Content uploaded by William Terrill
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Terrill on May 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://pqx.sagepub.com
Police Quarterly
DOI: 10.1177/1098611109357325
2010; 13; 92 originally published online Jan 3, 2010; Police Quarterly
Jason Rydberg and William Terrill
The Effect of Higher Education on Police Behavior
http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/92
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
can be found at:Police Quarterly Additional services and information for
http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/13/1/92 Citations
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Police Quarterly
13(1) 92 –120
© 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098611109357325
http://pqx.sagepub.com
The Effect of Higher
Education on Police Behavior
Jason Rydberg
1
and William Terrill
1
Abstract
In the past, police scholars have examined the impact of higher education on different
measures of officer behavior, most notably arrest and the use of force. Much of this
prior work has suffered from poor methodologies, such as inadequate samples and the
inability to control for theoretically relevant variables. In addition, previous inquires
have focused on but one single behavior per study. In an attempt to overcome some
of these limitations, we examine the effect of officer education on three key decision-
making points (i.e., arrest, search, and use of force) by relying on observational data
from two medium-sized cities. The results of the analysis indicate that higher education
carries no influence over the probability of an arrest or search occurring in a police–
suspect encounter. College education does, however, significantly reduce the likelihood
of force occurring. Results may be due to the amount of discretion officer’s exercise
in pursuing these behaviors. Recommendations for future inquiries revolving around
theory development and the incorporation of research from the field of education are
presented, as well as varying policy implications.
Keywords
police, education, arrest, search, force
Police scholars and practitioners have long called for the adoption of a college education
requirement for police officers as a condition of employment (Carter & Sapp, 1990).
Beginning with the professional movement in the early 1900s, the importance of edu-
cation was seen as a means to a better style of policing. As the century progressed,
several high-profile national commissions (e.g., Wickersham Commission and Pres-
ident’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice) also heralded
the benefits of police education. More recently, officer education has been linked to
community policing, which is thought to require a greater aptitude for innovation and
creativity among line-level officers (Carter & Sapp, 1992).
1
Michigan State University, East Lansing
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 93
Despite repeated calls for a college education requirement, few agencies have
instituted such a policy. In fact, only 1% of local police departments in the United States
require a 4-year college degree (Hickman & Reaves, 2006). The discrepancy between
the recommendations of national leadership and actual departmental requirements may
be attributable to a paucity of evidence suggesting that education has a desirable impact
on police behavior. Although it seemed sensible to police reformers that a college edu-
cation would result in a better police officer, the rationale for believing such a rela-
tionship existed was grounded primarily in rhetoric (Carter & Sapp, 1990). Indeed,
numerous opponents of college education requirements question exactly which aspects
of higher education enhance an officer’s performance on the job (Bayley & Bittner,
1997; Bittner, 1970; Miller & Fry, 1976; Shernock, 1992).
Since the 1960s, a body of research has developed that attempts to empirically
examine the impact of college education on the police. The majority of this research
has focused on the effect of education on officer attitudes, finding that college-educated
officers hold beliefs that are less authoritarian (Dalley, 1975), rigid (Roberg, 1978), and
punitive (Carlan & Byxbe, 2000; Guller, 1972) than their non-college-educated col-
leagues. To a lesser extent, some research has focused on specific aspects of police
behavior, examining the effect of education on an officer’s propensity to arrest (Bozza,
1973; Fickenauer, 1975) and to use force (Worden, 1996). Unfortunately, many of these
previous inquiries have been driven by weak methodologies, as National Academics
Panel on Police Policy and Performance called attention to inadequate samples and the
inability to control for theoretically relevant variables (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). More-
over, although there is some evidence suggesting college-educated officers behave dif-
ferently than non-college-educated officers, findings regarding the direction of education’s
impact on police behavior have been largely inconsistent. Finally, and of particular rel-
evance to the present article, prior work in this area has been limited to studies focusing
on but one behavioral outcome at a time (e.g., arrest or force), thereby making it diffi-
cult to compare varying outcomes (e.g., the role of education on arrest vs. force).
The current inquiry attempts to overcome some of the limitations associated with
previous studies. Using observational data from two medium-sized cities, this research
examines the impact of officer education on three key decision-making points (i.e.,
arrest, search, and use of force).
1
The analysis will allow for a comparison of educa-
tion’s impact on these behaviors, which has not been available in the literature to date.
If officer education has a significant effect on more than one of these behaviors, these
effects may be compared to determine where education’s impact on police behavior is
strongest.
Historical Background
Questions concerning the link between higher education and the police arose from
efforts in the early 1900s to professionalize the American police. Though there have
been competing definitions of professionalism between scholars and practitioners
(Baro & Burlingame, 1999; Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993), reformers sought to attain it
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
94 Police Quarterly 13(1)
primarily through redefinition of the police mission, bureaucratization of police
departments, and the improvement of personnel quality (Fogelson, 1977). From the
origin of the professionalism movement, increasing the education level of officers
was thought to be one such avenue of improvement (Sherman, 1978). By improving
the education level of the police officer, reformers believed that not only would the
officer become more effective in his or her day-to-day tasks and more proficient with
technology but also the public image of the police as a whole would be heightened to
that of a professional occupation (LeDoux, Tully, Chronister, & Gansneder, 1984).
The Status of the American Police Force in the Early 20th Century
The commonly held image of the American police in the early 1900s was that of inef-
fectiveness and corruption (Walker, 1977). Fogelson (1977) writes of media inter-
views in the 1930s where former officers depicted urban police as irresponsible
drunks, dabbling in corrupt activities such as gambling and prostitution and purpose-
fully employing excessive force to gain compliance from suspects. Reformers of
the period recognized that amelioration of the moral and political shortcomings of the
police could not be the only areas of improvement, as police personnel were also
undertrained, undereducated, and incompetent. Indeed, at this point in history, only
“two out of three [officers] finished grade school” and “only one out of ten graduated
from high school” (Fogelson, 1977, p. 102). Moreover, at the time of the First World
War, 75% of police personnel could not pass an Army intelligence test (LeDoux et al.,
1984; National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, 1931; Sherman,
1978).
2
Increasing the education of police recruits, among other options, was viewed
then as a vehicle to propel the police officer to a similar status as other professional
occupations (Bittner, 1970; Fogelson, 1977). The first such organized attempts to tie
the policing profession to academic achievement were lead by August Vollmer, the
police chief in Berkley, California from 1905 to 1932 (Carte, 1973).
Vollmer’s contributions in Berkley were largely in the form of implementing the use
of new technologies to aid the police in their work (Walker, 1977). He posited that to
use these technologies recruits would require skills that they could not learn while on
the job. Advocating a college education was an effort then to provide would-be officers
the background necessary to be a part of the prestigious, more technologically inclined
police profession (Carte, 1973).
National Commissions From the 1930s to the 1970s
Wickersham Commission. Vollmer’s achievements in Berkley and his tenure as the
president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in 1922 gained
him enough national recognition to be selected as a key contributor to the 1929
National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (i.e., the Wickersham
Commission; Walker, 1977). The Commission’s final report noted that higher educa-
tion may play a role in improving the quality of police personnel and recommended
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 95
that departments consider higher education as a requirement for employment. Such a
recommendation would receive little follow-through as administrators were skeptical
of the benefits of a college education (Decker & Huckabee, 2002), especially when it
was likely that they never attended college themselves (Bittner, 1970; Fogelson, 1977).
At the time of the Wickersham final report, the majority of police agencies did not
require even a high school education of their recruits (Roberg & Bonn, 2004).
The issue of college education for police recruits received little attention between
the 1930s and the 1960s. However, the lack of congruence between commission rec-
ommendations and the educational requirements of police agencies did not stop aca-
demic institutions from providing a law enforcement–based education. During that
time, some of the first full-time college curriculums designed for police officers was
being created. In 1935, Michigan State University became the first institution to offer
a full-time 5-year preservice curriculum (LeDoux et al., 1984). Besides a few select
programs at some universities, the majority of curriculums designed for police recruits
existed in community colleges as 2-year associate degree programs in police science.
By 1957, survey data indicated that 77 degree-granting programs in police-related sci-
ence existed in the United States (Germann, 1957; Stephens, 1976).
Commissions of the 1960s and 1970s. College education would again receive national
attention in the 1960s. A growing crime rate (Sherman, 1978) and high-profile clashes
between urban police, minorities, and civil rights activists across the United States
forced the issues of competence and discrimination to the forefront of policing debates
(Hahn, 1971). Walker (1977), reflecting on that period, concluded that the previous era
of police reform in the 1920s and 1930s from a service-oriented approach to a legalistic,
paramilitary approach was the cause of the more recent lack of adaptability. This shift
was posited to be the cause of the police becoming further separated from, and antago-
nistic toward, the communities in which they served (Jacobs & Magdovitz, 1977).
Beginning with the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice, numerous reports recommended that the police would
reform their role to adapt to a changing society. Among the numerous commissions,
a common perception was that for the police to effectively adapt to complex tasks in a
complex society and reduce pervasive discriminatory behavior, educational standards
must be raised (Carter & Sapp, 1990; Hawley, 1998).
3
Many of the commissions went
as far as recommending all police officers obtain a 4-year degree within the next decade
(National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1973).
As a result of these recommendations, the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act
allowed for the creation of the Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP), which
provided federal funding to colleges and universities to create curriculums for police,
and funding to police departments to provide incentives for officers to attend college
(Carter & Sapp, 1990). The result was an explosion in the number of degree-granting
programs designed for law enforcement personnel. In 1966, there were 184 colleges
and universities offering such programs, and by 1976, this figure had increased to
1,070 institutions, though most were offered at community colleges with classes being
taught by fellow police officers (Sherman, 1978).
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
96 Police Quarterly 13(1)
Based on federal subsidies, police officers took advantage of the available funds.
In 1960, only 3% of officers held a 4-year degree, but by 1974, the figure had increased
to 9%. The proportion of officers who had taken at least one college course also
increased substantially over the same period (National Planning Association, 1978).
Despite increases in the education level of officers, police agencies had not increased
their requirements by similar lengths. In 1975, only 6% of departments required any
college education of their recruits, and less than 1% required a 4-year degree (National
Planning Association, 1978).
Police Higher Education 1980s to Present
Following the period of the 1960s which saw the police violently clash with the com-
munities they served, the 1980s would see reform that attempted to mend the gap
between officers and citizens. The community policing approach attempted to change
the focus of police effectiveness from quantities such as the number of arrests or stops
made to a focus on the ability of police to solve problems (Goldstein, 1979; Trojanowicz,
1994; Xu, Fiedler, & Flaming, 2005). Adapting such an approach was also thought to
broaden the role of the police in the context of community issues. Officers were encour-
aged to establish rapport with citizens to more effectively identify sources of disorder
and locate problems as identified by residents (Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000; Wilson
& Kelling, 1982).
Though no nationally appointed commissions recommended a college degree
requirement in this period, in 1988 the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) con-
ducted a national survey examining the state of police education in the United States,
which included a review of the literature and survey of police agencies (Carter & Sapp,
1990). The results of the study indicated that the adoption of a community policing
model increased the responsibilities of patrol officers, which required them to be better
decision makers, more innovative, and more tolerant. The authors of the PERF report
believed that these findings made college education for police officers more relevant
than in the past (Carter & Sapp, 1990, 1992).
The PERF survey also reported changes in the education level of police
officers. The most dramatic change from the past was seen in officers holding a 4-year
degree. The findings indicated that 23% of the 250,000 officers surveyed held
4-year degrees, up from 9% in 1974. Still, the increase in the percentage of officers
with college degrees appeared to have happened despite little growth in the number of
agencies requiring a college degree (i.e., by 1988, only 9% of departments required a
2-year degree with less than 1% requiring a 4-year degree; Carter & Sapp, 1990,
1992). More recent data from the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics Survey (LEMAS) indicates that although police officers continue to become
more educated, police departments still lag in terms of minimum education require-
ments. For instance, results from the 2003 LEMAS survey show that the percentage
of agencies requiring a 2-year degree is 9% whereas those requiring a 4-year degree
remains at 1% (Hickman & Reaves, 2006).
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 97
Since the Wickersham Commission first called for a college education requirement
in 1931, departments have been reluctant to follow through. In attempting to explain
the disconnect, Bell (1979) and Hawley (1998) suggest that police administrators may
be concerned about factors such as keeping officers representative of the communities
they serve, or that instituting a minimum college requirement may be discriminatory
toward women and minorities. Carter, Sapp, and Stephens (1988) posit that agencies
seeking to hire college recruits would have to consider the available applicant pool,
how much additional salary departments would have to offer to remain competitive
with private industry and how much additional recruit background investigation
would have to be conducted given that college students tend to be a more transient
population.
Perhaps the primary reason police departments are reluctant to implement an educa-
tional requirement is the lack of evidence to date demonstrating that a college educa-
tion leads to tangible desirable outcomes (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). As Carter and Sapp
(1990) point out, the recommendations of the commissions were largely based on intu-
ition and rhetoric rather than empiricism. Reflecting on the lack of empirical basis for
the arguments of previous commissions, the 1973 National Advisory Commission on
Criminal Justice Standards and Goals concluded that they had not provided sufficient
justification for a minimum education requirement for police recruits and failed to link
higher education to desirable objectives.
Previous Inquires Examining the Effect
of Education on Police Behavior
Since the late 1960s, a limited body of literature has emerged that empirically exam-
ines the impact of higher education on police officers. Although much of this literature
has been concerned with the effect of education on officer attitudes, our focus is on the
extant literature that centers on studies involving performance-based measures. Given
that the performance of police officers is multifaceted, researchers have employed a
number of different measures. These include measuring performance through percep-
tions of quality or satisfaction (e.g., citizen complaints; Brandl, Stroshine, & Frank,
2001), supervisor ratings (Smith & Aamodt, 1997), injuries on the job (Cohen & Chaiken,
1973), and personal job satisfaction (Dantzker, 1993). The current inquiry centers on
previous studies that focus on officer–suspect encounters involving arrests, searches,
and the use of force.
The Effect of Officer Education on Arrests
Researchers have posited that education affects arrest behavior in different ways. For
example, Glasgow, Green, and Knowles (1973), as well as Bozza (1973), examined
the arrest patterns of 24 officers from the Costa Mesa, Arizona Police Department.
Glasgow and colleagues hypothesized that officers with lower levels of education will
make more arrests because of an assumed theoretical tie between higher education
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
98 Police Quarterly 13(1)
and dissatisfaction with police work. That is, a lesser educated officer will be more
satisfied and thus produce arrests at a higher level than an officer with more education,
and thus, an inherent dissatisfaction with his or her work. Bozza, however, posited that
young officers with high levels of education would be eager to prove themselves and
thus arrest at higher levels than older officers with lower levels of education. Glasgow
et al., contrary to their hypothesis, found that higher levels of education were associ-
ated with higher rates of arrest. Bozza, analyzing the data somewhat differently, found
that young officers with more education made more arrests than older officers with
less education.
4
Contrary to the findings uncovered by Glasgow et al. (1973) and Bozza (1973),
Fickenauer (1975), as well as Smith and Klein (1983), found that more education led to
fewer arrests. In the latter study, which relied on data from the Police Services Study
(PSS), the authors note that such an effect was found when considering the education
level of the department as an aggregate measure (i.e., officers in departments with a
higher average level of education made fewer arrests than officers in departments with
a lower average level of education). However, when examining education at the indi-
vidual level, no effect was found. Similarly, Worden (1989), Brandl and colleagues
(2001), and Smith and Aamodt (1997) all found no direct relationship between indi-
vidual officer education and the propensity to arrest.
The Effect of Officer Education on Searches
There have been a number of studies concerned with the effect of citizen characteris-
tics on officer decision making (see Schafer, Carter, & Katz-Bannister, 2004), particu-
larly within traffic stop encounters. However, only three works include characteristics
of officers in their analyses (Decker & Rojek, 2002; Paoline & Terrill, 2005; Smith &
Petrocelli, 2001), none of which include officer education as an independent measure.
Furthermore, of the two major reviews on the causes of police behavior (Riksheim &
Chermak, 1993; Sherman, 1980), neither examines the effect of education on searches.
Despite the dearth of scholarly attention, Schafer and colleagues (2004) hypothesized
that officer education may be related to search behavior, although they were unable to
test such a hypothesis. Given the importance of police search behavior as a key decision-
making point, combined with a lack of previous research, we include such an exami-
nation in the current inquiry.
The Effect of Officer Education on the Use of Force
Compared to arrests and searches, there have been substantially more studies that have
examined the role of education on use of force behavior. Several of these studies have
relied on observational data from the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) and
have found that college-educated officers use force less often than their less educated
counterparts (Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). Other studies have
examined education’s impact on an officer’s propensity to discharge their weapon.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 99
For instance, using data from 186 officer-involved shootings in Southern California,
McElvain and Kposowa (2008) found that officers with a college degree were more
than 41% less likely to discharge their firearms than officers with a high school diploma
or some college but no degree. A similar finding was produced by Binder, Scharf, and
Galvin (1982) in a report to the National Institute of Justice two decades earlier. Fur-
thermore, in a meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of education on officer
performance, Aamodt (2004) found that better educated officers use force less often,
though he does not include a discussion of how force was measured.
In contrast to the above studies, a smaller number of inquires have found that
college-educated officers are more (not less) likely to use force as opposed to non-
college-educated officers. A report by Milton, Halleck, Lardner, and Abrecht (1977)
for the Police Foundation notes that officers involved in violent incidents typically
held more years of education than the average of the department in which they served.
In addition, using PSS data, Worden (1996) found that college-educated officers were
significantly more likely to use reasonable force in suspect encounters. However, the
same was not found for incidents involving excessive force.
A third group of studies has found that college-educated officers and non-college-
educated officers do not behave differently in regard to their use of force (i.e., use
neither less force nor more force). Analyzing 7 years of shooting data from the Kansas
City, Missouri Police Department, Sherman and Blumberg (1981) found that officer
education appeared to have no significant effect on discharging firearms when con-
trolling for assignment, age, and length of service.
5
Four years earlier, Inn and Wheeler
(1977) produced similar results, finding that college education did not cause signifi-
cant differences in shooting incidents among officers. In addition, Hayden (1981)
found that individual officer characteristics, including education, did not predict the
decision to use deadly force.
In sum, Sherman and Blumberg (1981) noted in the early 1980s that “depending on
where and how police use of force is measured . . . more educated police officers
appear to use force less often, more often, or just as often as less educated officers”
(p. 318). To date, the effect of education on police use of force behavior still remains
inconclusive as the above review indicates. Nonetheless, it does appear that more
recent findings have gravitated toward college-educated officers using force less often
than non-college-educated officers.
The Current Inquiry
After a review of the literature, the National Academics Panel on Police Policy and
Performance stated that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that higher educa-
tion has a desirable effect on police performance (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). The panel
commented that the literature is characterized by inconsistent findings and generally
poor methodologies (Hudzik, 1978; Sherman, 1980), while calling for “rigorous
research on the effects of higher education on [officer] job performance” (Skogan &
Frydl, 2004, p. 141). Our review of the literature confirms the panels’ conclusions.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
100 Police Quarterly 13(1)
Worden (1990) has also noted that previous studies have examined the role of education
on but a single outcome measure per study. Given the multifaceted nature of police
behavior, the result is a fragmented understanding of the relationship between higher
education and officer behavior. The current research attempts to bridge the gap in the
literature by examining the effect of education on three key decision-making points
(i.e., arrest, search, and force) within a single study. If there is a significant effect pres-
ent in more than one of the outcomes, a comparison can be made to determine where
the effect of education is the strongest. More directly, using data from the Project on
Policing Neighborhoods, the present analysis centers on two research questions:
1. What is the effect of an officer’s education level on his or her propensity to
arrest, search, and use force?
2. If there are significant educational effects in more than one outcome, where
is the influence the strongest?
6
Method
The data used for the present inquiry were collected as part of the Project on Policing
Neighborhoods (POPN) in Indianapolis, Indiana and St. Petersburg, Florida
(1996-1997) by means of observation and interviews with officers (Paoline et al.,
2000). A sample of 12 beats in each city was selected for observation based on a socio-
economic index that included percentage families with children headed by a female
parent, percentage adults employed, and percentage population living below 50% of
the poverty level (Parks, Mastrofski, DeJong, & Gray, 1999).
The observation data were collected through a technique called systematic social
observation (SSO; see Mastrofski et al., 1998, for a detailed description) in the man-
ner of observer-participant. As an observer-participant, the researcher not only makes
no effort to keep a distance from the subject they are observing (in this case, police on
patrol) but also makes no effort to participate in the interactions between the observed
officers and citizens (Babbie, 1995). Prior to beginning observations, field workers
(students from Michigan State University and the State University of New York at
Albany) took a semester-long course in SSO and participated in training rides with
officers at local police departments (Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002).
The observers took notes on officer–citizen encounters, detailing the persons
involved and how the encounter transpired. Following each day of field observation,
the observers would transcribe their notes and enter into a SPSS data set. Officers
received assurances of confidentiality and were allowed to read the notes of the
researcher for which they were assigned but not the notes of researchers assigned to
other officers (Parks et al., 1999).
After all field observations had taken place, observers in Indianapolis had ridden
along with 194 different patrol officers over the course of 2,800 hr of observation and
witnessed 6,485 encounters with citizens. Observers in St. Petersburg had ridden
along with 128 different patrol officers over the course of 2,900 hr, witnessing 5,500
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 101
encounters with citizens (Paoline et al., 2000). The current inquiry uses a subsample of
3,356 encounters between officers and citizens suspected of some manner of wrong-
doing (i.e., officer–suspect encounters).
In-person interviews were conducted with the officers with whom the observers
were riding. These interviews lasted approximately 25 min and were conducted by
personnel trained for interview data collection only. Survey questions pertained to
officer background characteristics, most important in the case of the present study—
education, as well as the officer’s perceptions and experiences of the beats in which
they patrolled. The response rates were 95% and 97% in Indianapolis and St. Petersburg,
respectively (Terrill, 2001).
Variables
Dependent variables. The present analysis employs three dichotomous dependent
outcome measures. The first, arrest, is defined as taking a person into custody for the
purpose of charging him or her with a criminal offense. The second, search, is defined
as a search of the suspect, suspect’s vehicle, or the area immediately surrounding the
suspect which goes beyond plain view by the primary observed officer. The third,
force, is defined as acts that threaten or inflict physical harm on citizens.
7
In the
measurement of these dependent variables, each variable captures whether an event
(e.g., an arrest, a search, or the use of force) took place in a police–citizen encoun-
ter. Encounters in which these behaviors occurred are coded as one, and thus the
reference category is zero. Given a dichotomous outcome variable, the preferred
method for a multivariate analysis is binary logistic regression (Hanushek &
Jackson, 1977; McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975).
Independent variables. The primary independent variable in the analysis is the edu-
cation level of the officer. The officer’s education is captured using two dichotomous
measures, one for some college exposure but no baccalaureate degree, and one for a
4-year degree. The reference category consists of encounters involving officers with a
high school diploma or less. As Worden (1990) points out, measuring education in this
way (as opposed to by years of formal education or credits accumulated) is desirable
in that it has the potential to capture the nature of the curriculum that the officer was
exposed to (e.g., a 4-year institution vs. some college experience vs. no college expe-
rience). Higher levels of education are hypothesized to reduce incidences of the three
outcome measures.
To maintain an appropriately specified model, the analysis also includes variables
that have exhibited theoretical relevance and/or have been found to be significant in
previous research (Gould & Mastrofski, 2003; Novak, Frank, Smith, & Engel, 2002;
Terrill, 2001). All variable and coding descriptions along with hypothesized effects
are offered in Table 1, followed by descriptive statistics in Table 2. There are three
groupings of control variables. The first group captures characteristics of the officer.
In addition to the officer’s education, control variables in this group include measures
of officer experience, gender, and race. Measured as a continuous variable, it is
hypothesized that more experience officers will be less likely to arrest, search, and use
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
102 Police Quarterly 13(1)
force. Officer gender and race are measured as dichotomous variables whereas male
and White officers constitute the reference category. Given that previous research has
shown inconsistent findings regarding the effect of officer gender and race in police–
suspect encounters (see Paoline & Terrill, 2004; Terrill, 2001), we leave the hypothe-
sized direction of an effect open to analyses.
Table 1. Independent Variable Descriptions and Hypothesized Effects
Hypothesized
Variable effect Definition
Officer characteristics
Education
Some college - 1 = some college, no BA/BS, 0 = all other
4-year degree - 1 = 4-year degree, or higher, 0 = all other
Experience - Years of experience
Male + 1 = male, 0 = female
Non-White +/- 1 = non-White, 0 = White
Suspect characteristics
Age - 1 = 0-5 years, 2 = 6-12 years, 3 = 13-17 years,
4 = 18-20 years, 5 = 21-29 years, 6 =
30-44 years, 7 = 45-59 years, 8 = 60+ years
Non-White + 1 = non-White, 0 = White
Male + 1 = male, 0 = female
Socioeconomic - Observed level of wealth: 1 = chronic
condition poverty, 2 = low, 3 = middle, 4 = above middle
Resistance + Level of suspect resistance: 1 = none, 2 =
passive, 3 = verbal, 4 = defensive, 5 = active
Conflict + Suspect in conflict with another citizen on
scene: 1 = none, 2 = calm verbal, 3 =
agitated verbal, 4 = threatened assault, 5 =
assault
Weapon + 1 = suspect has weapon, 0 = all other
Demeanor + 1 = suspect disrespectful to police in language
or gesture, 0 = all other
Drug or alcohol + 1 = suspect shows behavioral effects of drug/
alcohol, 0 = all other
Evidence + Summative index (0-7), evidence of the
target’s or requester’s violation of the law
Citizen request arrest + 1 = citizen requests arrest of suspect,
0 = all other
Arrest + 1 = suspect is arrested, 0 = not arrested
Encounter characteristics
Number officers +/- Number of officers on scene
Number bystanders +/- Number of citizen bystanders on scene
Proactive encounter + 1 = officer initiates encounter, 0 = all other
Observation site + 1 = Indianapolis, 0 = St. Petersburg
Serious problem + 1 = aggravated assault, robbery, sexual attack,
homicide, 0 = all other
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 103
The second grouping of control variables describes characteristics of the suspect in
the encounters. Previous reviews of research (Riksheim & Chermak, 1993; Sherman,
1980) have shown situational factors, such as suspect characteristics, to be influential
on police behavior. These variables include demographic measures such as age, race,
gender, and socioeconomic status. As opposed to officer characteristics, which were
available from interview data, the suspect characteristics are based on the researcher’s
observations. This grouping also includes information about the suspect’s behavior,
including whether a suspect resisted an officer’s attempt at control, was in conflict
with another citizen during the encounter, was carrying a weapon, was disrespectful to
the officer, was displaying signs of alcohol or drug use as well as the extent of evi-
dence present during the encounter implicating the suspect of wrongdoing.
8
With the
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics (N = 3,356)
Variable Range M (SD)
Dependent variables
Arrest 0-1 0.15 (0.36)
Search 0-1 0.23 (0.42)
Force 0-1 0.58 (0.49)
Officer characteristics
Education
Some college 0-1 0.44 (0.50)
4-year degree 0-1 0.42 (0.49)
Experience 1-32 7.73 (5.97)
Male 0-1 0.85 (0.36)
Non-White 0-1 0.21 (0.41)
Suspect characteristics
Age 1-8 5.24 (1.35)
Non-White 0-1 0.63 (0.48)
Male 0-1 0.72 (0.49)
Socioeconomic status 1-4 2.36 (0.56)
Resistance 1-5 1.21 (0.66)
Conflict 1-5 1.13 (0.57)
Weapon 0-1 0.02 (0.12)
Demeanor 0-1 0.10 (0.30)
Drug or alcohol 0-1 0.21 (0.41)
Evidence 0-7 1.32 (1.70)
Evidence prior arrest 0-7 1.27 (1.53)
Citizen request arrest 0-1 0.01 (0.12)
Arrest 0-1 0.11 (0.31)
Encounter characteristics
Number officers 1-26 2.21 (1.61)
Number bystanders 1-100 4.20 (5.63)
Proactive encounter 0-1 0.45 (0.50)
Observation site 0-1 0.56 (0.50)
Serious problem 0-1 0.04 (0.19)
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
104 Police Quarterly 13(1)
exception of suspect socioeconomic status, which is hypothesized to decrease the
likelihood of the outcome measures at higher levels, each variable in this group is
hypothesized to increase the likelihood of arrests, searches, and force.
The final grouping of variables describes characteristics of the setting of the encoun-
ter. The group includes measures of the number of officers present on the scene, the
number of citizens present, whether the officer initiated the encounter with the suspect,
and whether the encounter took place in Indianapolis or St. Petersburg. Although both
the number of officers and the number of citizens on the scene may have an impact on
the observed officer’s behavior, the direction of the impact may be contingent on a num-
ber of factors such as whether the officer feels in control of the situation or if the addi-
tional citizens are nonparticipating bystanders or are attempting to support the suspect in
the encounter. Because of these reasons, the hypothesized effect of both these variables
is unclear. As for the remaining variables, officers that are proactive in initiating the
encounter are hypothesized to be more likely to arrest, search, and use force. Because of
the less-aggressive, problem-solving approach of the St. Petersburg police department,
their officers are hypothesized to be less likely to engage in the measured outcomes.
Although the modeling of arrest, search, and force has great overlap in terms of the
independent variables used to predict the outcome behavior of interest, there is some
variation. To account for this, we alter the models in two ways to ensure properly speci-
fied models. First, citizen preference and problem type have been shown to be fairly
consistent predictors of the decision to arrest (Novak et al., 2002; cf. Mastrofski,
Snipes, Parks, & Maxwell, 2000). As such, these variables are incorporated into the
arrest models in addition to the other controls. Second, the decision to arrest has been
shown to be a predictor of police use of force (Terrill, 2001) and thus is included in the
force models.
Results
The initial analyses presented are at the bivariate level, and consist of joint distribu-
tions of the dependent variables across officer education levels. As shown in Table 3,
officer education and arrests are independently distributed (χ
2
= 1.66, p = .441), indi-
cating that they are not related at the bivariate level. Across all levels of education, the
Table 3. Bivariate Distribution of No Arrest/Arrest by Education (N = 3,351)
High school Some college, 4-year degree
or less no BA/BS or higher
N % N % N %
No arrest 412 84.6 1,246 85.5 1,179 83.8
Arrest 75 15.4 211 14.5 228 16.2
N 487 1,457 1,407
Note: Chi-square = 1.64, p = .441.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 105
proportion of encounters involving arrest varies little, from 14.5% for some college
exposure to 16.2% for a 4-year degree. Similar to arrests, Table 4 shows that search
behavior is also independently distributed (χ
2
= 0.69, p = .710) and thereby not related
to officer educational levels. Once again, the amount of variation varies little (between
22.7% and 24.0%). In contrast to arrest and search behavior, officer education level
and the use of force are related at the bivariate level as indicated in Table 5 (χ
2
= 22.71,
p < .001). For example, approximately 56% of the encounters involving officers with
some college or a 4-year degree resorted to force, whereas nearly 68% of encounters
involving officers with no college experience used force.
Our next set of inquires center on multivariate analyses to examine the effect of
education on arrest, search, and use-of-force behavior. As noted earlier, the multivari-
ate technique employed is binary logistic regression. The analyses are presented in a
stepwise manner, beginning with officer characteristics and subsequently adding the
suspect- and encounter-level variables. Presenting the analysis in this way allows one
to examine how each group of variables contributes to the model and how the impact
of education changes as more variables are considered.
Arrest Modeling
Table 6 presents the arrest models. In the full model, neither some college (b = –0.17,
p = .336) nor a 4-year degree (b = –0.03, p = .853) are significant predictors of arrest
relative to encounters involving officers with no college education. Furthermore, none
Table 4. Bivariate Distribution of No Search/Search by Education (N = 3,353)
High school Some college, 4-year degree
or less no BA/BS or higher
N % N % N %
No search 374 76.8 1,127 77.3 1,070 76.0
Search 113 23.2 331 22.7 338 24.0
N 487 1,458 1,408
Note: Chi-square = 0.69, p = .710.
Table 5. Bivariate Distribution of No Force/Force by Education (N = 3,356)
High school Some college, 4-year degree
or less no BA/BS or higher
N % N % N %
No force 157 32.2 644 44.1 610 43.3
Force 330 67.8 815 55.9 800 56.7
N 487 1,459 1,410
Note: Chi-square = 22.71, p < .001.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
106 Police Quarterly 13(1)
of the officer characteristics demonstrate a statistically significant influence on the
odds of an arrest taking place. Such a finding is similar to that uncovered by Worden
(1989) who, using PSS data, also found that officer characteristics did not influence
arrest behavior. It is worth noting that when these characteristics are considered alone
(Model 1), the model is not significantly different from a null model containing only
the intercept.
Table 6. Binary Logistic Regression of Arrest on Officer, Suspect, and Encounter
Characteristics (N = 3,351)
Model 1— Model 2— Model 3—
Officer Officer & suspect Full model
b (SE) Exp(b) b (SE) Exp(b) b (SE) Exp(b)
Intercept -1.65 (.20) 0.19 -2.54 (.60) 0.08 -3.50 (.66) 0.03
Officer characteristics
Education
Some college -0.09 (.15) 0.91 -0.11 (.17) 0.90 -0.17 (.18) 0.84
4-year degree 0.01 (.15) 1.01 -0.01 (.17) 0.99 -0.03 (.18) 0.97
Experience -0.01 (.01) 0.99 0.00 (.01) 1.00 0.01 (.01) 1.01
Male 0.06 (.14) 1.06 -0.10 (.16) 0.92 -0.13 (.16) 0.88
Non-White -0.06 (.12) 0.94 -0.06 (.14) 0.95 -0.11 (.15) 0.90
Suspect characteristics
Age -0.12 (.04) 0.89** -0.04 (.05) 0.96
Non-White 0.32 (.12) 1.37** 0.21 (.13) 1.23
Male 0.29 (.13) 1.34* 0.23 (.14) 1.26
Socioeconomic status -0.50 (.10) 0.61*** -0.45 (.11) 0.64***
Resistance 0.48 (.07) 1.62*** 0.37 (.08) 1.44***
Conflict -0.07 (.09) 0.93 -0.11 (.10) 0.92
Weapon -0.01 (.42) 0.99 0.02 (.44) 1.02
Demeanor 0.31 (.17) 1.36 0.49 (.19) 1.63**
Drug or alcohol 0.72 (.13) 2.05*** 0.59 (.14) 1.80***
Evidence 0.58 (.03) 1.79*** 0.65 (.04) 1.91***
Citizen request arrest 0.45 (.41) 1.56 -0.07 (.44) 0.94
Encounter setting
Number of officers 0.45 (.04) 1.57***
Number of citizens -0.03 (.01) 0.97**
Proactive encounter -0.39 (.13) 0.71**
Observation site 0.61 (.13) 1.83***
Serious problem 0.87 (.25) 2.38***
N 3,351 3,351 3,351
-2 log likelihood 2,869.22 2,265.47 2,036.13
Model χ
2
2.86 606.61*** 835.95***
df 5 16 21
Cox & Snell R
2
.001 .166 .221
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 107
Concerning suspect characteristics (socioeconomic status, resistance, intoxicated,
evidence), numerous variables show consistent effects in the hypothesized direction. In
addition, several interesting differences between Model 2 and the full model emerge.
Introducing the encounter-level variables causes some physical characteristics of
suspects—age, sex, and race—to no longer significantly predict the likelihood of an
arrest. Moreover, suspect demeanor (e.g., whether the suspect was disrespectful to the
officer) significantly increases the odds of an arrest taking place in the full model.
Finally, all five encounter-level variables significantly influence the odds of an arrest.
Search Modeling
The binary logistic regression models for searches are presented in Table 7. Similar to
the findings for arrest, attending college does not significantly influence search behav-
ior (some college, b = 0.06, p = .652; 4-year degree, b = –0.04, p = .777). Contrary to
the arrest models, however, one officer characteristic, officer race, produces a signifi-
cant impact whereas non-White officers are less likely to search suspects relative to
their White colleagues.
When suspect characteristics are considered in the full model, the presence of
younger, male, and low-socioeconomic-status suspects all increase the odds of a search
taking place. Other factors found to increase the likelihood of being searched include
arrest, weapon, and intoxication. Conversely, suspects involved in higher levels of
conflict with other citizens on the scene are less likely to be searched. Finally, when
encounter-level variables are included in the full model, an increase in the number of
citizens being present decreases the odds of a search taking place, whereas encounters
with more officers present and proactive encounters are more likely to result in a search
of the suspect.
Force Modeling
The binary logistic regression results for the use of force are shown in Table 8. Officer
education level is significantly related to the probability of an officer using force in an
encounter. When all other variables are held constant, officer education level is still sig-
nificantly related to the use of force. Specifically, officers with some college exposure
and 4-year degrees are significantly less likely to use force in an encounter (b = –0.49,
p < .001 and b = –0.68, p < .001, respectively) relative to non-college-educated officers.
Although more experienced officers are also less likely to use force, the introduction of
encounter-level variables controlled for the relationship between officer race and the
use of force.
9
Model 2 controls for the effects of suspect characteristics. Introducing these vari-
ables does not mediate the influence of officer education level on the probability of
force occurring. With the exception of suspect demeanor, which is not statistically
significant, all the suspect-level measures are related to the use of force in the
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
108 Police Quarterly 13(1)
hypothesized direction. In addition, when introducing the encounter-level variables
into the model (the full or Model 3), the education findings hold (i.e., those with some
college or a 4-year degree are less likely to use force), whereas proactive encounters
and those occurring in Indianapolis are more likely to lead to force.
Table 7. Binary Logistic Regression of Search on Officer, Suspect, and Encounter
Characteristics (N = 3,353)
Model 1— Model 2— Model 3—
Officer Officer & suspect Full model
b (SE) Exp(b) b (SE) Exp(b) b (SE) Exp(b)
Intercept -1.10 (.17) 0.34 -0.74 (.37) 0.48 -1.23 (.39) 0.29
Officer characteristics
Education
Some college -0.07 (.13) 0.94 0.03 (.14) 1.03 0.06 (.14) 1.07
4-year degree -0.09 (.13) 0.92 -0.04 (.14) 0.96 0.04 (.14) 0.96
Experience -0.02 (.01) 0.98** -0.02 (.01) 0.98* -0.01 (.01) 0.99
Male 0.23 (.12) 1.25 0.17 (.13) 1.19 0.13 (.13) 1.14
Non-White -0.34 (.11) 0.71** -0.34 (.12) 0.72** -0.33 (.12) 0.72**
Suspect characteristics
Age -0.13 (.03) 0.88*** -0.14 (.04) 0.87***
Non-White 0.24 (.10) 1.28* 0.17 (.10) 1.19
Male 0.75 (.11) 2.12*** 0.71 (.12) 2.04***
Socioeconomic status -0.31 (.08) 0.73*** -0.31 (.08) 0.74***
Resistance 0.01 (.07) 1.01 0.04 (.07) 0.96
Conflict -0.19 (.09) 0.83* -0.11 (.09) 0.90
Weapon 0.98 (.31) 2.65** 0.97 (.31) 2.64**
Demeanor -0.25 (.16) 0.78 -0.16 (.17) 0.86
Drug or alcohol 0.61 (.11) 1.83*** 0.64 (.11) 1.90***
Evidence 0.04 (.03) 1.05 0.03 (.03) 1.03
Arrested 1.78 (.13) 5.95*** 1.71 (.13) 5.52***
Encounter setting
Number of officers 0.23 (.03) 1.26***
Number of citizens -0.05 (.01) 0.95***
Proactive encounter 0.38 (.10) 1.46***
Observation site 0.08 (.10) 1.08
N 3,353 3,353 3,353
-2 log likelihood 3,816.52 3,193.77 3,119.79
Model χ
2
23.80*** 448.54*** 522.52***
df 5 16 20
Cox & Snell R
2
.007 .125 .144
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 109
Discussion
Previous examinations of the relationship between higher education and police behavior
have focused on a single outcome, thereby impeding the comparability of education’s
potentially differential impact on a variety of officer behavioral outcomes. The purpose
of the present article was to examine the impact of higher education on three key police
Table 8. Binary Logistic Regression of Force on Officer, Suspect, and Encounter
Characteristics (N = 3,356)
Model 1— Model 2— Model 3—
Officer Officer & suspect Full model
b (SE) Exp(b) b (SE) Exp(b) b (SE) Exp(b)
Intercept 0.97 (.15) 2.64 0.11 (.32) 1.12 -0.30 (.34) 0.74
Officer characteristics
Education
Some college -0.61 (.11) 0.55*** -0.61 (.12) 0.54*** -0.49 (.12) 0.61***
4-year degree -0.66 (.12) 0.52*** -0.67 (.13) 0.51*** -0.68 (.13) 0.51***
Experience -0.03 (.01) 0.97*** -0.03 (.01) 0.97*** -0.03 (.01) 0.97***
Male 0.13 (.10) 1.13 0.11 (.11) 1.11 0.11(.11) 1.11
Non-White 0.20 (.09) 1.22* 0.21 (.10) 1.23* 0.14 (.10) 1.15
Suspect characteristics
Age -0.15 (.03) 0.86*** -0.14 (.03) 0.87***
Non-White 0.27 (.08) 1.32*** 0.22 (.09) 1.25**
Male 0.35 (.08) 1.41*** 0.33 (.09) 1.39***
Socioeconomic status -0.23 (.07) 0.80*** -0.25 (.07) 0.78***
Resistance 0.77 (.11) 2.16*** 0.77 (.11) 2.16***
Conflict 0.41 (.09) 1.51*** 0.46 (.09) 1.59***
Weapon 1.38 (.42) 3.98*** 1.36 (.43) 3.91***
Demeanor -0.11 (.15) 0.90 -0.03 (.15) 0.97
Drug or alcohol 0.51 (.10) 1.66*** 0.57 (.10) 1.76***
Evidence 0.16 (.02) 1.18*** 0.16 (.02) 1.17***
Arrest 1.05 (.15) 2.90*** 1.08 (.16) 2.95***
Encounter setting
Number of officers -0.01 (.03) 1.00
Number of citizens -0.00 (.01) 1.00
Proactive encounter 0.36 (.08) 1.43***
Observation site 0.43 (.08) 1.53***
N 3,356 3,356 3,356
-2 log likelihood 4,509.37 4,060.38 4,008.07
Model χ
2
57.70*** 506.69*** 559.01***
df 5 16 20
Cox & Snell R
2
.017 .140 .153
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
110 Police Quarterly 13(1)
decision-making points—arrests, searches, and force. This analysis allowed for a com-
parison of higher education’s impact to be made across more than 3,000 police–suspect
encounters in two cities.
Overview of Findings
Officer education level yielded no influence over the probability of an arrest taking
place in an encounter. This was true not only when suspects- and encounter-level char-
acteristics were held constant but also when individual officer characteristics were con-
sidered alone. This finding supports previous indications of a null relationship between
officer education and arrests (Brandl et al., 2001; Smith & Aamodt, 1997; Smith &
Klein, 1983; Worden, 1989). Indeed, only a minority of studies from the mid-1970s
have indicated a discernable relationship between officer education and arrest behav-
ior. Two of these studies used a very small sample of officers (Bozza, 1973; Glasgow
et al., 1973), and one did not actually measure arrests per se but rather officer attitudes
toward the use of arrests (Fickenauer, 1975).
Schafer and colleagues (2004) hypothesized that officer education could be related
to search decision making but were unable to test for such an effect. In fact, no previ-
ous inquiry has examined the effect of officer education on the propensity to search
suspects. The results of the present analysis indicate that at both the bivariate and mul-
tivariate levels, higher education does not affect whether a search will take place in a
given police–suspect encounter.
When compared to arrest and search behavior, there have been substantially more
studies that have examined the role of education on the use of force. Much of this
work, especially more recent research in this area (Aamodt, 2004; McElvain &
Kposowa, 2008; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002), has found that college-educated officers
use force less often than their less educated counterparts. Our analysis indicates similar
findings. More specifically, officers with some college exposure or a 4-year degree are
significantly less likely to use force relative to non-college-educated officers.
Further Questions for Consideration
The findings as a whole beg the question as to how and why higher education has a
differential impact on these three dimensions of police behavior. In the past, research-
ers have approached this in three different ways. In one approach, researchers have
proceeded atheoretically (e.g., Cascio, 1977; Cunningham, 2006; Fickenauer, 1975)
and do not directly discuss why higher education would affect officer decision
making but instead focus on the question of whether higher education influences
officer behavior. Researchers following a second approach identify some underlying
hypotheses but fail to test them directly (e.g., Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Sherman &
Blumberg, 1981).
10
The final group includes those studies that have tested various
hypotheses. Unfortunately, this literature has produced inconclusive results (Dantz-
ker, 1993; Paoline et al., 2000; Shernock, 1992; Worden, 1990) and only applied a
broad theoretical framework in relationship to higher education and attitudes/values
(Worden, 1990).
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 111
The present analysis itself is not capable of providing a satisfactory answer as to
how and why education may or may not matter. As indicated, this is partially due to
the lack of empirically tested hypotheses regarding higher education and policing that
could be used to interpret the results. Nonetheless, some speculative interpretation
may be useful and hopefully subjected to empirical analysis in future research.
The nature or distinctive roles that arrest, search, and force acts play within a police–
suspect encounter may be one reason why higher education offers a differential impact.
Arrests are generally an end to the encounter, representing the point at which the police
have brought an individual into the formal criminal justice system. Force, however,
represents a means for officers to achieve an end. Searches occupy a middle ground
between arrests and force in that they can represent an end to the encounter if no evi-
dence is uncovered, or may be used as a means to obtain evidence toward another end
(e.g., the arrest of the suspect). This distinction carries implications toward the exercise
of discretion in resorting to these behaviors.
Unlike arrests or searches, the use of force is not inherently an end to the encounter
but primarily a very different phenomenon. Force may be used throughout encounters
as a means to controlling the behavior of suspects (Muir, 1977). In any given encoun-
ter, police officers are permitted to use force if they feel it would be appropriate
(Bittner, 1970). The police are thus afforded great discretion in the application of force
to suspects as it is not legally required or prohibited in any encounter. On this point,
Klockars (1996) states, “the police need not invoke ‘the law’ to use force, though they
may decide to use force to invoke ‘the law’” (p. 12). In one sense then, as opposed to
the decision to arrest or search, there is more room for officer education to have an
impact on discretion with respect to force.
Limitations of the Current Inquiry
Several limitations are worth mentioning. First, the manner in which this analysis
attempted to capture police behavior—by dichotomizing particular outcomes—has
the potential to ignore a wide variety of intermediate decisions which may have been
relevant (see Terrill, 2001). Because the analysis was concerned only with whether the
behaviors of interest were present during the encounter, the results may underestimate
the influence of higher education on officer behavior.
Second, similar to previous studies of education and officer behavior, the present
inquiry was not capable of testing specific hypotheses regarding the mechanism by
which higher education influences officer behavior. Because the focus of POPN was
not specifically on higher education, officer education level was captured using a sin-
gle, eight-category variable. Future research should include a multitude of measures
to better capture officer exposure and involvement in higher education. Potential mea-
sures may include whether the degree was earned prior to, or during, police employ-
ment as well as whether college major, extracurricular activities, and grade point
average matters in some way (see Hudzik, 1978).
Third, given the age of the data used for the current inquiry (12 years), the results
may not be indicative of the impact of modern higher education on police behavior. In
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
112 Police Quarterly 13(1)
the time since the data were collected, access to online education and other forms of
distance learning have increased substantially. During the 1996-1997 academic year,
1.6 million students were enrolled in distance learning courses in the United States
(U.S. Department of Education, 1999). By 2006-2007, this figure was estimated to have
grown to 12.2 million (Parsad & Lewis, 2008). Although research has not shown con-
sistent differences in the effectiveness of distance learning versus classroom education
(e.g., Bernard et al., 2004), it is unclear as to how many police officers are using vari-
ous forms of distance learning to gain a college education, and what impact, if any, this
education carries to their performance. Nonetheless, despite the age of the POPN data,
we believe this data set is still valuable relative to other data sets currently available.
Fourth, although a qualitative analysis would provide richer detail as to how higher
education may influence officer decision making, such an approach was ultimately
dismissed for two reasons: lack of an explicit theoretical framework within the prior
literature and insufficient detail found within the narrative accounts of the POPN data.
More directly, the paucity of literature on possible explanations fails to offer a suffi-
cient guide as to what to look for within narrative accounts (e.g., certain cues or pat-
terns that may lead one to better understand the role of higher education with respect
to arrest, search, or force). Furthermore, the level of detail included in POPN observer
“debriefing” sessions was sparse, if provided at all.
11
Hence, with little theoretical
guidance and limited narrative descriptions, the ability to conduct any type of mean-
ingful qualitative analysis was eliminated.
Directions for Future Research
The relationship between higher education and officer behavior remains unresolved;
however, the potential for research in this area is both abundant and exciting. It is
important for future research not to ignore the need for developing hypotheses regard-
ing how and why higher education influences officer behavior. Analyses which pro-
duce findings regarding the direction of education’s impact on officer behavior will be
useful in deciphering unresolved relationships, and those findings will certainly benefit
from empirically derived, stable explanations. In the past, hypotheses have generally
been presented as a means for interpreting results but have not been tested themselves.
Given this, findings regarding higher education’s impact on officer behavior have been
interpreted through any number of hypotheses, each with little empirical support.
Rather than interpreting results through the best explanation, researchers have to often
simply picked explanations compatible with their findings.
To test varying hypotheses involving higher education, one might draw on Carter
and colleagues (1988) list of assumed benefits. According to these researchers, one
advantage to hiring college-educated, as opposed to non-college-educated, officers is
that higher education “[permits] the individual to learn more about the history of the
country, the democratic process and appreciation for constitutional rights, values and
the democratic form of government” (Carter et al., 1988, p. 16). This particular hypoth-
esis may be reduced to posit that higher education positively influences an officer’s
appreciation of and commitment to democratic values. It would be possible to test this
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 113
hypothesis by creating a scale that measures such appreciation and commitment. One
could then test whether college-educated and non-college-educated officers differ sig-
nificantly in their attitudes, and if so, whether such attitudes help explain differences in
behavior. If it is found that it does, this finding would begin to chip away at the ques-
tions of how and why higher education influences officer behavior as it would provide
evidence that higher education affects officer behavior by positively influencing demo-
cratic values.
Aside from testing hypotheses which have been forwarded by police scholars,
research in the field of education has produced a large amount of empirical studies
regarding education’s impact on students in general (e.g., Feldman & Newcomb, 1973;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Very little has been done to relate this research to
criminal justice actors. What could be gained through a careful examination of educa-
tion research are new insights on research methodology to isolate the effects of educa-
tion on behaviors and a better understanding of the salient effects of higher education.
As an example, previous research in education illustrates that some salient effects
of college on students are improvements in critical thinking, reflective judgment, and
communication skills (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Police scholars may con-
sider examining the extent to which college-educated officers differ from non-college-
educated officers in these respects. If it is found that they do differ significantly,
researchers may examine whether differences in these skills explain any variation in
officer behavior or decision making. As with the example above, findings from such
an inquiry would begin to build a better explanation for how and why higher educa-
tion influences officer behavior. An examination of higher education and officer com-
munication skills would be especially relevant to the literature on police use of force,
as Muir (1977) posited that communication skills play an important role in the skillful
use of force. This is a falsifiable hypothesis that may be tested and such an examination
could shed light on how and why higher education influences the use of force. Also,
armed with information approximating the areas where one may expect to see higher
education have an influence on officer behavior, researchers may wish to examine the
extent to which police training or culture degrades, mediates, or amplifies those effects.
The potential for research in this area is bountiful.
Implications for Policy
In any examination of the impact of higher education on police behavior, the most pru-
dent policy implication regard whether police departments should include a college
degree as a prerequisite for employment. The findings of the present analysis alone do
not warrant a reversal of the statement of the National Academics Panel on Police Policy
and Performance (Skogan & Frydl, 2004) when it found that there was insufficient evi-
dence to recommend a college education requirement for employment as a police offi-
cer. This is not particularly good news for proponents of higher education (although it
does not represent bad news either). There is simply not enough quality evidence to
determine whether higher education has a desirable effect on police performance.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
114 Police Quarterly 13(1)
As noted, this is an area of policy which can benefit immensely from future lines of
research. It may be possible in the future to address whether the effect of college dimin-
ishes over time, as such studies would attest to the potential value of providing incen-
tives for officers to return to school later in their careers. Research may also identify
characteristics of higher education which produce outcomes most beneficial to the
police, such as college major, the impact of the quality of the institution, or enhanced
critical thinking, reflective judgment, and communication skills. Police administrators
would benefit from a better picture of what their department could expect to receive
should they decide to require a college degree of their recruits. Regarding research in
this area, Carlan (2007) recently examined officer’s perceptions of the perceived ben-
efits of a criminal justice degree in particular, providing evidence that such a degree not
only improved officer’s knowledge of the criminal justice system and its functions but
also improved the officer’s communication and administrative skills, relative to degrees
in other fields of study. Although studies such as this show much potential for evidence
of a beneficial effect of higher education to be found, scholars and practitioners also
need to remain open to the notion that higher education may be unrelated to some
dimensions of police performance.
In closing, research in the area of higher education and policing has the potential to
produce not only valuable knowledge regarding the nature of education but also the
improvement of police performance. It should not be expected that a college education
requirement will provide amelioration of all the intricacies of police discretion. The
enterprise of using scientific inquiry to improve the practice of policing, however small
an improvement it may be, should not be discounted.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
This article is based on data from the Project on Policing Neighborhoods, supported by
Grant No. 95-IJ-CX-0071 by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Notes
1. We chose arrest, search, and force as they represent key decision-making points. This is not
to say that other behavioral outcomes should not be explored in future studies (e.g., problem
solving, victim treatment, corruption, etc.); only that we felt it was imperative that these
traditional behaviors be examined in a comparative manner.
2. The army intelligence test being referred to was the Army Alpha intelligence test created by
Yerkes (1921). Gould (1996) offers a scathing critique of Yerkes methods, questioning the
test’s reliability, and providing evidence that it does not actually measure intelligence but
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 115
rather familiarity with American culture. As such, this figure of “75%” should be approached
with caution.
3. The other commissions being the 1969 National Commission on Causes and Prevention
of Violence, the 1971 President’s Commission on Campus Unrest, the 1973 American Bar
Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, and the 1973 National Advisory
Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (Sherman, 1978).
4. Bozza (1973) did not attempt to isolate the effect of education, instead comparing groups
of young, higher educated officers to older, lesser educated officers. He concedes that the
difference between the groups could be attributed to more experienced officers learning
methods of solving problems without deferring to the arrest process.
5. Sherman and Blumberg (1981) concede that their findings may be the result of a lack of
older, more experienced, college-educated officers in their sample.
6. As the analysis will use binary logistic regression, odds will be compared to make this
determination.
7. There are limitations when measuring some of these outcomes as simple dichotomies. For
instance, in regard to searches, variation in discretionary and nondiscretionary searches will
be lost. Also, measuring use of force dichotomously ignores the severity of force or different
types of force that may be used (e.g., restraint techniques versus impact methods, verbal ver-
sus physical force; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). However, if these variables are not measured
similarly (i.e., dichotomously), their comparability would subsequently be reduced in the
analysis.
8. This evidence scale is a summative index of evidence implicating the suspect as a violator
of the law. It is weighted to appropriately capture the relative importance of some pieces of
evidence over others. The value increased by 3 if the officer observed the suspect engage
in illegal behavior, 2 if the officer heard the suspect confess, 1 for physical evidence on the
scene, 1 for circumstantial evidence, and 1 for hearsay evidence from citizens on the scene,
for a maximum possible score of 8.
9. These findings are not surprising given that the analysis used the same data and a similar set
of variables as an analysis by Paoline and Terrill (2007). However, the point of including
officer use of force in the analysis was to compare it to arrests and searches in terms of how
higher education may or may not impact these decisions.
10. Carter and colleagues (1988, pp. 16-18) compiled a list of these hypotheses, most of which
revolve around differences in attitudes.
11. In some cases found within the POPN data, officer decision-making rationale was queried
as part of a “debriefing” session, where the observer would probe officers regarding their
approaches and reasons for handling the police–citizen encounter.
References
Aamodt, M. G. (2004). Research in law enforcement selection. Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker
Press.
Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). New York: Wadsworth.
Baro, A. L., & Burlingame, D. (1999). Law enforcement and higher education: Is there an
impasse? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 10, 57-73.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
116 Police Quarterly 13(1)
Bayley, D. H., & Bittner, E. (1997). Learning the skills of policing. In R. G. Dunham & G. Alpert
(Eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 114-137). Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland.
Bell, D. J. (1979). The police role and higher education. Journal of Police Science and
Administration, 7, 467-475.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004).
How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the
empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379-439.
Binder, A., Scharf, P., & Galvin, R. (1982). Use of deadly force by police officers. Final Report
Submitted to the National Institute of Justice (Grant 79-NI-AX-0134), Washington, DC.
Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of police in modern society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Bozza, C. M. (1973). Motivations guiding policemen in the arrest process. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 1, 468-475.
Brandl, S. G., Stroshine, M. S., & Frank, J. (2001). Who are the complaint prone officers? An
examination of the relationship between police officers’ attributes, arrest activity, assignment,
and citizens’ complaints of excessive force. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 521-529.
Carlan, P. E. (2007). The criminal justice degree and policing: Conceptual development or occu-
pational primer? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
30, 608-619.
Carlan, P. E., & Byxbe, F. R. (2000). The promise of humanistic policing: Is higher education
living up to societal expectation? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 235-245.
Carte, G. E. (1973). August Vollmer and the origins of police professionalism. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 1, 274-281.
Carter, D. L., & Sapp, A. D. (1990). The evolution of higher education in law enforcement: Pre-
liminary findings from a national study. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1(1), 59-85.
Carter, D. L., & Sapp, A. D. (1992, January). College education and policing: Coming of Age.
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 8-14.
Carter, D. L., Sapp, A. D., & Stephens, D. W. (1988). Higher education as a bona fide occupa-
tional qualification (BFOQ) for police: A blueprint. American Journal of Police, 7, 1-28.
Cascio, W. F. (1977). Formal education and police officer performance. Journal of Police Science
and Administration, 5, 89-96.
Cohen, B., & Chaiken, J. M. (1973). Police background characteristics and performance.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Cunningham, S. (2006, August). The Florida research. Police Chief, 73, 20-22.
Dalley, A. F. (1975). University and non-university graduated policemen: A study of police
attitudes. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3, 458-468.
Dantzker, M. L. (1993). An issue for policing—Educational level and job satisfaction: A research
note. American Journal of Police, 12, 101-118.
Decker, L. K., & Huckabee, R. G. (2002). Raising the age and education requirements for police
officers: Will too many women and minority candidates be excluded? Policing: An Interna-
tional Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25, 789-802.
Decker, S. H., & Rojek, J. (2002). Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department traffic stop
patterns. St. Louis: University of Missouri Press.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 117
Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1973). The impact of college on students, Volume I:
An analysis of four decades of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fickenauer, J. O. (1975). Higher education and police discretion. Journal of Police Science and
Administration, 3, 450-457.
Fogelson, R. M. (1977). Big city police. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Germann, A. C. (1957). Law enforcement education and training in the United States. Police
Chief, 24(10), 22-28.
Glasgow, G., Green, R., & Knowles, L. (1973). Arrest performance among patrolmen in relation
to job satisfaction and personal variables. Police Chief, 60(4), 28-34.
Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime & Delinquency,
25, 236-258.
Gould, J. B., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2003). Suspect searches: Assessing police behavior under the
U.S. Constitution. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 315-362.
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
Guller, I. B. (1972). Higher education and policemen: Attitudinal differences between freshman
and senior police college students. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science,
63, 396-401.
Hahn, H. (1971). Cops and rioters: Ghetto perceptions of social conflict and control. In H. Hahn
(Eds.), Police in urban society (pp. 135-153). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J. E. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. New York:
Academic Press.
Hawley, T. J. (1998). The collegiate shield: Was the movement purely academic? Police
Quarterly, 1(3), 35-59.
Hayden, G. A. (1981). Police discretion in the use of deadly force: An empirical study of the
information usage in deadly force decisionmaking. Journal of Police Science and Admin-
istration, 9, 102-107.
Hickman, M. J., & Reaves, B. A. (2006). Local police departments 2003. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hudzik, J. K. (1978). College education for police: Problems in measuring component and extra-
neous variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 69-81.
Inn, A., & Wheeler, A. C. (1977). Individual differences, situational constraints, and police
shooting incidents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7(1), 19-26.
Jacobs, J. B., & Magdovitz, S. B. (1977). At LEEP’s end? A review of the Law Enforcement
Education Program. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 5(1), 1-18.
Klockars, C. B. (1996). A theory of excessive force and its control. In W. A. Geller & H. Toch
(Eds.), Police violence: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force (pp. 11-29).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
LeDoux, J., Tully, E., Chronister, J. L., & Gansneder, B. M. (1984). Higher education for law
enforcement: Half a century of growth. Police Chief, 51, 22-24.
Mastrofski, S. D., Parks, R. B., Reiss, A. J., Worden, R. E., DeJong, C., Snipes, J. B., et al. (1998).
Systematic observation of public police: Applying field research methods to policy issues
(NCJ Publication No. 172859). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B., Parks, R. B., & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). The helping hand of the
law: Police control of citizens on request. Criminology, 38, 307-342.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
118 Police Quarterly 13(1)
McElvain, J. P., & Kposowa, A. J. (2008). Police officer characteristics and the likelihood of
using deadly force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 505-521.
McKelvey, R. D., & Zavoina, W. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level
dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4, 103-120.
Miller, J., & Fry, L. (1976). Reexamining assumptions about education and professionalism in
law enforcement. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 4, 187-196.
Milton, C. M., Halleck, J. W., Lardner, J., & Abrecht, G. L. (1977). Police use of deadly force.
Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Muir, W. K., Jr. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. (1973). A national
strategy to reduce crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. (1931). Report on police.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Planning Association. (1978). A nationwide survey of law enforcement criminal justice
personnel needs and resources. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
Novak, K. J., Frank, J., Smith, B. W., & Engel, R. S. (2002). Revisiting the decision to arrest:
Comparing beat and community officers. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 70-98.
Paoline, E. A., III, Myers, S. M., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Police culture, individualism,
and community policing: Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17,
575-605.
Paoline, E. A., III, & Terrill, W. (2004). Women police officers and the use of coercion. Women
& Criminal Justice, 15(3/4), 97-117.
Paoline, E. A., III, & Terrill, W. (2005). The impact of police culture on traffic stop searches.
Policing, An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 28, 455-472.
Paoline, E. A., III, & Terrill, W. (2007). Police education, experience, and the use of force.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 179-196.
Parks, R. B., Mastrofski, S. D., DeJong, C., & Gray, M. K. (1999). How officers spend their
time with the community. Justice Quarterly, 16, 483-518.
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institu-
tions: 2006-07 (NCES 2009–044). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Insights from twenty
years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. II): A third decade
of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Riksheim, E. C., & Chermak, S. M. (1993). Causes of police behavior revisited. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 21, 353-382.
Roberg, R. R. (1978). An analysis of the relationships among higher education, belief systems,
and job performance of patrol officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 6,
336-344.
Roberg, R., & Bonn, S. (2004). Higher education and policing: Where are we now? Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27, 469-486.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rydberg and Terrill 119
Schafer, J. A., Carter, D. L., & Katz-Bannister, A. (2004). Studying traffic stop encounters.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 159-170.
Sherman, L. W. (1978). College education for police: The reform that failed? International
Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 1, 32-38.
Sherman, L. W. (1980). Causes of police behavior: The current state of quantitative research.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 69-100.
Sherman, L. W., & Blumberg, M. (1981). Higher education and police use of deadly force.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 317-331.
Shernock, S. K. (1992). The effects of college education on professional attitudes among police.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3(1), 71-92.
Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, National Research Council of the National
Academies.
Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force.
New York: Free Press.
Smith, D. A., & Klein, J. R. (1983). Police agency characteristics and arrest decisions. In
G. P. Whitaker & C. D. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluating performance of criminal justice agen-
cies (pp. 63-97). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Smith, M. R., & Petrocelli, M. (2001). Racial profiling? A multivariate analysis of police traffic
stop data. Police Quarterly, 4(1), 4-27.
Smith, S. M., & Aamodt, M. G. (1997). The relationship between education, experience, and
police performance. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 12, 7-14.
Stephens, G. (1976). Criminal justice education: Past, present, and future. Criminal Justice
Review, 1, 91-120.
Terrill, W. (2001). Police coercion: Application of the force continuum. New York: LFB.
Terrill, W., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2002). Situational and officer based determinants of police
coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19, 215-248.
Trojanowicz, R. C. (1994). The future of community policing. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The
challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 258-262). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999, December).
Distance education at postsecondary education institutions 1997-98. (Statistical Analysis
Report, NCES 2000-013). Washington, DC: Author.
Walker, S. (1977). A critical history of police reform: The emergence of professionalism.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29-38.
Worden, R. E. (1989). Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behavior: A theoretical
reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law & Society Review, 23, 667-711.
Worden, R. E. (1990). A badge and a baccalaureate: Policies, hypotheses, and further evidence.
Justice Quarterly, 7, 565-592.
Worden, R. E. (1996). The causes of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use of force.
In W. A. Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), Police violence: Understanding and controlling police
abuse of force (pp. 23-51). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
120 Police Quarterly 13(1)
Xu, Y., Fiedler, M. L., & Flaming, K. H. (2005). Discovering the impact of community policing:
The broken windows’ thesis, collective efficacy, and citizens’ judgment. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 147-186.
Yerkes, R. M. (1921). Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the
National Academy of Sciences, 15, 1-890.
Bios
Jason Rydberg, MS, is a doctoral student in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State
University. His research interests include policing, social science education, morality, and
philosophy of social science.
William Terrill, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan
State University. He is currently directing a nationally funded research project on police use of
force and has published numerous scholarly articles on policing, crime in public housing, and
systematic social observation. He earned his PhD in 2000 from the School of Criminal Justice at
Rutgers University, Newark.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 11, 2010 http://pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
