Remember, they can't read your mind. They won't
know what you need from them unless you tell them.
5. Find ways to cope with the stress you will be under. Work out a
plan for relieving stress before you even start to write.
Don't wait until you are having a nervous breakdown.
6. Keep multiple copies of your work on several disks
7. ALWAYS print out hardcopies of your work.
8. Don't overact- there will be plenty of things that will go wrong.
You won't need to make them worse.
9. Try to have a sense of humor about it. I will end eventually
10. Don't let it become the center of your life- If you don't get an
A , it isn't the end of the world.
Finally, remember that you are a student, and you are here to learn.
Your work may not be perfect, and that is okay. You are still a good and
capable person. Give yourself a break and try to smile.
