15/03/2011
In order to understand how the police came to be scrutinized for authoritarianism we need to get an historical overview of the facts and of research that led to such questioning. The conjecture of a police culture that would back up personality and traits typical to the policing job dates back to the years following World War II in the US. On one side academics were researching authoritarianism in general and on the other the high arrest rate concerning lower class and ethnic minorities subjects (Skolnick, 1966:85; Goldman, 1963; Wald 1967:139-151; Wilson, 1968a cited in Galliher, 1971) draw attention on the possibility of the existence of a prejudiced police subculture. Scales to measure authoritarianism were then submitted to various subjects within the police force with controversial results. Various debates have sprung out as consequence of the controversies. The validity of scales, the effects of the dichotomy between the perceived role of the police by the public and the actual demands of the job, the role of internal and politic governance, the impact of training, education, class and discretion within the force have been scrutinized and accounted as relevant within the debate. The aim of this essay is to draw a conclusion comparing and contrasting debates with a specific focus on the importation versus socialization hypothesis.
After World War II and the atrocities committed by ordinary men obeying violent regimes, academic research focused on theorising the existence of an ‘authoritarian personality’. Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sandford tried to explicate the popularity of earlier dictatorships by defining the characteristic personality traits that someone who was attracted by them would exhibit (Whitley, 1999, Adorno et al., 1950), and implemented various scales (A to S) to measure these traits (Adorno et al., 1950). The F scale (being F the abbreviation for Fascism) in particular, was designed to assess the authoritarian views of a sample and was further developed during the years by other researchers such as Rokeach, Piven (Balch, 1972), Lederer and Altermeier (Meloen et al., 1996). The scale was targeting adherence to conventions, submission to authority, inclination to attack (verbally or physically) those not conforming, superstition and belief in a corrupted and dangerous world, stereotypy, social dominance, cynicism, attitudes toward the punishment of criminals (Balch, 1972, Adorno et al., 1950). The attitudes towards punishment were also studied in two famous experiments: the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment. In the first one volunteers were encouraged to deliver what they believed were gradually increasing electric shocks from 15 up to 450 Volts to a subject anytime his answers were not correct. The experiment was repeated changing the environment and the setting but, although the number of people who carried out the instructions up to 450 Volts slightly changed depending mostly on the proximity of the victim, the percentage of those compelling was still disturbingly high. After the experiment, Alan Elms submitted Adorno’s questionnaire to the participants and found that those who complied with the highest voltage of shocks also scored high on the F scale. (Milgram, 1974). In Zimbardo’s experiment, that took place in 1971, a prison-like environment was constructed at Stamford University, a group of 24 middle class males screened to be the most psychologically stable among 70 were casually divided into guards and prisoners. The experiment presented a particular stress into driving the participants to believe it was a real situation (and it succeeded so much in that purpose that one of the prisoners in an interview said that he did not regard it as an experiment but as ‘a prison run by psychologists’). The prisoners, already ‘dehumanised’ by being referred to as numbers and humiliated by having to wear a dress, underwent increasing mortifications by the guards who had quickly identified into their role. The experiment had to be terminated a week earlier than planned because of the conditions of prisoners and because it had clearly gone too far and was becoming highly unethical (Zimbardo, 2009, Zimbardo, 2006). A similar experiment was then set up in Britain in 2002 and it had to be ceased earlier too but for different reasons. The guards, in fact, had failed to identify in their roles and were overthrown by prisoners who then set up a tyranny. Unlike Zimbardo’s experiment, the BBC was involved, every participant had a microphone and was aware of being under surveillance all the time which made volunteers conscious that they were in an experiment and not in a real prison (Haslam and Reicher, 2002, Zimbardo, 2006). Milgram experiment stressed what Hannah Arendt had theorized earlier: trust in an authority figure is likely to lead ordinary men into the blind obedience of carrying out dehumanizing orders (Milgram, 1974). Stanford prison and the BBC experiments might suggest that being in a role of power where violence and degradation is encouraged can bring even psychologically stable individuals to abusive behaviour unless some surveillance is in act (Zimbardo, 2006). Studies on prejudice have highlighted its structure to be constructed by two different variables: right wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). The first is mainly associated with hostility towards out-groups which might turn into violence (or other affective responses) when a treat is perceived by the authority figure of the in-group. SDO, on the contrary, relates to the in-group maintaining dominance on the other out-groups by using stereotypes as ‘delegitimizing myths’ (Sidanius, 1993, Sidanius & Pratto, 1993; Sidanius et al., 1994 cited in Whitley, 1999). Because women are not part of the dominant group they have been found to be less prejudiced towards out-groups than men (Whitley, 1999). Studies about moral judgement have found to be linked to authoritarian traits too. Hogan cited in (Carlson and Sutton, 1975) found that two contrasting patterns were predominant: one that considered social control as the only way to manage the otherwise instinctual and faulty nature of human beings and the other which, stemming from a belief in the basic goodness of individuals, sees social control as an oppressive practice. Authoritarians in general and police in particular are believed to belong specifically to the first group.
Robert Balch commented the traits described by Adorno, saying that all of them with the exception of superstition could easily apply to a “Police mentality”(Balch, 1972). To understand what he meant by police mentality we need to overlook the police role in society. Police officers are far from being part of a uniform force (Waddington,1999 cited in Newburn, 2007). There are significant differences both within different ranks and throughout the world in the way policing practice is applied. Yet it is often perceived as sharing similar goals: the protection of the public, the prevention of crime, the detection and punishment of the offenders, the preservation of the order (Bowling and Foster, 2002). These broad goals often interfere with each other. In case of a public protest, for example, the police main aim is the restriction of possible public disorders which suspends and overlaps the protection on the segment of the population that is protesting (Bowling and Foster, 2002) since it is perceived as a potential threat to order. The perception of policing is often distorted by the idea that wants police officers, patrolling officers in particular, always on the lookout for criminals and does not take into account the quantity of paperwork that the job requires (Hollin, 1989). These distortions in perception by the public and future recruits, the peaks of a job that requires sudden attention and readiness among long periods of frustrating administrative work, shifts, the difficulty to detach from their role when off duty, are all factors of stress in the policing job (Cooper, 1982, Terry 1981 cited in Hollin, 1989). The “canteen” culture where prejudice is openly disclosed within the police force can be a response to the stress experienced by individuals even if recruitment tends to screen future officers for their resistance to stress (Newburn, 2007). Research shows that disturbing, prejudiced language does not necessarily lead to an equivalent behaviour towards individuals but can lead to discriminatory practices in the abuse of discretion (Bowling and Foster, 2002). In Britain, police has the discretion to stop and search, arrest, detain (Newburn, 2007) and this power, if not challenged and screened internally can lead to abusive practice. Serious riots such as the first one in Brixton, was a consequence both of SUS laws that allowed the massive stop and search carried out in the area and of racist views that equalling ethnic minorities individuals to perpetrators led to abuse in the discretion of identification of suspects (Newburn, 2007). Authoritarian views can be challenged at individual level and the presence of minorities within the police can encourage changes (Chan, 1997 cited in Newburn, 2007, Bowling and Foster, 2002). Police forces have often justified authoritarianism and prejudiced views within its ranks by outsourcing responsibilities. They either have blamed a few radical and flawed individuals or, by seeing themselves as a mere executory force, have suggested that the focus be shifted on the law and criminal system as a whole. The first theory, often known as the “bad apple” theory, is in contrast with research that suggests that prejudice might be “institutionalized” (Newburn, 1999; MacPherson, 1999; Williamson, 2000 cited in Bowling and Foster, 2002) . The combination of a few prejudiced officers (possibly employed in high ranks) with a system that reinforces in itself prejudice as a mean of effectiveness might be the cause of power abuse. Reversing the view, mutual reinforcement can be stopped when prejudice is addressed at personal and institutional level (Chan cited in Bowling and Foster, 2002, Newburn, 2007). The second theory also known as “the legalistic-bureaucratic” theory fails to address the gap between policy and practice and the discretion that individuals might have within police rank in the enforcement of the law.
Early research in the US by Stewart and Hoult, commenting Adorno’s and other independent American studies on authoritarianism, concluded that it seemed particularly associated to: low education, age (being the elderly most authoritarians), religion (being the catholic the higher scorer), violent family upbringing and isolation. They also provided a link between authoritarianism and police by theorising the possibility of its existence as an “occupational necessity” thus disagreeing with the importation model (Stewart and Hoult, 1959) although the authoritarian picture they gave: a low class, unskilled, catholic white man could have fit many patrolmen at that time, in USA. Balch, commenting on McNamara (1967) research observed that, being the background of 60-70% of recruits in the New York police department identifiable as working class suggests that recruits are showing traits typical of the class they come from (Balch, 1972). It is not clear though if recruits were choosing the force because it reflected their authoritarian values or if the force, by recruiting unskilled workers, determined a rise in authoritarianism within its lower ranks. Niederhoffer (1967:118-119 cited in Galliher, 1971) on the contrary, suggested that authoritarianism was an acquisition of the role. Rokeach (1971 cited in Hollin, 1989) favoured the importation theory while Genz and Lester (1976 cited in Hollin, 1989) advocated the socialization one. Carlson and Sutton (1975) confirmed the socialization hypothesis and found significant differences in authoritarianism according to the roles and ranks, with jail aids scoring higher than any other rank and role. Austin et al. (1987 cited in Hollin, 1989) examined the authoritarianism of police officers that had been made redundant claiming that if the socialization model was consistent hardly any traces of it should have been detected in the redundant sample. They found that authoritarianism was linked to age and race but not to the departing from the force, thus siding with the importation theory. British research is equally contradictory. Police officers were found to be more or less authoritarian than the control groups depending on the sample, the control group and the scope of the study; geographical differences and rank differences were also found (Brown and Willis, 1985). Colman and Gorman (1982 cited in Hollin, 1989) found that despite age and education were not pertinent to their study, it supported the importation model while Brown and Willis’ conclusions on the contrary, inclined to the socialization theory (Brown and Willis, 1985, Hollin, 1989). The differences in results have been attributed to the variety of scales used, the differences in the sample, the presence and kind of control groups and the possibility that officers might be able to respond according to social expectations rather than personal convictions (Balch, 1972, Brown and Willis, 1985). Studies are difficult to relate to one another because they use one or a combination of different scales that measure different attitudes. Control groups seems to be flawed by class. Matarazzo (1964), Remington (1965) and Sysmond (1972) cited in (Brown and Willis, 1985) suggested that firemen were an ideal control group to cross reference class, but as Hollin points out (1989), the fire brigade neither shares with the police patrolling activities that put them in contact with ethnic minorities, nor do they share the goal of public order. Moreover, in Brown and Willis study (1985) for example, fire recruits lacked women among their ranks and were less in number if compared to police officers, while female officers were present in both of the police recruits group. Finally, as Hollin (1989) points out, there is a lack of a national longitudinal study that prevents from getting a wider picture of the effects of policies, promotion, geographic differences and so on.
Concluding, “Police behaviour is public behaviour” (Balch, 1972) and the public plays an important role in perceiving, interpreting and rejecting police actions. Abusive behaviour at all levels, weakens public trust in the police role (Morgan and Newburn, 1997; Reiner 2000a cited in Bowling and Foster, 2002). Research controversies on whether officers join the force because the role suits their previously existing authoritarian views or become authoritarian as a result of the role, lead to think that one does not exclude the other but rather, personal and institutional authoritarianisms reinforce each other. Although institutionalised racism and machismo, social isolation and cynicism typical of the role (Bowling and Foster, 2002) might be influential in the development of authoritarian views once joined the force, individuals who value authoritarian views can find police employment attractive and if they make it through screening and training, they can be responsible for reinforcing authoritarian views. In order to break this detrimental process external pressures are not sufficient. Lord Scarman inquiry suggestions, for example, did not avoid the second Brixton riots. Changes need to be structural as well as personal with a stress on accountability at all levels and mutual surveillance. This can be achieved through recruitment screening, training and promotion (Chan cited in Bowling and Foster, 2002). Community policing and encouraging diversity among the force can also challenge prejudice from within and reduce the sense of isolation which encourage solidarity among officers when abusive practices happen (Chan cited in Bowling and Foster, 2002).
REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADORNO, T. W., BRUNSWIK, E. F., LEVINSON, D. J. & SANFORD, R. N. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. By T. W. Adorno, Else-Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, R. Nevitt Sanford, etc. [In collaboration with other writers.], pp. xxxiii. 990. Harper & Bros.: New York.
BALCH, R. W. 1972. The Police Personality: Fact or Fiction? The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 63, 106-119.
BOWLING, B. & FOSTER, J. 2002. Policing and the police. In: MAGUIRE, M., MORGAN, R. & REINER, R. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of criminology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University.
BROWN, L. & WILLIS, A. 1985. Authoritarianism in british police recruits – importation, socialization or myth. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 97-108.
CARLSON, H. M. & SUTTON, M. S. 1975. Effects of different police roles on attitudes and values. Journal of Psychology, 91, 57-64.
GALLIHER, J. F. 1971. Explanations of Police Behavior: A Critical Review and Analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 12, 308-318.
HASLAM, A. & REICHER, S. 2002. The BBC Prison Study [Online]. Available: http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/ [Accessed 07/03/11 16:12].
HOLLIN, C. R. 1989. Psychology and the police. In: HOLLIN, C. R. Psychology and crime : an introduction to criminological psychology, London, Routledge, p.126-151
MELOEN, J. D., VANDERLINDEN, G. & DEWITTE, H. 1996. A test of the approaches of Adorno et al, Lederer and Altemeyer of authoritarianism in Belgian Flanders: A research note. Political Psychology, 17, 643-656.
MILGRAM, S. 1974. Obedience to authority: an experimental view, London: Tavistock Publications.
NEWBURN, T. 2007. Policing. In: NEWBURN, T. Criminology, Cullompton, Willan. 598-634
STEWART, D. & HOULT, T. 1959. A Social-Psychological Theory of the Authoritarian Personality. The American Journal of Sociology, 65, 274-279.
WHITLEY, B. E. 1999. Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126-134.
ZIMBARDO, P. G. 2006. On rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. The British Journal of social psychology, 47-53.
ZIMBARDO, P. G. 2009. The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment [Online]. Available: http://www.prisonexp.org/ [Accessed 07/03/2011 9:22].
Critical thinking 