GOOD COP, BAD COP: COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION,
PERCEPTION, AND TRUST IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT-SUSPECT
ENCOUNTERS
by
ANDY C. KWON
CAROL B. MILLS, COMMITTEE CHAIR
JANE STUART BAKER
REBECCA HOWELL
A THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of Master of Arts in the
Department of Communication
in the Graduate School of
The University of Alabama
TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA
2012
Copyright Andy C. Kwon 2012
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ABSTRACT
Since the 1980s, community policing has been embraced as the dominant police
strategy. Thompson (1983) estimates that 97% of an officer’s time is spent
communicatively interacting with the public, which indicates a strong incentive to study
how communication affects those involved in police interaction. Utilizing
Communication Accommodation Theory as a theoretical framework, this study examines
the relationship between communication accommodation, perception, and trust and poses
the following question: How does a police officer’s communication accommodation
affect the communicative relationship between a police officer and his or her suspect?
An online questionnaire was distributed to 257 students at a large, southeastern
University, and their responses were analyzed. The data indicates that accommodative
behavior can lead suspects to be more trusting of the police, but did not have a significant
effect on police perception. Overall, this study helps fill a significant research gap in the
police communication literature and provides pragmatic implications to improve the
police-suspect interaction.
ii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my family. The hardships I have experienced
throughout the process of writing this thesis pales in comparison to the work, sacrifice,
and commitment you all have made to give me opportunities you never had. To my
grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, and brother, there are no words to describe the
important role you all have in my life. The strongest people I have ever known, I love
you all very much.
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
α
Alpha, level of acceptable significance; in statistical hypothesis testing,
the probability of making a Type I error; Cronbach’s index of internal
consistency (a form of reliability)
ATP
Attitudes toward police
β
Beta, Standardized Coefficient; in statistical hypothesis testing, the
probability of making a Type II error
B
Beta, Unstandardized Coefficient
BAC
Blood alcohol content
CAS
Communication Accommodation Scale
CAT
Communication Accommodation Theory
DUI
Driving under the influence
F
F distribution, Fisher’s F ratio
FIPS
Faith in People Scale
ITS
Individualized Trust Scale
M
Sample mean, arithmetic average
n
Sample size; number of cases
NCIS
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (television show)
p
Probability associated with the occurrence under the null hypothesis of a
value as extreme as or more extreme than the observed value
iv
r
r statistic or r value; estimate of the Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient
r2
r2 statistic or r2 value : coefficient of determination; measure of strength of
relationship; estimate of the Pearson product-moment correlation squared
SAT
Speech Accommodation Theory
SD
Standard deviation
SE B
Standard Error
Sig.
Significance
UCR
Uniformed Crime Reporting Program
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are several people who I owe a tremendous debt for their help in
completing this thesis. First, thank you to the Department of Communication Studies, Dr.
Beth S. Bennett, and my committee for giving me this opportunity. To Dr. Carol B. Mills,
thank you for the encouraging words and countless lunches where you refused to let me
pay. I greatly appreciate the time you took to meet, teach, and feed me. To Dr. Jane Stuart
Baker, whose door was always open to discuss research, school applications, and other
procrastinatory topics, I am truly thankful. To Dr. Rebecca Howell, who provided
valuable insight on descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and linear regressions,
thank you for giving me a crash course on the exciting world of statistics. The perfect
combination of mentorship, wisdom, and character, I am extremely honored to have been
led through this journey by all of you. Second, although not officially affiliated with this
project, I thank Dr. Meredith M. Bagley, who gives value to the word teacher. I am
grateful for your insight, cheerful support, and for teaching me that on defense,
everybody should pick up a person, not a man. To Diane Luong, who sat next to me the
entire time acting like you were also studying, and to my good friend Daniel Turner,
whose high level of character has no match, thank you for being the best parts of me.
Finally, to Elbert Denina, Jeff Sonza, Karen Manio, Angeles Burke, and Alexandria
Smith: though some of you are thousands of miles away and will never read this
document, thank you for providing laughs, love, and support – the most critical
ingredients in completing this project.
vi
CONTENTS
1. ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………...……ii
2. DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………...……iii
3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS …………………………………….iv
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………….....…vi
5. LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….ix
6. Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION.…………………………………………………..……1
7. Chapter 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………7
a. Communication Accommodation Theory………………………...……………7
b. Basic Principles of CAT………………………………………….……………8
c. Convergence…………………………………………………………..………10
d. Divergence……………………………………………………………………14
e. Shaping Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement…………….…………..………15
f. The Media……………………………………………………………………..16
g. Personal Experiences……………………………….…………………………17
h. Sociodemographic Factors…………………………………….………………19
i. Communication and Law Enforcement………………………………….……21
j. Perception and Law Enforcement………………………………………..……22
k. Hypothesis 1..……………………………………………………………..…..24
l. Trust and Law Enforcement………………………………..…………………24
m. Hypothesis 2………………………………………...…………………....….25
vii
8. Chapter 3 - METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………26
a. Recruitment……………………………………………………………...……28
b. Participants……………………………………………………………………29
c. Instruments...…………………………………………………………….……30
d. Measures...…………………………………………………………….……...31
9. Chapter 4 – RESULTS………………………………………………….…………….36
a. Descriptive Statistics………………………………….………………………36
b. Bivariate Correlations…………………………………………...……………37
c. Data Analysis……………..……………………………..……………………40
10. Chapter 5 – DISCUSSION……………………………………………………….…43
a. Summary of Study……………………………………………….……………43
b. Implications……………………………………………………………...……44
c. Limitations and Future Research Directions...…………………..……………47
d. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………50
11. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………...………52
12. APPENDIX A: Institutional Review Board Certification………..…………………62
13. APPENDIX B: Email Invitation Manuscript…………………………….………….66
14. APPENDIX C: Subject Questionnaire………………………………………………68
viii
LIST OF TABLES
a. Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics for Hypothetical Contexts……...……………………38
b. Table 2 – Bivariate Correlations (n = 257).………………...…………………………39
c. Table 3 – Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between
Communication Accommodation and Perception (n = 257)……….……….41
d. Table 4 – Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between
Communication Accommodation and Trust (n = 257)…………………..…42
ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In the late 20th century, the law enforcement philosophy saw a gradual shift from
“professional policing” toward “community policing” (Stoutland, 2001). Moore (1999)
writes that the primary goal of “professional policing” was to reduce crime through
making arrests; that is, the arrests made through three key operational tactics including
patrols, rapid response to calls for service, and retrospective investigations. Initially, this
type of law enforcement strategy enjoyed generalized support from the community until
the 1960s when it became evident that the ideas behind “professional policing” was
unsuccessful in reducing crime and fear. As a result, numerous police chiefs and local
police departments experimented with new and different policing philosophies and
tactics. This led to what is now employed as the modern strategy of law enforcement, or
“community policing.”
Community policing, also known as community-oriented policing, communitybased policing, and problem oriented policing (Leighton, 1991), has been embraced as
the dominant police strategy since the 1980s. Cordner (2005) writes, “community
policing has evolved from a few small foot patrol studies to the pre-eminent reform
agenda of modern policing” (p. 45). Although several scholars attribute different
definitions of community policing (Glaser & Denhardt, 2010), community policing can
be explained in the broadest sense as a law enforcement style where the police are close
with the public, are aware of community concerns through constant contact, and act on
1
those concerns aligned with the community’s wishes (Fielding, 2005). Additionally,
Morabito (2010) outlines the common elements of community policing that have been
identified by scholars in the past: it has a problem solving orientation, involves
collaboration with key stakeholders in the community, and encourages modification of
the police agencies organizational structures to promote community participation in
public safety.
Community policing centers around the idea of community building, where
officers have the potential to create an environment that not only improves public safety
but encourages citizens to become personally involved with the policing effort (Glaser &
Denhardt, 2010). In doing so, the collaborative effort between citizens and local
government to combat crime promotes the idea of a unified purpose as well as
strengthens the bond between these two groups. Nalbandian (2005) argues that one of
the most important roles of local government is to provide “opportunities to build trusting
relationships in a world where relationships have become fragile and temporary” (p. 313).
It is clear that the ideas of trust and community building have claimed a
permanent stake within the community policing culture. If law enforcement officials and
members of the community hope to work together, the level of communication and trust
between them must function at a high level. Tyler (2005) reinforces this notion and
found that cooperation with the police derives from the trust and confidence that citizens
place in them. Furthermore, Scheider, Chapman, and Shapiro (2009) identify trust as a
critical element for an effective relationship, whether the relationship stems from two
friends, among customers and a company, or between a public service agency and its
citizens. If citizens do not effectively trust the police, they are less likely to report
2
information about crime or help generate solutions for community problems. The
democratic format of public society empowers citizens as the ones who provide
legitimacy and authority to the police, who in turn must develop and maintain the trust in
their relationships. Thus, it is important for law enforcement officials to be
knowledgeable and familiarized with how to create such trusting relationships with those
that they serve.
The foundation of trust, between any people, can be found within the
communicative element of a relationship. Numerous studies in the past have supported
the notion that communication plays a critical role in developing and maintaining trust
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 2001; Ruppel & Harrington, 2000).
Furthermore, increased levels of trust and communication have been found to enhance
job performance in the workplace (Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman, 2009) as well as improve
levels of group cooperation (Dirks, 1999). In the strategy of community policing, one
basic principle is that law enforcement officials and community members must work
together, essentially as a group, to address community concerns where an increased level
of trust should lead to an increased level of cooperation. The most effective way to
develop trust in a relationship is through regular communication where information about
parties’ preferences, values, and approaches to problems are exchanged, which in turn
can lead to the development of trust grounded in knowledge and information (Lewicki &
Bunker, 1996).
Many scholars also understand the importance of communication within the law
enforcement field. Womack and Finley (1986) assert that communication is “the central
most important commodity that the officer has at his (or her) disposal” (p. 14) while
3
Thompson (1983) estimates that 97% of an officer’s time is spent communicatively
interacting with the public. Considering the important role communication has in
policing, it is surprising to discover the limited research that has been conducted within
the law enforcement context. Generally speaking, the law enforcement world comprises
of three basic groups of people: the protector (police/law enforcement), the civilian
(community members), and the suspect/criminal. The extant literature reveals that some
studies have investigated the role communication accommodation plays in the interaction
between police and civilians (Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al., 2008b; Hajek et al., 2006;
Giles et al., 2006, Giles et al., 2007). However, in an effort to extend the literature
examining communication in law enforcement, this study will focus on the interaction
between police and potential criminals, or suspects.
Specifically, this research will examine the role communication plays in the
police-suspect encounter. Although the idea of community policing stresses the
importance of trust and communication between police and community members, this
study suggests that the trust and communication between police and suspects are equally
important. Establishing a more trustful experience between an officer and a suspect
could lead to decreasing risks of physical safety, for both the officer and suspect, and
may provide a more effective and efficient law enforcement environment. According to
the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, a yearly publication of annual crime
statistics by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, over 13 million police-suspect
encounters led to a direct arrest in the year 2010 alone (Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2010), not including those encounters that did not lead to an arrest. Thus, it is clear that
police-suspect encounters play an equally significant, if not more significant than that of
4
a civilian, role within the concept of community policing. The objective of this study is
to learn how the different elements of communication, specifically accommodation, can
lead to a more effective experience between police and suspects. The past literature
surrounding communication accommodation shows that there is a common contention
that complimenting or accommodating to another’s communicative behaviors, leads to
further collaboration as well as a positive attitude toward individuals who are engaging in
accommodating communicative behaviors (Ball, Giles, & Hewstone, 1985). This study
applies this same idea to the context of police-suspect encounters and poses the following
question: How does a police officer’s communication accommodation affect the
communicative relationship between a police officer and his or her suspect?
This study contributes to the communication discipline at both theoretical and
pragmatic levels. Theoretically, this study aims to further explore a communicative
context that has been minimally studied. The law enforcement context heavily involves
communication and can serve as another practical field for the application of
communication theory. At a pragmatic level, this study highlights significant
implications that can be directly applied to the law enforcement culture. Learning
important communicative strategies can help the police, as well as suspects, avoid
violence or wasted time in their interactions, which may lead to a more effective style of
community policing.
In order to accomplish these goals, the following chapter will assess the literature
that is relevant to the current study. The review will summarize important and basic
principles of Communication Accommodation Theory and will be followed by a review
of literature surrounding communication and law enforcement. This analysis serves as
5
the foundation for the formulation of the study’s hypotheses. The third chapter provides
a detailed synopsis of the methods used in conducting the study for this particular
research. The findings of the study are then presented in the fourth chapter. Finally,
chapter five discusses the significant findings and delves into the important theoretical
and pragmatic implications of study for the communication discipline and in the practical
law enforcement context.
6
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Communication Accommodation Theory
Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) predicts and explains many of
the communicative modifications individuals make in creating, maintaining, or
decreasing social distance in interactions (Giles & Ogay, 2007). It explores the different
manners and methods people accommodate their communication, what motivates
accommodation, and possible consequences among various organizational and social
contexts. According to the theory, communicative behavior occurs as a result of
indicating their attitudes toward each other and serves to measure the level of social
distance between interactants. This constant changing of communicative behavior as a
strategy to move toward and away from each other, is called accommodation (Giles et al.,
2006).
First called Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT), the theory originally focused
on exploring accents and bilingual shifts in interactions (Giles et al., 2006), specifically in
initial job interviewing contexts (Giles, 1973). Giles found that those interviewees who
utilized accent mobility with their interviewers were most successful at obtaining a
second interview, which led to further studies by Giles, Taylor and Bourhis (1973) and
Giles and Powesland (1975), who found individuals would modify their communication
depending on who they were interacting with. Hence, SAT primarily focused on
discovering what type of social factors and variables affected people’s perceptions of
7
themselves and behaviors within different communicative contexts (Giles, 1973) to
explain why people engaged in speech shifts during social interactions and what type of
possible consequences could result from those communicative actions.
Eventually, conceptual gaps within SAT led Giles, Mulac, Bradac, and Johnson
(1987) to address such weaknesses. First, the theory only addressed the linguistic
features of convergence and divergence and failed to mention nonverbal factors. Second,
the theory presented a limited dichotomy of convergent behaviors as accommodating and
divergent behaviors as non-accommodating, which did not fully represent the large range
of communication strategies used by individuals. Third, the theory failed to explain how
to actually generate convergent and divergent behaviors; it lacked specific steps on how
to perform these concepts. As a result, CAT was developed with the purpose of
specifically addressing these three areas.
Basic Principles of CAT
CAT can be described through four main tenets. First, “communication is
influenced not only by features of the immediate situation and participants’ initial
orientations to it, but also by the socio-historical context in which the interaction is
embedded” (Giles & Ogay, 2007, p. 294). For example, the communication
accommodation that occurs in an isolated encounter between a law enforcement officer
and a civilian could be influenced by past experiences, whether the history is positive or
negative.
Second, “communication is not only a matter of merely and only exchanging
information about facts, ideas, and emotions (often called referential communications),
but salient social category memberships are often negotiated during an interaction
8
through the process of accommodation” (Giles & Ogay, 2007, p. 294). This could be
seen in the decision by a bilingual, Latina police officer who may choose to use English
or Spanish with other Latino citizens. By speaking Spanish, she is choosing to emphasize
a shared identity, acknowledging that she and the citizen share a common language and
culture. By speaking English, she displays a discordant identity, clearly identifying
herself as an officer of the law and her position as an unbiased authority.
Third, “interactants have expectations regarding optimal levels of
accommodation. These expectations are based on stereotypes about outgroup members
as well as on the prevailing social and situational norms” (Giles & Ogay, 2007, p. 294).
This is evident in the example of a police officer’s sudden change of communication
from a very accommodating tone to a monotonous demeanor while interviewing a
civilian. The officer’s accommodation may hint to the interviewee that the officer wishes
to engage in conversation. However, when the officer modifies the level of
accommodation by becoming more serious, the officer may now be signaling to the
interviewee that the officer no longer wishes to participate in the interaction.
Fourth, “interactants use specific communication strategies (in particular,
convergence and divergence) to signal their attitudes towards each other and their
respective social groups” (Giles & Ogay, 2007, p. 294). For instance, a police officer
may display accommodating features when communicating with a non-threatening
civilian, which may indicate a positive attitude toward that individual. On the other hand,
non-accommodating communication by an officer toward a potential suspect could signal
that the officer’s attitude toward that particular individual is suspicious and distrustful.
9
The final principle of CAT, regarding convergence and divergence, has served as the
foundation of this theory (Giles, 1973) and is responsible for numerous empirical studies
(Giles & Ogay, 2007). Like the studies that came before this, this study will heavily
utilize this basic principle, which warrants a more detailed look at this concept.
Convergence
In the earliest form of CAT, convergence was initially described as occurring
when “individuals adapt to each other’s speech by means of a wide range of linguistic
features, including speech rates, pauses and utterance length, pronunciations, and so on”
(Giles et al., 1987, p. 14). In future versions, convergence was further developed from
including only simple speech factors to involving a large array of communicative
behaviors such as nonverbal communication or tones of voice (Miller, 2005). Thus, Giles
et al. (2006) provides a more fitting definition of convergence as a strategy whereby
individuals adapt their communicative behaviors in terms of a wide range of linguistic
(e.g. speech rate, accents), paralinguistic (e.g. pauses, utterance length), and nonverbal
(e.g. smiling, gazing) features in such a way as to become more similar to their
interlocutor’s behavior. This basic principle has been studied in numerous
communicative contexts such as the political arena (Levin & Lin, 1988), mass media
(Thomson, Murachver, & Green, 2001), organizational settings (Ayoko, Hartel, &
Callan, 2002), and police-civilian encounters (Giles et al., 2006).
There are three main ideas explaining the motivations of convergence. First,
convergence demonstrates the human desire to gain social approval from one another
(Giles & Ogay, 2007). Originating from Byrne’s (1971) similarity attraction postulate,
the theory posits that the more similar we are to our interactional partner, the more likely
10
that interaction will lead to an increase of social attraction. Second, converging to a
common linguistic style may lead the communicative process to be more effective by
lowering uncertainty, interpersonal anxiety, and mutual understanding (Giles & Ogay,
2007). Finally, convergence reflects the desire for a shared self-presentation with the
other interactant (Giles et al., 1987). By converging, it is one interactant’s hope to
identify similarly to the other person and not to highlight major differences.
There are several strategies of convergence utilized at different communicative
levels noted by Miller (2005). First, convergence can go upward, in which behavior
moves toward the more socially appropriate sanction of speech as seen in the example of
one gang member converging his or her speech to sound similar to two police officers
conducting an interview. In this situation, the gang member may feel it is more
appropriate to avoid slang or other street behavior and to accommodate his or her
language to that of the officers, perhaps at an attempt of goodwill to avoid being arrested
or charged with a crime. Convergence can also occur downward, in which behavior
moves away from the socially appropriate sanction of communication. In the same
scenario, if the gang member wanted to proudly associate himself or herself with the
gang and street life, he or she may choose to constantly speak in slang or say derogatory
slurs to the officers in an effort to move away from the expected communicative
behavior. This would be classified as downward convergence.
Second, the extent to which convergence occurs can vary and occurs on a full,
partial, or hyper level. Full convergence occurs when one interactant fully matches the
communicative behavior of another while partial convergence displays an individual only
partially matching another’s communicative behavior. Hyper convergence occurs when
11
one goes beyond the behavior of another and is also known as cross-over convergence.
For example, if Person A exhibits a speech rate of 100 words per minute, Person B,
whose original speech pace is at 75 words per minute, may choose to fully converge and
match Person A’s communicative behavior and increase his or her speech rate to 100
words per minute. Person C, whose speech rate is also at 75 words per minute, may only
choose to partially converge and increase his or her speech rate to 90 words per minute.
Person D, who also speaks at 75 words per minute, may choose to go beyond the
behavior of Person A (hyper or cross-over convergence) and increase his or her speech
rate to 110 words per minute.
Third, interactants may choose to only converge on one aspect of communicative
behavior and not on others. This is called unimodal convergence. If an interactant
chooses to converge on several or all dimensions of another’s communicative patterns, he
or she would be engaging in multimodal convergence. This can be seen in the scenario
where one speaker has a unique vocabulary, accent, and speech rate. If another attempts
to converge at a unimodal level, he or she may only accommodate their vocabulary. At a
multimodal level, he or she may accommodate all components of this particular
communicative pattern.
Fourth, convergence can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. Symmetrical
convergence is evident when all parties in an interaction attempts to accommodate their
communication toward each other. On the other hand, asymmetrical convergence occurs
when only one party attempts to accommodate their communication toward the rest of the
group.
12
Finally, communicative behavior, the intent that was behind it, and how an
addressee perceives the behavior can occur on three different levels: objectively,
psychologically, and subjectively. This is exemplified in Woolard’s (1989) study of a
language norm in Spain at a time where it was believed Catalan should only be spoken
between Catalans. In this scenario, Castillian speakers who attempted to speak Catalan
often received a reply back in Castillian. The Castillians may have been objectively
converging but the Catalan may have refused to converge with the psychological intent to
keep the Castillians in their own sociolinguistic space. In the same way, subjective
accommodation would not necessarily correspond with the objective behavior nor with
the intent that was behind it (Giles & Ogay, 2007).
The most recurring theme of convergence has to do with the idea of social status
or power, between interactants as Giles, Coupland, and Coupland (1991) conclude that
the work done with CAT often results in the power variable supporting the model’s
central predictions; convergence tends to occur most in interaction where one interactant
has higher status or power over another. Generally speaking, it is expected that people in
subordinate positions would converge to their superordinate counterparts, also known as
upward convergence. A New York study noted that Puerto Ricans, who are generally
viewed in this area as having less prestige and power than their African American
neighbors, often converged to the African American dialect (Wolfram, 1974).
Furthermore, a study of a popular American talk show, found the interaction would
between host and guest would change according to the social statuses of its guests. In
one scenario, the host Larry King would converge his communication toward the more
highly regarded President Clinton while in another, the more lower socially regarded
13
Vice-President Dan Quayle would accommodate more to the communicative styles of the
host (Gregory & Webster, 1996).
Divergence
The concept of divergence derives from the notion of identity and stems from
Tajfel’s theory of intergroup relationships and social identity (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979). Divergent communicators base their behavior on their own perceptions of
other interactants beliefs, expectations, and/or stereotypes. In contrast to its dichotomous
counterpart, divergence can be explained as the accentuation of differences and serves as
a means by which an interactant can establish and highlight his or her association with a
particular social group that is not represented by another interactant (Miller, 2005). For
example, if a citizen is yelling loudly in a state of chaos, a police officer may diverge his
or her communication and speak in a calm and soft tone in an effort to help alleviate the
citizen’s distress. By diverging, the police officer has highlighted his or her position as
part of the law enforcement group that aims to maintain authority and stability.
There are three motives that lead to divergent communication: the speaker’s
desire to present a contrasting self-image, to differentiate oneself from others, or to be
viewed differently from another person’s communicative behavior (Giles et al., 1986).
According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), people do not necessarily always react to others
as individuals, but rather react by identifying their own selves as representatives of
unique social groups. Giles et al. (1991, p. 27) notes that intergroup comparisons “will
lead individuals to search for, or even create, dimensions on which they may be seen to
be positively distinct from a relevant outgroup. The perception of such a positive
14
distinctiveness contributes to individuals’ feelings of an adequate social identity, which
enhances their feelings of self-worth.”
Since both verbal and nonverbal communicative features (dress style,
authoritative tone, weapon, badge) serve as core dimensions of a group identity (police
officer), divergence is often regarded as a significant tactic of distinguishing him/herself
from others which also simultaneously reflects a sense of group pride and enhances
feelings of self-worth (Giles & Ogay, 2007). Furthermore, divergence can be
strategically used to shape receivers’ attributions and feelings toward the communicator.
Similar to the manner in which convergence occurs, divergence can be utilized partially
or fully, as well as uni-modally or multi-modally. Additionally, one can choose to refrain
from both convergent and divergent behaviors. Maintenance is the process in which a
person persists in his or her original style of communication, regardless of the
communicative behavior of the interlocutor (Bourhis, 1979). Maintenance usually occurs
as a passive response of a nonattending, or disagreeable, social being (Giles et al., 1987).
When it comes to the binary relationship of convergence and divergence,
convergent speakers are seen as both more efficient and cooperative communicators and
are generally viewed more favorably.
Shaping Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement
The extant research reveals that numerous factors such as the media, personal
experiences, and sociodemographic characteristics, play significant roles in shaping
citizens’ perceptions of law enforcement officials (Hennigan, Maxson, Sloane, &
Ranney, 2002; Klyman & Kruckenberg, 1974; Olsen, 2005).
15
The Media
Topics in the media, such as film, books, newspapers, magazines, television
broadcasts, and everyday conversations, constantly surround crime and law enforcement
(Dowler, 2003). Specifically, television as well as the movie industry consistently air
programs with a central policing theme and clearly show that police dramas have played
prominent roles throughout the development of media culture. In Los Angeles, a study
showed that 35% of civilians believed that the greatest influencing factor on citizens’
opinion of local law enforcement stemmed from the mass media (Hennigan, Maxson,
Sloane, & Ranney, 2002). Perlmutter (2000) reports that in the last half of the 1990s,
there were 225 individual, serialized, prime-time American television shows about crime
and law enforcement, which at a certain point in 1994 even had up to fifteen shows airing
simultaneously.
The literature on media portrayal of law enforcement reveals two conflicting
views. While some scholars argue that there is a positive portrayal of law enforcement
figures in the media, others suggest that police are displayed negatively (Dowler, 2003).
Under a positive light, most television shows display police officers as the heroic
professional crime fighter and are generally hyperbolized to meet standards of fictional
police entertainment (Dowler, 2003), meaning that the majority of the time, crimes are
usually solved and criminals are successfully captured (Carlson, 1985; Dominick, 1973;
Zillman and Wakshlag, 1987). Furthermore, many news outlets present embellished
information about criminal offenses and arrests, which may lead the media audience to
believe that law enforcement officials are more effective than actual statistics suggest
(Marsh, 1991; Sacco & Fair, 1988). Graber (1980) also reports that this leads the general
16
public to view street police patrols more favorably and more effective than officials
within the courts and corrections systems. On the other hand, many forms of media can
negatively affect the image of the law enforcement official. Surette (1998) argues that
while television shows and tabloids programs depict police officers as heroes that fight
evil, news outlets can also display police officers as ineffective and incompetent. Licther
and Licther (1983) further suggest that although justice is usually served in police
dramas, the law enforcement officials themselves are rarely exhibited as the heroic
figures.
Rather than viewing media depiction as positive or negative, Dowler (2003)
describes the civilian-law enforcement relationship as “symbiotic” (p. 111), or mutually
beneficial, in which the police can provide the media with quick and reliable information
about crime. In turn, the media can contribute to the benefit of law enforcement officials
by helping to create and maintain a positive public image (Ericson, Baranek, & Chan,
1987). Following examination of this research, it is clear that a large portion of public
knowledge and opinion of the justice system is heavily derived from the media.
Personal Experiences
Furthermore, personal experiences heavily influence citizens’ attitudes toward
law enforcement as the previously mentioned study shows that 65% of Los Angeles
citizens believed their personal experiences is most responsible for their perceptions of
police (Hennigan et al., 2002) and may even serve as the greatest determinant in shaping
attitudes toward police (Cooper, 1980; Cordner & Jones, 1995). Specifically, direct
contact with law enforcement officials serves as the most influential factor in the
development of a citizens’ attitude toward law enforcement. Rosenbaum et al. (2005)
17
posit that it is whether a police encounter is negative or positive that helps shape people’s
beliefs about law enforcement, which is generally viewed in terms of satisfaction.
Decker (1981) also suggests satisfaction level is dependent on who initiated police
contact; that is, those who seek out encounters with the police, such as dialing 911 for
assistance, are generally more satisfied with their experience than those who are the
unwilling targets of police-initiated contact, such as traffic stops.
The quality of treatment by police also affects the personal experience of citizens
(Rosenbaum et al., 2005). When citizens experience police officers who they deem to be
unfair, rude, unconcerned, unhelpful, or unprofessional in some manner, they are more
likely to be dissatisfied with police and may exhibit negative attitudes (Cheurprakobkit &
Bartsch, 2001; Tyler & Huo, 2002). For instance, use of excessive or physical force can
heavily sway somebody to view law enforcement in a negative light. However, there are
additional factors that affect the relationship between abusive police behavior and the
public’s perception of abuse. Alpert and Dunham (1997) suggest that factors such as a
suspect’s level of resistance or demeanor at a criminal scene are not taken into
consideration in the public’s determination if excessive force was necessary or
unnecessary. Rusinko, Johnson, and Hornung (1978) also suggest that police contact
made during people’s youth experiences can serve to be influential in shaping police
perceptions. On the other hand, elderly citizens who reported having direct experiences
with police viewed the police less favorably (Arcuri, 1981) and the more contact they had
with police, their perceptions of law enforcement was less favorable (Morello, 1982).
Rosenbaum et al. (2005) examined how vicarious experiences (i.e. hearing about
an acquaintance’s positive or negative police encounter) have a major effect on shaping
18
attitudes toward police. Due to the fact that an average of 1 out of 5 Americans
experience direct contact with the police during any given year, vicarious experiences are
critical in shaping views of police. Their study found that while negative experiences
resulted in negative perceptions, positive experiences were associated with less negative
perceptions of the police and played a large role in changing attitudes toward the police
than negative experiences. After reviewing the extant literature, it is transparent that
personal experiences play a critical role in the development of beliefs toward law
enforcement officials.
Sociodemographic Factors
Klyman and Kruckenberg (1974) point out that many studies highlight
sociodemographic variables, such as socioeconomic status, age, gender, and race, as
playing key roles in predicting judgments about law enforcement. Initially, Walker
(1972) and Jacob (1971) both suggest that sociodemographic status may affect
perceptions toward police. However, more recent studies challenge the role
sociodemographic status has on attitudes and imply that sociodemographic status is
linked with neighborhood culture, which serves to be a more accurate predictor of
attitudes toward police (Davis 1990; Dunham & Alpert, 1988). Second, Decker (1981)
notes that age can affect perceptions toward law enforcement. The general consensus is
that younger citizens have less favorable ideas and beliefs toward police than older
citizens (Murty, Roebuck, & Smith, 1990; Dunham & Alpert, 1988; Feagin, 1970;
Walker 1972). Third, there are several studies suggesting that gender affects attitude
toward police. Brandl, Frank, Worden, and Bynum (1994), and Cao, Frank, & Cullen
(1996) propose that females rate police more positively than their male counterparts.
19
Black and Smith (1981) explain this phenomenon by saying that police may often times
treat female suspects differently from male suspects. It has also been found that younger
teenage girls retain more favorable attitudes toward police than males (Taylor, Turner,
Esbensen, & Winfree Jr., 2001).
Finally, the impact race has on the relationship between law enforcement and
citizens, has been the most heavily investigated demographic (Decker, 1981).
Traditionally, these studies were limited to solely African-Americans and White
ethnicities while other groups were rarely studied. The urban race riots of the 1960s
served as a springboard for more research to be conducted dealing with race and attitude
toward police. Initial studies revealed that despite the riots, most citizens still viewed
police favorably; however, Whites were more favorable than African-Americans of law
enforcement. This has generally been a consistent finding in studies examining AfricanAmericans and Whites attitudes toward police (Apple & O’Brien, 1983; Cao et al., 1996;
Dean, 1983; Zamble & Annesley, 1987). When the scope of research moved onto other
ethnic groups, results suggested that as race differs, attitudes vary as well. More recently,
Davis (1990) found that in New York City, law enforcement was viewed more favorably
by Hispanics than African-Americans. Furthermore, Reisig and Parks (2000) note that in
Indianapolis, Indiana and St. Petersburg, Florida, non-Black minority members held more
favorable attitudes than African-Americans. Thus, it is clear that not all minority groups
have the same consistent views regarding attitude toward police. Jesilow, Meyer, and
Namazzi (1995) attribute these varying attitudes to the fact that there has been an increase
in the hiring of minority officers which may have affected opinions toward police.
20
These four key sociodemographic elements have been most heavily investigated
among research surrounding attitude toward police. However, additional studies have
factored other sociodemographic components such as neighborhood culture or city of
residence (Decker 1981; Taylor et al., 2001) and education (Jesilow, Meyer, & Namazzi,
1995) in determining the relationship between citizens and law enforcement.
Communication and Law Enforcement
It is clear that research within the law enforcement field has primarily been
interested in media depiction, personal experiences, and the effects of sociodemographic
factors on perceptions of police. However, a major gap within the literature lies with the
minimal effort dedicated to examining the communicative aspect of police-civilian
encounters. While the communicative discipline has dedicated significant study to the
role communication plays in numerous contexts between different types of groups, such
as between different cultures/genders/ages, the mass media and its audience, patients and
health professionals, and members of the courtroom (Giles & Ogay, 2007; Linell, 1991)
little attention has been devoted to examining the communication that occurs within the
direct interaction between law enforcement officials and civilians. The extant literature
shows that some work has addressed related fields such as different perspectives of
policing (Heydon, 2005; Solan & Tiersma, 2005) and the legal courtroom (Linell, 1991),
but few studies have solely concentrated on the communicative elements of law
enforcement-civilian encounters (Giles et al., 2006; Perlmutter, 2000). Womack and
Finley (1986) note that communication is the central most important commodity that an
officer has at his or her disposal while Giles et al. (2006) report that 98% of law
enforcement practice is directly related to communicating with the public and its safety
21
needs. Thus, it is clearly evident the important presence communication has in the law
enforcement field and warrants increased study.
Perception and Law Enforcement
Of the existing literature related to this field, the communication research within
the law enforcement context heavily surrounds how officers’ style of communication
affects perceptions (Giles et al., 2006), trust (Barker et al., 2008), compliance (Hajek et
al., 2008c) and relational/emotional satisfaction (Giles et al., 2006) in American and
international contexts (Hajek et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al., 2008b). Giles
et al. (2006) explored the role accommodation plays in the communicative relationship
between community members and its law enforcement agency. Utilizing CAT as their
theoretical framework, they were interested in discovering how accommodation affected
citizens’ attitudes toward police (ATP). By distributing surveys through three separate
methods (door-to-door distribution, after Mass at two Spanish speaking churches, and an
online college campus survey), the authors were able to derive conclusions from separate
populations that were from a common community. This study found that ratings of
satisfaction among local citizens were heavily dependent on an officer’s accommodative
ability, as citizens perceived officers who were more accommodating, more positively.
Adding yet another element to the list that helps predict attitude toward police, Giles et
al. (2006) found substantial evidence that communication accommodation can serve as a
key factor in affecting citizens’ perception of police.
In a replicated study conducted in Kansas, People’s Republic of China, and
Taiwan, Giles et al. (2007) predicted that in all three cultural contexts, ratings and
satisfaction of police would be dependent on perceived trust and officer accommodation.
22
However, different cultures yielded different results. In both Kansas and China,
perceived trust was the only predictor of satisfaction while in Taiwan, both trust and
accommodation were significant predictors. Furthermore, Hajek et al. (2006) found
similar results in their own study comparing Black and White respondents in Louisiana
and South Africa in examining the relationships among accommodation, trust, and
compliance. Results indicated that accommodation was a significant predictor of trust in
both contexts but when it came to compliance, they found that there was no predictive
relationship between officer accommodation and voluntary civilian compliance.
However, police accommodation led to perceived trust, from which willingness to
comply was derived. These finding were again supported in a similar study conducted in
Korea, Japan, Guam, and Canada where results indicated that although officer
accommodativeness may not directly have influenced compliance, it did indeed affect
civilians’ perceptions on trustworthiness, which in turn predicted one’s willingness to
comply (Barker et al., 2008).
Therefore, it is clear that in numerous contexts, an officer’s level of
communication accommodation is a key element in shaping civilian perceptions of law
enforcement. Attitudes toward police, perceived trustworthiness, and compliance can all
potentially be affiliated with the level of an officers’ communicative style. As police
officers’ level of accommodation increases, so does the level of perceived trust between
them, which in turn results in an increased likelihood of voluntary civilian compliance
(Barker et al., 2008; Hajek et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al., 2008b; Giles et
al., 2006; Giles et al., 2007). These same conceptual ideas will be applied to the police
officer-suspect relationship. Therefore, this study will test the following hypothesis:
23
H 1: A suspect will have a more positive perception of a communicatively
accommodative police officer than a non-accommodative police officer.
Trust and Law Enforcement
Nadler and Liviatan (2006) note that trust is an important element when it comes
to establishing peaceful and favorable relationships between members of different
groups. Furthermore, Tyler and Huo (2002) suggest that motive-based trust affects
people’s willingness to comply with legal authorities as Hajek et al. (2006) add that trust
serves as a mediating variable to civilian compliance, which is an important relevant
factor in community policing. Ultimately, the communication that occurs between the
police and civilians can also be described as the communication between two separate
groups and thus, it is safe to say that trust plays an increasingly important role when it
comes to the working relationship between civilians and law enforcement officials (Tyler,
2006).
Trust is closely associated with empathy, positive attitudes, self-disclosure, and
reciprocity (Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, & Niens, 2006; Kenworthy, Turner,
Hewstone, & Voci, 2005) and is a highly complex process. All of these elements are
critical in helping to establish a more effective police-civilian relationship. However, as
people interact with different group memberships, people typically tend to accord less
trust and greater distrust to outgroup members (Tanis & Postmes, 2005). This is evident
in the police-community relationship, as civilians tend to view law enforcement officials
as outgroup members. Borrero (2001) notes that a civilian’s interaction with the police is
seldom pleasant and most individuals feel apprehensive just to see a police officer in
24
numerous common settings such as walking down the street, in a restaurant, or driving on
the freeway.
In order to develop a higher attainment of trust and eliminate perceived group
differences, the availability of personal information (Tanis & Postmes, 2005) and the
expectation of relational development (Yuki et al., 2005) can serve as important factors.
Brown and Hewstone (2005) argue that establishing personal and intimate relationships
with outgroup members may result in generating positive attitudes. As a result, it is
important that the outgroup (law enforcement) establishes such bonds with the ingroup
(civilians), in order to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement-community
relationships.
Stoutland (2001) examines what type of central role trust plays in her study of
resident-police relations. She asserts that in Chicago and San Diego, law enforcement
philosophies are designed so that residents and police work together to create activities
that will decrease disorder, which at the center is trust. In Boston, police strategy relies
on an effective relationship between community leaders and police with high levels of
trust so that community members are willing to disclose sensitive information about
identifying and communicating with violent youth. In order for law enforcement officials
to implement effective policing behavior, it is clear that trust is a critical and important
element. Therefore, grounded in the existing literature surrounding trust, this study tests
the following hypothesis:
H 2: A suspect will be more trustful of a communicatively accommodative police
officer than a non-accommodative police officer.
25
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
In order to examine the effects of communication accommodation in law
enforcement-suspect encounters, this study relied on a web-based survey to collect data.
This method of data collection is ideal for ensuring that the opinions of a wide range of
respondents are considered. By specifically targeting college students, the data reflected
the opinions of those who have actually had a direct encounter experience or know
somebody who has had a direct encounter experience with a law enforcement officer as
Hingson et al. (2002) estimates, more than 1100 college students were involved in
alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents in 1998. Furthermore, Presley, Meilman, and
Lyerla (1995) reported that in their study, 31.9% of students aged 20 years and younger
and 33.6% of students aged 21 years and older admitted to driving while intoxicated. By
studying college students, this study depicted the opinions of a large and knowledgeable
population.
Administering surveys through the Internet serves as an effective and efficient
means to collect data. Although the traditional form of data collection may be via mailed
surveys or phone calls (Dillman, 1998), the modern collection process has evolved to
significantly depend on different forms of technology, such as web-based surveys.
Dominelli (2003) outlines several key advantages of utilizing surveys distributed through
the Internet than utilizing the traditional method.
26
Initially, the consistently increasing number of Internet users provides the
researcher the potential to reach a larger number of people at once, as the U.S. National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (2003) reports that the Internet
experiences a growth rate at approximately two million new users per month. Next,
utilizing the Internet as a form of data collection serves to financially benefit the
researcher as well, and allows avoiding costs of printing and postage expenses associated
with mailed surveys. Furthermore, the quicker response rates and turnaround times of
web-based research than the traditional mailing method makes Internet questionnaires a
more favorable choice of data collection.
Although web-based data collection provides significant key benefits, there are
also limitations. At the fundamental level, there are three specific limitations to webbased research outlined by Dominelli (2003) relating to “participating in web surveys,
perceived burden of responding to a web survey, and security” (p. 412). First, regarding
participation, it is important to recognize that although Internet use has increased
significantly, not everybody is an experienced user. Thus, this limits the researcher from
constructing a sample that extends into all different types of people in a population, such
as the elderly or extremely young. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult to create
incentive for participation because researchers are not directly connecting with
participants. Participants may also have the ability to preview a survey in a webadministered questionnaire, which could skew the data. Next, some participants may not
complete the surveys and could result in a high rate of abandonment. Finally,
participants may be weary of the security of their participation and it may be difficult to
assure them that their answers will remain anonymous and confidential. Despite these
27
shortcomings, Dominelli (2003) suggests that by focusing on an effective and efficient
survey design, these limitations can be suppressed and can provide a useful instrument
for the process of collecting data.
Recruitment
Students who were recruited form a large, southeastern University constituted the
main source of data. University students were deemed as an ideal sample population for
three reasons. Initially, the large student population on the University campus allowed
the researcher to easily access willing participants. Second, the standard admission
procedures and requirements for students to be enrolled at the University reflected the
students’ ability to be competent survey participants, which met the typical research
requirements. Third, the population sample had the potential to have a large number of
people who may have actually had a direct encounter with the police whether it was in an
unofficial or official setting. In fact, the California Department of Alcohol & Drug
Programs reported in 2011 that the proportion of DUI arrests for those under the age of
21 has increased 12.6% between 1998 and 2008. Furthermore, the same report reveals
that the highest percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol content (BAC) levels of the
legal limit of .08 or higher were for drivers between the ages of 21-24 years of age
(California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs, 2011). For these key reasons, this
type of sample population was chosen for study.
In order to recruit participants for this study, two different recruitment strategies
were employed. First, the researcher arranged to visit with several large undergraduate
lecture courses to ask for voluntary participation in the survey. These courses consisted
of general education communication courses such as public speaking. For some courses,
28
there was a basic course obligation where students must participate in some type of
research study to meet assignment specifications or to receive extra credit. In these cases,
the researcher made a visit to the lecture, presented the basic details of the research, and
asked for voluntary participation. Students were also instructed on what type of protocol
they must take to ensure that they will receive credit for participation in the study. In
other cases, where the instructors may not offer any sort of incentive to participate in
research, the researcher also made a visit to the lecture, presented the basic details of the
research, and asked for voluntary participation. The researcher was sure to explain how
important willing and enthusiastic participants were needed for the purpose of the study
in hopes of persuading students to participate in the survey on their own accord.
The second form of recruitment took place through the researcher’s email
networks. The researcher circulated a pre-conceived email to other large communication
lecture courses, asking students to participate in the research study. This email stated the
purpose of the study, why participation is important, and assured the students that
participation would be anonymous and voluntary (See Appendix B).
Participants
A sample of 288 students, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, was
obtained for the study. They were recruited either from introductory level communication
courses at a large, southeastern University or through the researcher’s email network. Of
the original 288 participants, 31 responses were eliminated from the final dataset due to
missing responses and/or failure to meet manipulation checks, which left a final sample
of 257 students.
29
Instruments
The survey begins with an introductory page that outlines the informed consent
procedure and instructions on how to properly take the survey. The introductory page let
participants know what the purpose of the study is, reminded students that participation is
completely voluntary, and provided direct contact information for the researcher. The
page concluded by asking participants to confirm or reject participation in the study. The
participant was only granted access to the next page if they selected to have understood
the consent form and chose to participate in the survey.
The second page of the survey focused on the demographic information of the
participants. Questions concerning gender, age, education level, martial status, and
ethnic group were asked to provide the researcher with a more detailed description of the
sample population. Additionally, this page sought information to determine how much
participants are exposed to police-related media and whether participants ever
experienced a direct encounter with a law enforcement officer. Then, the participants
were directed to a randomization question that randomly placed them in one of two
potential contexts. Context One depicted an accommodative situation while Context Two
displayed a non-accommodative situation (see Appendix C). Approximately half of the
total sample population participated in each respective context.
The third page depicted a hypothetical encounter between a law enforcement
officer and a potential DUI suspect. The participant was asked to assume the role of the
DUI suspect and was given information about the officer’s communication
accommodation. Depending on which context they were placed in each hypothetical
context provided a police officer who sustained either an accommodative or non-
30
accommodative communication style. Following the scenario, the participants were
asked a series of questions designed to measure the level of the officers perceived
accommodation level, their perception toward the law enforcement officer, and the level
of trust the suspect had toward the law enforcement officer.
The survey concluded with a final page thanking the participants for participation
in the survey. Here, the participants were once again given the contact information to the
researcher and were also provided with an opportunity to provide any type of feedback or
comments that would be directly sent to the primary researcher. Furthermore, if students
were participating to meet a basic research requirement for their school course, this page
allowed them to provide information that would ensure the students that their information
would be sent to their course instructor to receive credit for completing the survey.
Measures
In order to measure the manipulation of an officer’s level of communication
accommodation, the questionnaire utilized a 10-item modified version of the
Communication Accommodation Scale (CAS), which has been used in several studies in
the past to measure communication accommodation in law enforcement-civilian
encounters (Giles et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al.,
2008b). The original scale asked five questions to determine how an officer’s
communication style was “pleasant,” “accommodative,” “respectful,” “polite,” and
“explanatory.” To measure a police officer’s communication accommodation for this
study, two of the original five questions were used (accommodation, respectfulness) in
the adapted scale.
31
Incorporating two of the existing items, the modified scale asked questions
assessing whether the officer’s communicative ability was “accommodative,”
“respectful,” “comfortable,” “engaged,” “adaptive,” “uncomfortable,” “uncooperative,”
“rude,” “careless,” and “unadaptive” for a total of ten questions, respectively. The
answers for the modified communication accommodation scale were recorded on a 9point Likert-type scale ranging from “1 - Strongly Agree” to “9 – Strongly Disagree”.
Items 1-5 (n = 257, M = 7.29) of the modified communication accommodation scale
measured convergent behaviors, while divergent behaviors were measured by items 6-10
(n = 257, M =3.76). Following data collection, items 6-10 were reverse coded to align
the responses. This scale showed that an officer’s communication accommodation style
was significantly manipulated between the two hypothetical contexts. A high level of
reliability was deduced from this modified scale as Cronbach’s alpha reliability was
reported at .96 (M = 56.05, SD = 21.77).
Then, the researcher utilized an adapted scale to measure how communication
accommodation may have affected their perception toward the police in general. The
original scale, Faith In People Scale (FIPS), was developed by Rosenberg (1957) and is
designed to assess one’s degree of confidence in the trustworthiness, honesty, goodness,
generosity, and brotherliness of people in general. The instrument utilizes a Guttman
scale of two forced-choice and three agree-disagree statements and takes about 1 minute
to complete. In the past, the coefficient of reproducibility for the original FIPS was .92
(Rosenberg, 1957). To make this scale fit appropriately to this specific study, the
researcher modified the questions from asking opinions of the generalized group of
32
“people” to asking opinions on the more specific group: the police. For instance, one
question in its original form asked:
“Some people say that most people can be trusted. Others say you can’t be too
careful in your dealings with people. How do you feel about it?”
This question was altered to:
“Some people say that the police can be trusted. Others say you can’t be too
careful in your dealings with the police. How do you feel about it?”
The remaining questions were modified in the same way to be directed toward the police.
The Cronbach’s alpha of .73 (M = 6.92, SD = 1.67) indicated that this scale was a reliable
measure of police perception.
To measure the level of trust that the participant may have experienced an
additional trust scale was utilized. The Individualized Trust Scale (ITS) focused on the
specific officer present in the hypothetical scenario. The ITS is a modified version of the
Interpersonal Trust Scale and has been tailored by Wheeless and Grotz (1977) to focus on
a particular person rather than people in general. This scale utilizes a 7-point semantic
differential scale and takes about 1 minute to complete. This scale was chosen for its
ability to measure trust toward an individual person, such as the police officer in this
particular study, as well as the high levels of reliability reported in the past. Wheeless
and Grotz (1977) found a split-half reliability level of .92, while Snavely (1981) found an
alpha of .95. After the ITS was administered for this survey, the researcher found a
Cronbach’s alpha reliability level of .91 (M = 54.96, SD = 15.34).
Furthermore, in order to test the authenticity of the hypothetical scenarios,
students were asked to rate their “believability” of the scenarios on two separate, seven-
33
point scales: not believable/very believable and not very realistic/very realistic (Kearney,
et al., 1988). Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimate for this scale was reported at .93 (M =
7.49, SD = 4.32), which suggests that the scenarios used in the study were, in fact,
believable and realistic. Furthermore, Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko (2009)
suggest that including a manipulation check can increase statistical power and reliability
of a dataset. Thus, this page included two questions that asked participants to identify
simple, but detailed, elements of the hypothetical scenario. In doing so, the researcher
was able to identify and eliminate the answers that may have been seemingly chosen at
random or from participants who may have failed to follow instructions when completing
the questionnaire.
In summary, this study tested two hypotheses concerning the interaction between
law enforcement officials and potential suspects. In order to test the hypotheses, two
separate independent t-tests will be conducted. Two types of hypothetical contexts were
distributed at random to the participants of the survey. The first hypothetical scenario
manipulated the independent variable that depicted a police officer engaging in an
accommodating form of communication. The dependent variables here were perceptions
of police, which was measured through the modified version of the FIPS and levels of
trust, which was measured through the ITS. The second hypothetical scenario depicted a
police officer who had a non-accommodating form of communication, which served as
the independent variable and had the same dependent variables. The data for all
hypotheses was analyzed simultaneously, and was tested through two separate
independent sample t-tests. Before conducting the independent t-tests, the media,
sociodemographic factors, and personal experiences were accounted and controlled for
34
through a preliminary linear regression analysis as additional independent variables to
ensure they did not have a significant impact on perceptions or levels of trust toward the
police.
35
Chapter 4
RESULTS
First, the descriptive statistics for each variable were calculated to gain a better
understanding of the nature of the sample (n = 257). Second, a bivariate correlation
analysis was conducted among the variables to provide an introductory understanding of
the relationships between each variable. Finally, to gain a better understanding of how
communication accommodation affects the relationships between police officers and
suspects, two separate independent sample t-tests were conducted to test the hypotheses.
Descriptive Statistics
The findings for the descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The average
age of the respondents was 20.1 years old (SD = 1.55). The sample consisted of 66.5%
female respondents (n = 171) and 33.5% male respondents (n = 86). The majority of the
participants identified as “Caucasian” (86.4%). The sample showed that 89.5% of the
participants (n = 250) had experienced a direct encounter with the police in the past 5
years. Furthermore, 203 participants (79%) also reported that they have had a policeinitiated encounter with the police, and 136 students (47.1%) reported that they have had
an encounter where they, the students, were the ones to initiate contact. Furthermore,
54.5% of respondents considered themselves frequent viewers of television crime shows
(i.e. NCIS, Law and Order, Criminal Minds, Cops, etc.). Per week, 71.2% of respondents
(n = 183) spent “0-2 Hours” watching crime shows, 24.9% of respondents (n = 183) spent
36
“3-5 Hours” watching crime shows, and 3.9% of respondents (n = 64) spent more than 6
hours watching crime shows.
Bivariate Correlations
The details of the bivariate correlation analysis are outlined in Table 2. In order
to see if there was high collinearity between any two variables, the bivariate correlations
were examined. Although the question “Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter
(i.e. traffic stop, random conversation, questioning, etc.) with the police in the past 5
years?” showed the highest correlation at .602 with “Have you ever had any direct
contact/encounter with the police that was initiated by a police officer?”, all coefficients
were reported at the acceptable level of less than .700 (George & Mallery, 2006).
37
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Hypothetical Contexts
(n = 257)
Variable
M
SD
Would you consider yourself a
frequent viewer of a television
crime show (i.e. NCIS, Law
and Order, Criminal Minds,
Cops, etc.)?
1.46
.499
What is your gender?
1.67
.473
How old are you?
20.07
1.547
What is your race?
2.83
.645
Have you ever had any direct
contact/encounter (i.e. traffic
stop, random conversation,
questioning, etc.) with the
police in the past 5 years?
1.89
.307
Have you ever had any direct
contact/encounter with the
police that was initiated by a
police officer?
1.79
.408
Have you had any direct
contact/encounter with the
police where you initiated
contact?
1.47
.500
Modified Communication
Accommodation Scale
5.60
2.177
Modified Faith In People
Scale
1.38
.333
Individualized Trust Scale
3.66
1.023
38
Table 2
Bivariate Correlations (n = 257)
Gender
Age
Race
Direct
Encounter
1
Direct
Encounter
2
Direct
Encounter
3
Modified
Communication
Accommodation
Scale
Modified
Faith In
People
Scale
Individualized
Trust Scale
Media
-.229**
.014
.025
-.094
.046
.077
-.022
-.063
.021
Gender
---
-.128*
-.086
-.082
-.103
-.075
-.050
-.025
-.073
---
.043
.081
.129*
.134*
-.026
.057
.031
---
.027
.160*
.093
-.159*
-.006
.064
.602**
.298**
.021
.006
.032
.142*
-.009
.049
.039
.010
-.043
-.015
---
-.160*
-.562**
---
.408**
Age
Race
Direct
Encounter 1
---
Direct
Encounter 2
---
Direct
Encounter 3
---
Modified
Communication
Accommodation
Scale
Modified Faith
In People Scale
Note: Correlations with an * are significant at the level of p < .05. Correlations with an
**are significant at the level of p <.01.
39
Data Analysis
In order to test the hypotheses, two separate independent sample t-tests were
conducted to determine the relationships between communication accommodation,
perception, and trust. Before the independent t-tests were calculated, additional
independent variables including media, sociodemographic factors, and personal
experience were first controlled for in a separate regression analysis to make sure they
did not significantly influence levels of perception and/or trust.
Before testing Hypothesis 1, a linear regression analysis was first performed to
examine the relationships between the potential confounding variables including media,
sociodemographic factors, and personal experience, and a suspect’s level of perception.
The linear regression found that there were no significant relationships between these
potential confounding variables and the dependent variable. The results of this linear
regression model are portrayed in Table 3. Next, to test Hypothesis 1, an independent
sample t-test was conducted to compare levels of perception in accommodative and nonaccommodative conditions. This analysis found that there was no significant difference
at α = .05 in scores between accommodative (M = 1.37, SD = .34) and nonaccommodative (M = 1.40, SD = .33) conditions; t(255) = -.678, p =.498). These results
suggest that a police officer’s communication accommodation style did not have a
significant effect on a suspect’s level of perception. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not
supported.
40
Table 3
Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between Communication
Accommodation and Perception (n = 257)
Variable
Modified Communication Accommodation Scale
Would you consider yourself a frequent viewer of a
television crime show (i.e. NCIS, Law and Order,
Criminal Minds, Cops, etc.)?
What is your gender?
How old are you?
What is your race?
Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter (i.e.
traffic stop, random conversation, questioning, etc.)
with the police in the past 5 years?
Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter with
the police that was initiated by a police officer?
Have you had any direct contact/encounter with the
police where you initiated contact?
B
-.026
-.049
SE B
.010
.043
β
-.168
-.074
Sig.
.009
.255
-.033
.011
-.022
-.033
.046
.014
.033
.089
-.047
.049
-.042
-.030
.476
.440
.513
.712
.052
.065
.064
.423
-.028
.044
-.042
.532
Note: r = .201, r2 = .040, p < .05
Prior to testing Hypothesis 2, an additional separate linear regression test was
initially conducted to examine the relationships between the same potential confounding
variables and level of trust. The linear regression again indicated that the potential
confounding variables did not significantly affect a suspect’s level of trust. The findings
of this particular linear regression model are displayed in Table 4. In order to test
Hypothesis 2, another independent sample t-test was conducted to compare levels of trust
in accommodative and non-accommodative conditions. The analysis indicated that there
is a significant difference at α = .05 in scores between accommodative (M = 3.35, SD =
1.04) and non-accommodative (M = 4.01, SD = .88) conditions; t(255) = -5.501, p
=.000). These findings suggest that a police officer’s communication accommodation
style did have a significant effect on a suspect’s level of trust. Therefore, Hypothesis 2
was supported.
41
Table 4
Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between Communication
Accommodation and Trust (n = 257)
Variable
B
-.264
SE B
.025
β
-.563
Sig.
.000
Would you consider yourself a frequent viewer of a
television crime show (i.e. NCIS, Law and Order,
Criminal Minds, Cops, etc.)?
.059
.111
.029
.594
What is your gender?
.121
.118
.056
.307
How old are you?
.014
.035
.022
.685
What is your race?
-.038
.086
-.024
.663
Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter (i.e. traffic
stop, random conversation, questioning, etc.) with the
police in the past 5 years?
.158
.229
.048
.490
Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter with the
police that was initiated by a police officer?
.042
.168
.017
.803
Have you had any direct contact/encounter with the police
where you initiated contact?
-.051
.114
-.025
.658
Modified Communication Accommodation Scale
Note: r = .568, r2 = .323, p < .05.
42
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Summary of Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the communicative relationship in
police-suspect interactions. As the policing philosophy continues to embrace a
“community policing” orientation, there has been a small growing trend to learn how to
establish a positive relationship between police officers and civilians; however,
establishing a positive relationship between police officers and suspects is equally
important. Specifically, this study utilized online questionnaires to examine the effect a
police officer’s communication accommodation had on a suspect’s perception and level
of trust toward the officer. The results of the study indicate that a police officer’s
communication accommodation was not a successful predictor of suspect perception, but
was successful in predicting levels of trust.
Hypothesis 1 focused on the police officer-suspect communicative relationship in
terms of perception. This hypothesis predicted that a suspect would have a more positive
perception of a communicatively accommodative police officer than a nonaccommodative police officer. As indicated by the independent sample t-test, this
hypothesis was not supported.
Hypothesis 2 focused on the level of trust within the police officer-suspect
communicative relationship. This hypothesis predicted that a suspect would be more
trusting of a communicatively accommodative police officer than a non-accommodative
43
police officer. Upon completion of an independent sample t-test, this hypothesis was
supported.
Implications
This study has important implications for both the theoretical and social arenas.
First, at the theoretical level, the guiding principles of CAT have once again been
supported. The validation of Hypothesis 2 shows the potential social effect
communication accommodation can have in a social interaction. Analysis revealed a lack
of empirical support for Hypothesis 1; however, this may have very well been due to the
fact that the scale used to measure perception asked participants to respond to their
perception of the police as a collectivistic group and not as an individual. Utilizing a
more specific perception scale that aims to measure individual perception in future study
may prove to produce different findings. In addition to the numerous contexts that CAT
has been historically studied and supported, such as in instructional (Mazer & Hunt,
2008), health (Watson & Gallois, 1998), and intercultural (Imamura, Zhang, & Harwood,
2011) contexts, this study shows the versatile nature CAT has in being applied to
different interactional situations. Specifically, this particular study highlighted how
convergence and divergence in communicative behaviors can increase or decrease the
social distance between interactants (Giles & Ogay, 2007). In doing so, this research
reiterates the validity of the tenets outlined in CAT.
Second, this study employed a modified version of the Communication
Accommodation Scale to measure how participants perceived a police officer’s
communication. As a result, the researcher proposes an additional measure that may be
utilized to measure communication accommodation. The original scale inquired five
44
questions to determine how an officer’s communication style was “pleasant,”
“accommodative,” “respectful,” “polite,” and “explanatory” (Giles et al., 2006; Hajek et
al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al., 2008b, Barker et al., 2008). However,
although a valid and reliable scale, the original scale primarily focuses on converging
accommodative behavior. The modified scale used in this study, integrated a 10-item
questionnaire that emphasized both converging and diverging features by asking if an
officer’s communicative ability was “accommodative,” “respectful,” “comfortable,”
“engaged,” “adaptive,” “uncomfortable,” “uncooperative,” “rude,” “careless,” and
“unadaptive.” By asking questions that motivate students to think about both converging
and diverging communicative behavior, the modified communication accommodation
scale reveals a more precise analysis of an interactant’s perceived level of
accommodation. In future studies interested in accommodation, this scale may be
considered appropriate to measure levels of communication accommodation.
Third, the results of this study extend the existing literature surrounding the
importance of effective communication between police officers and society. Although
some research exists regarding the interaction that occurs between police officers and
civilians (Giles et al., 2006, Hajek et al., 2006), it is important to examine the policesuspect encounter, as criminal suspects play a large role within the concept of community
policing (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010). Thus, this study suggests an additional
venue where communication theory can infiltrate to improve the relationships between
societal members.
Next, at the social level, this research provides important pragmatic implications
that can be directly applied to the law enforcement community. The lack of support for
45
Hypothesis 1 suggests that accommodation is not enough to affect an individual’s
perception of law enforcement as a whole. However, empirical support for Hypothesis 2
suggests that communication strategies can help improve the individual encounter
between a police officer and a suspect. Thus, in an effort to improve the collectivistic
perception of police officers, law enforcement officials must make a conscious effort to
be accommodating in their own individual interactions, as part of a collectivistic effort to
improve the relationships between law enforcement and their communities.
Next, as previously noted, over 13 million police-suspect encounters led to a
direct arrest in the year 2010 alone (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010) not including
the encounters that did not lead to an arrest, which shows the prevalence of this type of
interaction. Therefore, police officers can utilize this type of communicative knowledge
to improve the increasingly common police-suspect encounter. The results indicate that a
suspect’s level of trust will increase toward an accommodative officer, which in turn will
lead to a more efficient interaction. In fact, several studies point out that criminal
suspects often lie and employ deceptive behavior when interacting with the police
(Strömwall, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2006; Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Woods, &
Michlik, 2006; Hines et al., 2010). By implementing communicative strategies, such as
accommodation, to increase the level of trust between an officer and a suspect, officers
may hope to improve the validity of the information exchanged during interaction.
Additionally, employing strategies to increase trust toward law enforcement helps
to mold the overall community’s relationship toward the law enforcement agency. Due
to the large presence of communities sustaining negative attitudes toward law
enforcement (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003), it is imperative that policing agencies embrace
46
methods to create such trusting atmospheres. Both academic scholars and law
enforcement officials promote the same idea that the prevention of criminal activity
highly depends on police and society cooperating together (Bayley, 1994). By no means
does this study claim to have the answer to provide a completely cooperative policecivilian relationship; rather, the findings of this study suggest that accommodative
behavior could be one strategy to contribute in the effort to improve the police-suspect
relationship.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Although this study found empirical evidence in support of the criteria outlined in
the Communication Accommodation Theory, this study is not without limitations.
Most participants identified themselves as “Caucasian.” Thus, future research may aim
to incorporate a more racially diverse population to learn the effects of communication
accommodation on a broader scale. In doing so, a more accurate depiction of the
relationship between sociodemographic factors views toward police can be assessed.
Moreover, the fact that students were asked to assume suspect roles may initially appear
limiting. However, the descriptive statistics reveal that 89.5% of participants had
experienced a direct encounter with the police in the past years, which coincides with
Johnson’s (2004) study that found 84% of the 245 surveyed students reported having
been stopped by the police for a traffic violation. These results support that college
students are appropriate for study as they have experience interacting with the police.
Future studies may examine other populations, such as the working class or the elderly.
Second, the fact that the survey asked participants to assume roles in a
hypothetical situation may serve as an additional limitation to this study. Although
47
questionnaires with hypothetical scenarios are a common method to solicit responses
(Myers et al., 2008, Bowman, 2009), there is no real way to determine if their answers
would coincide with scenarios that may actually occur. Additionally, the believability
scale used to assess if the realism of the hypothetical scenarios can be considered a
weakness. Of the original three believability questions (Kearney, et al., 1988), only two
were utilized to test the believability of this study’s hypothetical scenarios. The omitted
question asked, “How easy is it to imagine yourself in this type of situation?” Due to
some sensitive elements of the imagined scenario, such as alcohol consumption and
driving, the researcher believed that participants answering this question would more
likely focus on the DUI reference, rather than the intended focus of scenario believability.
The remaining believability questions showed a high level of reliability, reporting a
Cronbach’s alpha level at .93 (M = 7.49, SD = 4.32).
Third, the homogeneous cultural perspective that these students shared in
answering the questionnaire may have served to limit the study. Although the survey was
conducted at a large Southeastern University, the region’s particular police culture may
have had a significant impact on the responses collected. Students from different
regional cultures, both domestically and internationally, may possess different
preconceived ideas regarding the police, which may produce drastically different results.
The police culture in urban settings may vary from that of a more rural area and may lead
to different public opinions toward law enforcement as Klyman and Kruckenburg (1974)
reported that different areas come with different problems and the police officer must
adapt to different environments as his or her tasks may differ from urban to rural settings,
large cities to small cities, and from district to district among these jurisdictions. These
48
limitations should be considered in the future direction of study. The results indicate
support for the principle guidelines of CAT; however, continuous study is necessary to
gain an even better knowledge about the communicative relationship between police
officers and members of society. Initially, a qualitative research perspective, such as
interviews or focus groups, may serve to provide an insightful picture of the social
meanings behind the relationships that police officers and suspects share. By directly
speaking and conversing with suspects about interactions with the police, researchers
may improve their comprehension of what significant factors may have played a role in
shaping perceptions or levels of trust toward police.
Next, it would be interesting to incorporate live footage of police officers, rather
than asking students to think about imagined scenarios. Perhaps, showing students a
video of a police officer speaking with an accommodative and/or non-accommodative
communication style to the participants may have a different effect on the perception and
trust toward the officer. Including this type of experiment may contribute a more realistic
and authentic interactive experience, from which levels of perception and trust can be
derived.
Third, the extent to which communication accommodation may affect a suspect’s
perception and trust can be further investigated by adjusting the investment a suspect may
have in a police-suspect encounter. This study explored accommodative effects on DUI
suspects; it would be intriguing to learn how significantly accommodation may affect
more heavily invested criminal suspects, such as the interactions that occur between
police officers and suspects of assault, robbery, or even murder. While this type of study
49
may be more difficult to conduct, the suspect’s investment level in a police interaction
and its effect on attitude toward police may provide to be of compelling interest.
Conclusion
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the role communication
accommodation plays in law enforcement interactions. While some studies have
examined how accommodation affects communication in the police-civilian encounter, a
significant gap in literature exists concerning police-suspect interactions. As a majority
of a police officer’s time is spent interacting with criminal suspects, the lack of research
serves to be problematic and this study was possibly the first to examine such
interactions. The research from this study implies that police accommodative behavior
can lead suspects to be more trusting toward police officers. Thus, communication plays
an integral part in enhancing the relationship between an officer and a suspect.
This research could be continued in numerous directions. Sociodemographic
variables, including race, gender, and personal experience, could be highlighted in future
versions of study to learn how they impact the police-suspect encounter. Future studies
may also consider different cultural contexts where the police-suspect relationship may
greatly vary from the western perspective. Furthermore, while this study was limited to
examining potential DUI suspects, additional research can extend into interactions that
occur with suspects that have a more serious criminal accusation such as assault, robbery,
and/or murder.
Ultimately, this study hopes to contribute scholarly and practical knowledge to
improve the relationship between law enforcement and society. In order to embrace the
community policing philosophy, it is important to constantly dedicate effort to improve
50
the relationship between the police and their communities as these relationships carry
significant implications. Thus, communication theory and practical applications must
continue to intersect in order to produce fruitful relationships between law enforcement
and those they serve to protect.
51
REFERENCES
Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. (1997). The force factor: Measuring police use of force
relative to suspect resistance. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research
Forum.
Apple, N., & O’Brien, D. (1983). Neighborhood racial composition and residents’
evaluation of police performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration,
11, 76-84.
Arcuri, A. (1981). The police and the elderly. In D. Lester (Ed.), The elderly victim of
crime (pp. 106-128). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
Ayoko, O. B., Hartel, C. E. J., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive
and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups: A
communication accommodation theory approach. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 13(2), 165-195.
Ball, P., Giles, H., & Hewstone, M. (1985). Interpersonal accommodation and situational
construals: An integrative formalisation. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.),
Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 263286). London: Erlbaum.
Barker, V., Giles, H., Hajek, C., Ota, H., Noels, K., Lim, T. S., & Somera, L. (2008).
Police-civilian interaction, compliance, accommodation, and trust in an intergroup
context: International data. Journal of International and Intercultural
Communication, 1(2), 93-112.
Bayley, D.H. (1994). Police for the future. New York: Oxford University Press.
Black, T. E., & Smith, C. P. (1981). A preliminary assessment of the number and
characteristics of juveniles processed in the juvenile justice system. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Borrero, M. (2001). The widening mistrust between youth and police. Families in
Society, 82, 399-408.
Bourhis, R. Y. (1979). Language in ethnic interaction: A social psychological approach.
In H. Giles & B. Saint-Jacques (Eds.), Language and ethnic relations (pp. 117141). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
52
Bowman, J. M. (2009). The influences of attribution, context, and heterosexual selfpresentation on perceived appropriateness of self-disclosure in same-sex male
friendships. Communication Research Reports, 26, 215-227.
Brandl, S., Frank, J., Worden, R., & Bynum, T. (1994). Global and specific attitudes
toward the police: Disentangling the relationship. Justice Quarterly, 11, 119-134.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255-343).
San Diego, CA: Elsvier Academic Press.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.
California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs. (2011). Fact sheet: driving-underthe-influence (DUI) statistics. Retrieved November 22, 2011, from
www.adp.ca.gov/factsheets/drivingundertheinfluencestatistics.pdf.
Cao, L., Frank, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). Race, community context, and confidence in
the police. American Journal of Police, 15, 3-22.
Carlson, J. (1985). Prime Time Law Enforcement. New York, NY: Praeger.
Cheurprakobkit, S., & Bartsch, R. A. (2001). Police performance: A model for assessing
citizen’s satisfaction and the importance of police attributes. Police Quarterly, 4,
449-468.
Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Woods, D., & Michlik, P. M. (2006).
Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth-tellers: How
liars attempt to convince. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 24, 31–38.
Cooper, J. (1980). The police and the ghetto. Port Washington, NY: National University
Publications, Kennikat Press.
Cordner, G. (2005). Community policing: Elements and effects. In G. P. Alpert & A.
Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 45–62).
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Cordner, G., & Jones, M. (1995). The effects of supplementary foot patrol on fear of
crime and attitudes toward the police. In P. Kratcoski & D. Dukes (Eds.), Issues
in Community Policing (pp. 189-198). Highland Heights, KY: Anderson
Publishing Co.
Davis, J. (1990). A comparison of attitudes toward the New York police. Journal of
Police Science and Administration, 17, 233-243.
53
Dean, D. (1983). Citizen ratings of the police: The difference police contacts makes. Law
and Police Quarterly, 2, 445-471.
Decker, S. H. (1981). Citizen attitudes toward the police: A review of past findings and
suggestions for future policy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 9,
81-97.
Dillman, D. A. (1998). Mail and other self-administered surveys in the 21st century: The
beginnings of a new era. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445-455.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.
Organization Science, 12, 450-455.
Dominelli, A. (2003). Web surveys – Benefits and considerations. Clinical Research and
Regulatory Affairs, 20, 409-416.
Dominick, J. R. (1973). Crime and law enforcement in the mass media. In C. Winick
(Ed.), Deviance and mass media (pp. 105-28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice:
The relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police
effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10(2), 109-126.
Dunham, R. G., & Alpert, G. P. (1988). Neighborhood differences in attitudes toward
policing: Evidence for a mixed-strategy model of policing in a multi-ethnic
setting. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 79, 504-523.
Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate
supervisor: The relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational
effectiveness, and information receiving. Communication Quarterly, 49, 383-398.
Ericson, R., Baranek, P., & Chan, J. (1987). Visualizing deviance. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Feagin, J. (1970). Home defense and the police: Black and white perspectives. American
Behavioral Scientist, 13, 797-814.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States, 2010. Retrieved
October 3, 2011, from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-theu.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010.
Fielding, N. (2005). Concepts and theory in community policing. Howard Journal of
Criminal Justice, 44, 460-472.
54
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2006). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference, 13.0 update (6th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics,
15, 87-109.
Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In B. B. Whaley &
W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and
exemplars (pp. 293-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Giles, H., & Powesland, P. G. (1975). Speech styles and social evaluation. London:
Academic Press.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991) Accommodation theory: Communication,
context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.),
Context of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H., Fortman, J., Dailey, R., Barker, V., Hajek, C., Anderson, M. C., & Rule, N. O.
(2006). Communication accommodation: Law enforcement and the public. In R.
M. Dailey & B. A. Le Poire (Eds.), Interpersonal communication matters:
Family, health, and community relations (pp. 293-310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giles, H., Hajek, C., Barker, V., Lin, M.-C., Zhang, Y. B., Hummert, M. L., & Anderson,
M. C. (2007) Accommodation and institutional talk: Communicative dimensions
of police-civilian interactions. In A. Weatherall, B. Watson, & G. Gallois (Eds.),
The social psychology of language and discourse (pp. 131-159). Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory:
The first decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook
(Vol. 10, pp. 13-48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1973). Towards a theory of interpersonal
accommodation through speech: Some Canadian data. Language in Society, 2,
177-192.
Glaser, M. A., & Denhardt, J. (2010). Community policing and community building: A
case study of officer perceptions. The American Review of Public Administration,
40(3), 309-325.
Graber, D. (1980). Crime news and the public. New York, NY: Praeger.
55
Gregory, S. W., & Webster, S. (1996). A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners
effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status predictions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1231-1240.
Hajek, C., Barker, V., Giles, H., Louw-Potgieter, J., Pecchioni, L., Makoni, S., & Myers,
P. (2006). Communicative dynamics of police-civilian encounters: South African
and American interethnic data. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,
35, 161-182.
Hajek, C., Giles, H., Barker V., Demirtas-Madran, A., Pecchioni, L., & Choi, C. (2008a).
Perceptions of trust, compliance, and officer accommodation in police-civilian
intergroup encounters: A Russian, Turkish, and American cross-national analysis.
Russian Journal of Communication, 1, 127-128.
Hajek, C., Giles, H., Barker, V., Lin, M-C., Zhang, Y. B., & Hummert, M. L. (2008b).
Expressed trust and compliance in police-civilian encounters: The role of
communication accommodation in Chinese and American settings. Chinese
Journal of Communication, 1, 168-180.
Hajek, C., Giles, H., Barker, V., Makoni, S., & Choi, C. (2008c). Reported compliance in
police-civilian encounters: The roles of accommodation and trust in Zimbabwe
and the United States. Communicatio: South African Journal of Communication
Theory and Research, 34(1), 173-187.
Hennigan, K., Maxson, C., Sloane, D., & Ranney, M. (2002). Community views on crime
and policing: Survey mode effects on bias in community services. Justice
Quarterly, 19, 565-587.
Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup
contact, forgiveness, and experience of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland.
Journal of Social issues, 62, 99-120.
Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hines, A., Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Garret, E., Ansarra, R., & Montalvo, L.
(2010). Impression management strategies of deceivers and honest reporters in an
investigative interview. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal
Context, 2, 73–90.
Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Zakocs, T. C., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H. (2002).
Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college
students ages 18-24. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 136-144.
56
Imamura, M., Zhang, Y. B., & Harwood, J. (2011). Japanese sojourners’ attitudes toward
Americans: Exploring the influences of communication accommodation,
linguistic competence, and relational solidarity in intergroup context. Journal of
Asian Pacific Communication, 21, 115-132.
Jacob, H. (1971). Black and White perceptions of justice in the city. Law and Society
Review, 5, 69-89.
Jesilow, P., Meyer, J., & Namazzi, N. (1995). Public attitudes toward the police.
American Journal of Police, 14, 67-89.
Johnson, R. R. (2004). Citizen expectations of police traffic stop behavior. Policing, 27,
487-497.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Sorensen, G., & Smith, V. R. (1988). Experienced and
prospective teachers' selections of compliance-gaining messages for "common"
student misbehaviors. Communication Education, 37, 150-164.
Kenworthy, J. B., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2005). Intergroup contact
when does it work, and why. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.),
On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 278-292). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Klyman, F. I., & Kruckenberg, J. (1974). A methodology for assessing citizen
perceptions of police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 219-233.
Leighton, B. (1991). Visions of community policing: Rhetoric and reality in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Criminology, 33, 485-522.
Levin, H., & Lin, T. (1988). An accommodating witness. Language and Communication,
8, 195-198.
Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations (pp. 114139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lichter, L., & Lichter, S. (1983). Prime time crime. Washington, DC: Media Institute.
Linell, P. (1991). Accommodation on trial: Processes of communicative accommodation
in courtroom interaction. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.),
Contexts of accommodation (pp. 103-130). New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the
University of Cambridge.
Marsh, H. (1991). A comparative analysis of crime coverage in newspapers in the United
States and other countries from 1960 to 1989: A review of the literature. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 19, 67-80.
57
Mazer, J. P., & Hunt, S. K. (2008). “Cool” communication in the classroom: A
preliminary examination of student perceptions of instructor use of positive slang.
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 9, 20-28.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and context. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Moore, M. (1999). Security and community development. In R.F. Ferguson & W.T.
Dickens (Eds.), Urban Problems and Community Development (pp. 293-337).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Morabito, M. S. (2010). Understanding community policing as an innovation: Patterns of
adoption. Crime & Delinquency, 56(4), 564-587.
Morello, F. (1982). Juvenile Crimes Against the Elderly. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas Publishers.
Murty, K. S., Roebuck, J. B., & Smith, J. B. (1990). The image of the police in Black
Atlanta communities. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17, 250-257.
Myers, P., Giles, H., Reid, S. A., & Nabi, R. (2008). Law enforcement encounters: The
effects of officer accommodativeness and crime severity on interpersonal
attributions are mediated by intergroup sensitivity. Communication Studies, 59, 115.
Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s
expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients trust. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459-470.
Nalbandian, J. (2005). Professionals and the conflicting forces of administrative
modernization and civic engagement. American Review of Public Administration,
35, 311-326.
Olsen, K. (2005). School of law. Teaching Tolerance, Spring, 40-45.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation
checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867-872.
Perlmutter, D. D. (2000). Policing the media: Street cops and public perceptions of law
enforcement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Lyerla, R. (1995). Alcohol on American College
Campuses: Use, Consequences, and perceptions of the Campus Environment,
Vol. 2. Carbondale, IL: The CORE Institute Student Health Programs, Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale.
58
Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood
context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17,
607-630.
Rosenbaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Costell, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K. (2005).
Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police
Quaterly, 8(3), 343-365.
Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values (pp. 25-35). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical
work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 25, 313-328.
Rusinko, W. T., Johnson, K. W., & Hornung, C. A. (1978). The importance of police
contact in the formulation of youths’ attitudes toward police. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 6, 53-67.
Sacco, V., & Fair, B. (1988). Images of legal control: Crime news and the process of
organizational legitimation. Canadian Journal of Communication, 32(3-4), 114123.
Scheider, M. C., Chapman, R., & Schapiro, A. (2009). Towards the unification of
policing innovations under community policing. Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 32(4), 694-718.
Snavely, W. B. (1981). The impact of social style upon person perception in primary
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 29, 132-143.
Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of crime. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
Stoutland, S. (2001), The multiple dimensions of trust in resident/police relations in
Boston. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 226-56.
Strömwall, L. A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal
behavior and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime & Law,
12, 207–219.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping
public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–547.
Surette, R. (1998). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and realities. New York,
NY: Wadsworth Publishing.
59
Tajfel, H. (1978). The social psychology of minorities. New York: Minority Rights
Group.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal
perception, group membership and trusting behavior. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 35, 413-424.
Taylor, T. J., Turner, K. B., Esbensen, F. A., & Winfree Jr., L. T. (2001). Coppin’ an
attitude: Attitudinal differences among juveniles toward police. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 29, 295-305.
Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in
developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business
Communication, 46(3), 287-310.
Thompson, G. J. (1983). Verbal judo: Words for street survival. Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas.
Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered
language? Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differences in trust and
confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8, 322-342.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual
Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust and the rule of law. New York: Russell-Sage
Foundation.
U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Economics and
Statistics Administration. (2003) A nation outline: How Americans are expanding
their use of the Internet. Executive Summary. Retrieved November 22, 2011, from
www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/html/execsum.htm.
Walker, D. (1972). Contact and support: An empirical assessment of public attitudes
toward the police and the courts. North Carolina Law Review, 51, 43-79.
Watson, B., & Gallois, C. (1998). Nurturing communication by health professionals
toward patients: A communication accommodation theory approach. Health
Communication, 10, 343-355.
60
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to selfdisclosure. Human Communication Research, 3, 250-257.
Wolfram, W. (1974). Sociolinguistic Aspects of Assimilation: Puerto Rican English in
New York City. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied linguistics.
Womack, M. M., & Finley, H. H. (1986). Communication: A unique significance for law
enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
Woolard, K. A. (1989) Double talk: Bilingualism and the politics of ethnicity in
Catalonia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Yuki, M., Maddux, W. W., Brewer, M. B., & Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural
differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 48-62.
Zamble, E., & Annesley, P. (1987). Some determinants of public attitudes toward the
police. Journal of Police Administration, 15, 285-290.
Zillman, D., & Wakshlag, J. (1987). Fear of Victimissation and the appeal of crime
drama. In D. Zillman & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication
(pp. 141-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
61
APPENDIX A
Institutional Review Board Certification
62
63
64
65
APPENDIX B
Email Invitation Manuscript
66
Dear Student,
My name is Andy and I am a graduate student in the Department of Communication
Studies and I would really appreciate your participation in a research study! This study is
interested in learning more about the communication relationship between law
enforcement and suspects.
The study is being conducted by principal investigator Andy C. Kwon, a graduate student
in the program of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama. The purpose of
this study is to explore the effects of communication accommodation in interpersonal
relationships.
Taking part in this study involves completing a web survey that will take about 15-20
minutes. The survey asks basic information about a hypothetical situation between a law
enforcement official and a suspect. It will ask you to take on the role of a suspect having
a conversation with a police officer and will ask questions about how you feel about the
situation.
This survey is completely anonymous and confidential. At no point will you be asked to
give your name, student number, or any other identification, but some basic demographic
questions will be asked. As well, the link to this survey contains no identifying
information connected with your email address. The investigator is the only person that
will have access to the password-protected research data. Only summarized data from all
participants will be presented in publications or at meetings.
If your instructor has offered extra credit for participation, your name will be collected at
the end of the survey but will not be associated with your answers in any way.
If you have questions about this study, you may contact the investigator, Andy C. Kwon,
at 562-455-7776 or you may contact the investigator’s advisor, Dr. Carol B. Mills at 205348-6165. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant you may
contact Ms. Tanta Myles, The University of Alabama Research Compliance Officer, at
(205)-348-5152.
YOUR PARTICIPATION IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. You are free not to
participate or stop participating at any time.
67
APPENDIX C
Subject Questionnaire
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86