 

‘—-J

 

 

 

 

:j LIBRARY
1,.) . 1: Michigan State
(0 8 I“; 30 3 Q University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

SOUTH KOREAN POLICE OFFICERS’ JOB ATTITUDES
AND JOB PERFORMANCE

presented by
Jongbo Kim

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Criminal Justice

{Li 9 ML...

v Major Professor’s Signature

 

 

7h? 2/; 2135’

Date

MSU is an Afﬁnnativa Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

U-.-.---.-.-.-.mC-----.-.-.--.-.-.-.-.-I-.--_.-“‘-O-‘-._-.-.‘4"9.-.-.-.-.-.--.M-.-.-.-.---.-.-

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

I} "~

JAN 0A6 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOUTH KOREAN POLICE OFFICERS’ JOB ATTITUDES
AND JOB PERFORMANCE

By

Jongbo Kim

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF SIENCE
School of Criminal Justice

2005

ABSTRACT

SOUTH KOREAN POLICE OFFICERS’ JOB ATTITUDES
AND JOB PERFORMANCE

By
Jongbo Kim

The main purpose of this study was to examine the inﬂuence of police officers’
attitudes on their job performance that includes three areas: 1) law enforcement, 2) order
maintenance, and 3) service provision. Following a model suggested by previous research,
organizational and situational factors’ inﬂuence on the performance was also examined.
Hypotheses are derived from the model found in the literature. The data were collected
through self-administered questionnaires completed by a sample of 737/ 10020 (7 percent)
police ofﬁcers in Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (SMPA), South Korea.

Results show that ofﬁcers’ attitudes regarding police role are mostly unrelated
with their behavior, which suggests the same difficulties of social psychologists’
understanding the attitude-behavior relationship. The results also show that several
organizational factors such as special order of focusing on issuing many police tickets
and training experience respectively affect order-maintenance and service-provision
activities. Probability of encountering suspects of arrest as a situational factor affects law-
enforcement activities. Beyond the model concerned with attitudes-behavior relationship,
several groups of rank and length of total service are correlated with their job
performance. The non-ﬁnding results of attitudes-behavior relationship are consistent
with those of much previous research in the United States. Measurement trials of this
study, which indicated some limitations as well as merits, were discussed for future

studies.

Copyright by
JONGBO KIM

2005

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife Chungheui and my children Intae and

Hansol. I will dearly miss the past two years in the United States. I love you.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing this thesis was truly a labor of love and one of the hardest challenges of
my life. I would not have completed this project without the {steadfast support of several
people.

I would like to give a very special acknowledgement to Dr. Vincent Hoffman,
chairman of my graduate committee. With proper guidance and wisdom, Dr. Hoffman
encouraged me to go further whenever I faced difﬁculties. I would like to acknowledge
my graduate committee: Dr. Bruce Benson and Dr. Sheila Maxwell. Dr. Benson, your
insightful guidance aided greatly in constructing this study. Dr. Maxwell, you have given
me valuable comments during the course of my study.

I greatly acknowledge my graduate friends for their contribution to making
questionnaires, analyzing data, and discussing results: Jinseong Cheong, Daehoon Kwak
and Euigab Hwang. A special thank you to Euigab Hwang for advice, Support, and
encouragement. I would like to thank Susan Gade for elaborate revisions of my survey
questionnaires and thesis.

I would like to thank my colleague officers in Korea for voluntarily participating
my survey. I would like to thank Byoungrock Kim, Dongun Kim, Seongyeob Cheong,
and Jinwoo In for distributing and collecting survey questionnaires. I would also like to
thank Jinbok Kim, my brother-in-law, for providing technical and laborious support.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to my parents and
parents-in-law. Finishing my thesis was possible because you encouraged and advised me.

I am blessed to share my life with all of you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................ - ................................ ix
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ....................................................................... 1
Purpose of this Study ........................................................................... 4
Overview of the South Korean Police ........................................................ 7
CHAPTER H : LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... l 1
Theory of Attitude-Behavior Relationship ................................................. 11
Attitudes and Job Performance ............................................................... 14
Organizational Factors, Situational Factors and Job performance ...................... l9
CHAPTERHI: METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 21
Research Hypotheses .......................................................................... 21
Null Hypotheses ........................................................................... 22
Data Collection and Sampling Procedure ................................................... 24
Survey Populations and Sampling Procedure .......................................... 24
Development of Survey Instrument ..................................................... 25

Data Collection ............................................................................ 26
Operationalization .............................................................................. 27
Measure of Independent Variables ....................................................... 27

1. Attitudes Toward Police Role ................................................... 30

2. Perceptions of Organizational Factors ........................................... 31

3. Perceptions of Situational Factors ................................................. 32

4. Demographic Factors ............................................................... 33

Measure of Dependent Variables ........................................................ 34

1. Job Performance of Law Enforcement ........................................... 36

2. Job Performance of Order Maintenance ......................................... 36

3. Job Performance of Service Provision ........................................... 37
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 38
Explanations of Demographic Factors ...................................................... 38
Descriptive and Univariate Statistics .......................................................... 40
Bivariate Statistics .............................................................................. 41
Test of Hypotheses ............................................................................. 48
Multivariate Analysis of Job Performance Involving Demographic Factors .......... 52
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .................................................................. 55
Summary of Findings ......................................................................... 55
Discussion ....................................................................................... 55
Research Implications ......................................................................... 60

vi

Policy Implications ............................................................................ 61

Conclusion ...................................................................................... 63
APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 65
Appendix A. Factor Analyses of Independent Variables . ................................ 66
Appendix B. Questionnaires .................................................................. 67
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 78

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Independent Variables, Coding, Frequencies, Mean, and .......................... 31
Standard Deviation

Table 2. Dependent Variables, Coding, Mean and Standard Deviation ..................... 37

Table 3. Sample Characteristics .................................................................. 44

Table 4. Comparison of Mean differences (ANOVA) for Respondents .................... 47
Characteristics

Table 5. Zero Order Correlations Matrix ....................................................... 49

Table 6. Multivariate Correlates of Ofﬁcers’ Job Performance .............................. 53

Table 7. Multivariate Correlates of Ofﬁcers’ Job Performance .............................. 54

(Including Demographic Factors)

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Model of Attitude-Behavior Relationship ........................................... 20

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

When police mangers give an order to their subordinates, the goal of police
managers should be twofold: for subordinates to clearly understand the expectations of
administrators and to be responsive to organizational directives. Due to the uncertainty of
the environment, however, this can often be problematic. This ambiguity stems from both
the actual complexities intrinsic to the environment (citizen encounters) as well as the
organizational change in police (Brown, 1988). Although laws and bureaucratic
regulations are largely clearly deﬁned, in some instances, police ofﬁcers face conditions
or circumstances where the rules or boundaries appear vague. However, organizational
change in law enforcement is likely to confound police ofﬁcers, since interpretation of
new polices may be subjective.

Police officers in the United States have addressed the aforementioned issues and
continue to evolve. For example, community policing has largely dominated the United
States since the mid-19903. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2001), sixty-
four percent of departments, representing eighty-six percent of the US. population served
by local police had full-time ofﬁcers engaged in community policing initiatives during
1999. Community policing is a strategic concept which seeks to redeﬁne the ends and the
means of policing. In contrast to traditional policing methods, community policing
focuses attention on the problems that lie behind incidents, rather than on the incidents

alone (Moore, 1992). The situation is quite similar in countries where organizational

change of police is progressing. In Korea, for example, police officers have recently
faced organizational and philosophical changes referred to as “J i goo-Dae”-—the
community police corps (Korean National Police Agency, 2004). It is suggested that
organizational change may confound officers’ job performance. These factors allow
street-level ofﬁcers to make discretionary decisions. According to Wortley (2003), of the
entire criminal justice system, police are considered to have the greatest opportunity to
exercise discretionary judgment. Most agree that discretion is an inevitable part of
policing.

However, there have been serious concerns about the exercise and amount of
discretion. For example, selective enforcement of laws allows police to redeﬁne justice in
terms of their own priorities, which may not correspond with the administration’s mission.
Thus, Brown considers discretion as “the dilemma of administrative control” (Brown,
1988, p.96). Yet, despite the interest and importance of discretion, there have been
relatively few studies that explain the variables which affect the discretionary judgment.

Some believe that decision-making and behavior may be affected by occupational
attitudes and values. In social psychology, the general origin of the attitude-behavior
relationship can be traced to a deﬁnition that attitudes are thought of both as a
predisposition causing consistency in behavior, and also as a general evaluation of an
object (Cushman and Mcphee, 1980). This relationship has been of particular interest to
both social psychologists and police scholars for several decades. For example, Smith and
Klein (1984) maintain that much of the variation in officers’ behavior which was not
explained by situational characteristics could be explained by officers’ attitudes, values,

and beliefs. Consistent with this ideology, many scholars and practitioners assume that

administrators must change officers’ attitudes toward community policing if the strategy
is to be successful. Evidence for strong and consistent relationships between attitudes and
behavior has, however, proved somewhat elusive (Smith and Klein, 1983; Mastrofski et
al., 1994; Worden, 1989). Moreover, little research illustrates a signiﬁcant relationship
between ofﬁcers’ attitudes and their behavior (Mastrofski et al., 1995; Terrill et al., 2003).
Contrary to the growing concerns about the link between attitudes and behavior, research
findings in the United States have not yet proved the relationship conclusively.

As previously stated, researchers have not provided hard evidence for the
relationship between ofﬁcers’ attitudes and behavior. Thus, it is worthwhile to address
this issue in South Korea, since the collective Asian culture may lend additional support
and generalizability for the results of previous research; and may provide additional
insight for police managers. South Korea is unique for police managers, since the new
police practice of J i goo-Dae was implemented (KNPA, 2004) and is expected to be

implemented in local autonomous police departments in the future (Munhwa-Ilbo, 2004).

Purpose of this Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between police officers’
attitudes and their job performance by analyzing survey datacollected from four police
departments in Seoul, South Korea. The sample consists of police ofﬁcers who are
currently working for the community policing corps. Four police stations among 31
police stations in Seoul were selected by a stratiﬁed sample which contains
approximately 10,000 community policing ofﬁcers in Seoul.

This study attempts to identify attitudinal factors of police officers affecting job
performance. Since several scholars have suggested that police ofﬁcers exercise high
amounts of discretion, police ofﬁcers in Seoul, Korea also ﬁt a similar proﬁle in their job
performance. The researcher suggests that the officers’ discretionary activities are
affected by their attitudes. This proposition is based on the attitudinal theory in social
psychology. A review of the literature suggests that police ofﬁcers’ behavior may be
affected by their attitudes.

The hypotheses presented herein were developed on the basis of previous research
and theoretical frameworks regarding the attitude-behavior relationship. Research
indicates the methodological and conceptual considerations for the police attitude-
behavior relationship which emphasizes consistency of the attitude-behavior relationship
(Frank and Brandl, 1991). Other literature suggests there are three functions among patrol
ofﬁcers: law enforcement, order maintenance, and service provisions (Wilson, 1968). In
light of these considerations, the author constructed three hypotheses that demonstrate
attitudes-behavior relationship of police officers, adding organizational and situational

factors’ influence upon ofﬁcers’ activities. Thus, officers’ attitudes predict their behavior,

from three perspectives: l) officers’ attitudes predict officers’ behaviors; 2) officers’
perception of organizational factors affects ofﬁcers’ behaviors; and 3) ofﬁcers’ perception
of situational factors affect ofﬁcers’ behaviors.

Previous studies have generally focused on one dimension of the police role in
deﬁning ofﬁcers’ behavior, while others have examined three dimensions of attitudes
toward the police role (Smith & Klein, 1983; Mastrofski et al., 1994; Worden, 1989;
Engel and Worden, 2003; Mastrofski et al., 1995; Terrill et al., 2003). This study, however,
attempted to examine the dimensions of attitudes and behaviors on the police role from a
holistic perspective. In regard to the relationship between attitudes and behavior, “the
attitude and the behaviors (initiating ofﬁcer activity and enforcing certain laws) are both
measured at the same level, thus providing correspondence” Frank and Brand] (1991,
p.87). The examination of police ofﬁcers’ performance can advance our understanding of
police actions more clearly. This attempt can also serve as a catalyst for future research
concerning how attitudes and behaviors have changed through their careers, on the basis
of longitudinal examination. Finally, this may assist police managers by providing the
necessary information for recruitment, training, and evaluation concerning police
activities.

In addition to attitudes toward the police role, this research examines several
demographic, organizational and situational factors. The literature review suggested these
predictors may affect ofﬁcers’ behaviors (Worden, 1989; Mastrofski et al., 1995; Terrill et
al., 2003). Still, they often lack several organizational factors that are presumed to
directly affect ofﬁcers’ behavior. In regard to organizational factors, Frank and Brand]

(1991) stated that officers who believe that increased arrest activity will lead to a job

promotion may engage in this behavior irrespective of their attitudes concerning the
propriety of such behavior. Thus, this study examines several organizational factors as
well as the attitude-behavior relationship. This may also help police managers in
recruiting and training police officers and in evaluating their activities by providing
information about which factors and to what extent the factors affect their activities.
Furthermore, a multi-factorial approach is necessary to investigate to what extent
attitudes predict behaviors. This perspective should contribute knowledge regarding

occupational activities as police ofﬁcers.

Overview of the South Korean Police

With the advent of the new South Korean government in 1948, the modern South
Korean police force began as the Bureau of National Security under the Ministry of the
Internal Affairs. The bureau had nine departments including police administration,
security, and economic affairs, etc. The bureau began as a subordinate organization which
was considered a reﬂection of theidea that people and national assemblymen did not
want a powerful police organization in South Korea, since during the Japanese colonial
era, police had persecuted the independence movement. Since then, independence and
neutralization of police has been the center of controversy among the government and
political parties. In 1974, The Bureau of National Security was reorganized into the
National Security Headquarters, which was upgraded from the bureau but still remained
under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In 1991, the National Police Agency and the
Afﬁliated Organizations were again reorganized, replacing the National Security
Headquarters. The National Police Agency is considered more independent and neutral
than previous administrations, insofar it is independent from the Ministry of Domestic
Affairs, which is in charge of political elections. Still now, however, the neutralization
and independence of police organization remains controversial (KNPA, 2004; Je, 1998).

The present national Korean police system can be characterized as highly
centralized as well as democratic (KNPA, 2004). The National Korean Police Force is
comprised of the Headquarters of the National Police Agency, the Central Police
Organization, 14 provincial police agencies, 231 police stations, 2930 branch offices and
other afﬁliated institutes including the National Police University, Police Comprehensive

Academy, Central Police Training School, Driver’s Licensing Agency, and the National

Police Hospital. The National Police Agency is divided into six bureaus, five offices and
one Assistant Director General, and the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency consists of
seven departments, two offices and 16 divisions. The Busan Metropolitan Police Agency
is divided into seven departments, three ofﬁces and nine divisions, and the Kyeonggi
Provincial Police Agency is made up of three divisions, two offices and nine sub-
divisions. Other provincial police agencies consist of three offices and six divisions.
Every police station is divided into one to three levels with four to nine divisions.

The Korean police has an 11 rank structure from bottom to top: the Patrol
Ofﬁcer, Senior Patrol Ofﬁcer, Assistant Inspector, Inspector, Senior Inspector,
Superintendent, Senior Superintendent, Superintendent General, Senior Superintendent
General, Chief Superintendent General, and Commissioner General. The chief of the
National Police Agency is the Commissioner General; the chiefs of provincial police
agencies are the Chief Superintendent Generals and the Senior Superintendent Generals;
the chiefs of police station are the Senior Superintendents and the Superintendents; and
the chief of Jigoo-Dae is the Senior Inspector. As of 2003, there was 92,165 South
Korean Police officers. Of these, 34,522 are Patrol Ofﬁcers; 29,367 are Senior Patrol
Ofﬁcers; 14,436 are Assistant Inspectors; 9,188 are Inspectors; 2,926 are Senior
Inspectors; 1,265 are Superintendents; 404 are Senior Superintendents; 33 are
Superintendent Generals; 19 are Senior Superintendent Generals; four are Chief
Superintendent Generals; and there is one Commissioner General. Of the police officers,
about 15 percent occupy the rank of Inspector and higher ranking ofﬁcials are considered
to be executives. The higher the rank is, the more extensive the administrative power is.

The recruitment of the Korean police officers from the rank of patrol officer to

superintendent is divided in two ways: employment from a general service exam and
special employment. The promotion of a police ofﬁcial below Senior Superintendent can
be achieved in two ways: via general examination or through the screening of special
board. After a certain number of required years at each rank, officers are eligible for
promotion.

The Performance of Police Functions Act, instituted in 1953 and recently
amended in 1981, describes the scope of police function: preventing and investigating
crimes; maintaining public safety, the protection of high ofﬁcials, counteracting
espionage; collecting and distributing public safety information; trafﬁc control; and
maintaining public order.

Since 2003, South Korean police have tried to reform their organization by
implementing the “Police Reform Committee” which is composed of 18 external high
ﬁgures who are considered experts and reformers (KNPA, 2004). Served by the Police
Reform Planning Corps, this committee has three subordinate committees: the Role, the
Autonomous Police, and the Investigation System committee. The first substantial result
of this effort was increasing the number of the rank structure. Before 2003, there were
numerous lower ranked personnel of the total number of police officers. The structure
severely discouraged low—rank personnel, since promotion was often too difﬁcult for
them to achieve. Finally, at the end of 2003, the government conﬁrmed the “Three-Year
Project for Improving Police Rank Structure” where each ranking member of the 10,364
employees would be upgraded to a higher rank during a period of three years.

The second product was the reform of a police box system that had been utilized

since the birth of the South Korean police without improvements or modifications.

Considering the deﬁciencies of the police force and little support from citizens, the South
Korean Police implemented the “Community Police Operating System”. The system is
explained, in short, by that three to ﬁve police boxes are reorganized into one Patrol
Jigoo—Dae (below Jigoo-Dae) which is reshufﬂed according to its geographic location.
The chief of Jigoo-Dae is supported by three inspectors who take turns working 24 hour
shifts. Thus, the system is intended to effectively combat street crime by mobilizing three
to ﬁve patrol cars with 10 or more ofﬁcers. Several police boxes are reorganized into the
“Police Service Center” which contains ofﬁcers in charge of civil appeals. The Police
Service Center is intended to intensify the service provision function of police. Moreover,
several efforts to reform the police have been attempted, such as a citizen corps for
monitoring civil rights in the police organization, the recording and videotaping of child
victims of sexual abuse, and changing the method of crackdowns.

In the present study, police ofﬁcers include four ranks: Patrol officer, Senior
Patrol ofﬁcer, Assistant Inspector, and Inspector, since the above ofﬁcers work as field
ofﬁcers in Jigoo-Dae. Although the rank of inspector is generally regarded as an
executive function in Korea, inspector-ranked ofﬁcers in J i goo-Dae perform their job
similar to lower level ofﬁcials. Therefore, in the community policing corps, only the rank

of Senior Inspector (Chief of Jigoo—Dae) was excluded from this study.

10

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theory of Attitude-Behamr Relationship

People generate attitudes toward almost everything they encounter within the
world. If people perceive something as new, they tend to form an attitude or opinion
towards it (Cushman and McPhee, 1980). In other words, people’s attitudes may be
inferred by their subsequent behavior. These assumptions have been the object of social
scientiﬁc research. Initially, theorists assumed that if the attitude is deﬁned as a
predisposition to behavior, it is at least a necessary condition for that behavior (Cushman
and McPhee, 1980). On the basis of this assumption, some researchers have criticized the
attitude-behavior framework by building theoretical models for behavioral prediction.
Rejecting a simple view such as massage, attitudes, and behavior, Fishbein (1975)
initially deﬁned attitude as the amount of effect for or against a psychological object. The
usual cognitive component is redeﬁned as belief. The cognitive component of attitude is
termed behavioral intention, deﬁned as a person’s location on a subjective probability
dimension involving a relationship between the individual and some action. Fishbein
separates these components of attitude in order to stipulate a causal chain with behavior.
Behaviors are determined by behavioral intentions, which are functions of attitudes
toward the acts in question.

The set of generative mechanisms cited in the attitude-behavior literature is found
in three ways. Many such models exist to explain behavior in specific domains including

consumer buying (Garling et al., 1998), altruistic behavior (Schwartz, 1977), and health-

11

care behavior (Seibold and R0per, 1979). A small amount of research, however in public
sector, has reported a signiﬁcant relationship. For example, Brehm and Gates (1997)
reported that public officers’ rate of “shrinking,” or time spent “goofing off” or “loaﬁng,”
were inﬂuenced by their professionalism, attitudes toward their jobs, and satisfaction
with their supervisors.

The ﬁrst traditional mechanism underlying the attitude—behavior relationship was
previously discussed and contains a “definitional explanation” of consistency. According
to this mechanism, if a person has an attitude at all, his or her behavior must generally be
consistent with it by definition (Shuman and Johnson, 1976). A second common
mechanism underlying the attitude-behavior consistency is the “latent process” notion of
DeFleur and Westie (1963)—an attitude is an unobservable cognitive state underlying
various modes of verbal and behavioral response, forcing them to be consistent. The ﬁnal
mechanism was popularized most by McGuire’s (1969) inﬂuential essay. The mechanism
can be labeled as “information processing”. That is, proponents try to identify precisely
various cognitive states, mechanisms, and processes, and to characterize attitudes and
behaviors in light of their informational determinant.

Many social psychologists have discovered that there are several conditions that
lead to a strong link between attitudes and behavior. First, some attitudes are extremely
important to various aspects of our life, while other attitudes are less central to our being.
Thus, stronger attitudes are likely to predict behavior (McCroskey, 1973). Second, the
issue is of correspondence or the degree to which an attitude and some action is highest is
when the focus on identical objects are in the same context, and at the same time

(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Third, attitudes are often formed from our direct experience

12

of issues and events. Attitudes formed in this capacity, as opposed to being learned
through observing role models, are often more consistent with behavior (Fazio and
Williams, 1986). Finally, the ease with which information can be located in one’s mind
plays a key role in the attitude-behavior link. Fazio and Williams (1986) provide a model
of attitude accessibility that suggests that the presentation of an attitude object elicits a
memory of that object, which leads to a perception of the object, and ﬁnally a consistent
behavior toward the object.

With the hope of inducing increased job performance, many businesses, nonprofit
organizations, and the government have attempted to encourage its employees’ to have
positive work-related attitudes and subsequently surveyed them (Rainey, 2003). In the
same context, some qualitative research on police has reported that ofﬁcers’ behavior is
shaped by their work-related outlooks (Brown, 1988; Worden, 1995; Terrill and

Mastrofski, 2002).

13

Attitudes and Job Performﬂcg

Worden (1995) synthesized ofﬁcers’ belief systems into five typologies:
professional, tough-cop, clean-beat crime ﬁghter, problem-selver, and avoider. This
research suggested that officers varied in their outlooks in terms of human nature (e. g.
cynicism), processes or outcomes, and coercive authority.

Wilson (1968) classiﬁed patrol officers’ role typology as follows: the role of law
enforcement, role of order maintenance, and the role of service provisions. Among them,
he deﬁned maintaining order as the central role for patrolmen more than law enforcement
and service provisions, since patrol ofﬁcers encounter far more problems of order
maintenance than opportunities for law enforcement. The other reason is that the service-
provision role could easily be provided by a different government agency or private ﬁrm.

Frank and Brand] (1991) reviewed the social psychological research on the
measurement of attitudes and behavior. On the basis of their review, a tentative model by
which a more complete assessment of the attitude-behavior relationship could be created.
Figure 1 shows their model that suggests some factors that may affect the attitude-

behavior relationship. Speciﬁcally, they explained the model definitions as follows:

Behavior: Police behavior refers to the actions of officers.

Environment: The environment is conceptualized as a network of factors
that directly or indirectly inﬂuence police behavior (e.g. organizational,
political, legal, and situational factors).

Behavioral Intentions: Behavioral intention is the subjective probability that

a person will perform a particular act of interest.

14

Figure 1. Model of Attitude-Behavior Relationship

LE>OF———>A"IT——"BI—‘——’13

 

 

PC/

SF

Where: LE = legal environment, PC = political culture, OF = organizational factors, ATT = attitude,

BI = behavioral intention, B = behavior, SF = situational factors, E = environment

 

 

(Frank and Brand], 1991, p.92)

Attitudes: Individuals may possess attitudes toward a speciﬁc object (i.e.,
blacks, women, role of patrol) or toward the performance of a speciﬁc
behavior (i.e., arrests, suspicious stops).

Organizational Factors: Organizational factors include organizational
demand for production, formal organizational rules, and organizational
culture inﬂuences, and expectations established in the work group. The
inﬂuence of organizational factors on behavior may occur in one of two
ways: organizational factors may directly inﬂuence behavioral intentions
and behavior (e. g. hope for promotion cause increased arrests);
organizational factors may indirectly inﬂuence behavioral intentions by
inﬂuencing officer attitudes (e.g. organizational rule requiring arrests in
domestic violence cases may have the effect of changing officer attitudes

concerning the appropriateness of this response).

15

 

Political Culture: Political culture encompasses the values and expectations
of the community concerning the types of behavior the police should
perform.

Legal Environment: The legal environment includes a network of formal
rules that are intended to structure police behavior and are backed by
governmental sanctions.

Situational Factors: Situational factors include the speciﬁc characteristics of
the situations in which police encounter citizens (e.g., age, sex, race,
demeanor, etc.).

(Frank and Brand], 1991, pp. 93-97)

Brown (1988) indicated that officers’ behavioral tendencies varied respectively.
By combining the attitudinal dimensions of aggressiveness and selectivity, he derived a
four-fold typology of operational styles: old style crime ﬁghter, clean beat crime ﬁghter,
service style, and professional style. According to his typology, ofﬁcers who defined the
police role as one of crime-ﬁghting and law enforcement were more aggressive on the
street. His analysis further suggests that ofﬁcers whose role conceptions differed in these
respects also differed in their approaches to minor disorders and service requests.

However, most quantitative research has reported that there is only a weak
relationship between ofﬁcers’ attitudes and their behavior (Smith and Klein, 1983;
Mastrofski et al., 1994; Worden, 1989; Engel et al., 2003). Smith and Klein (1983)
examined the extent to which organizational properties inﬂuence the propensity of police

ofﬁcers to invoke the law of arrest. They reported that police decisions to arrest are

16

inﬂuenced by the demand of the situation, certain organizational properties of police
departments, and the organizational context in which police-citizen encounters occur.
Furthermore, the most important factors inﬂuencing arrest decisions are certain aspects of
the police-citizen encounter itself (e.g., offense seriousness, victims’ requests,
acquaintance of the victim, etc.), while the effect of the organizational properties (e.g.,
supervisor, ofﬁcer’s job satisfaction, ofﬁcer’s education) of police departments has little
direct inﬂuence (Smith and Klein, 1983).

Mastrofski et a]. (1994) assessed arrest productivity for Driving Under the
Inﬂuence (DUI) utilizing a sample of Pennsylvania police officers. They found that
ofﬁcers’ personal feelings about the seriousness of drunk driving are weakly related to
performance, while commitment to a legalistic style is a significant but less powerful
intrinsic reinforcement (Mastrofski et al., 1994).

Worden (1989) found that styles of performing their jobs bear a weak relationship
to their occupational attitudes (e.g., role orientation, citizen respect, and legal restriction,
etc.), while officers might individually ad0pt these styles that manifest themselves in
behavioral patterns across similar situations.

Engel et a]. (2003) examined the inﬂuence of officers’ attitude and priorities
toward community policing over the time ofﬁcers spend conducting problem-solving
activities. They also found that ofﬁcers’ attitudes toward their roles are weakly correlated
with their activities.

Recently, small research has found a signiﬁcant relationship between officers’
attitudes and their behavior (Mastrofski et al., 1995; Terrill et al., 2003). Mastrofski et al.

(1995) indicated that in a time of community policing, ofﬁcers who support it do

17

manifest some arrest decision patterns distinguishable from those of colleagues who
adhere to a more traditional view of law enforcement. Ofﬁcers classiﬁed as “positive”
toward community policing arrested ﬁve percent of the suspects they encountered, while
the “negative” toward community policing arrested seventeen percent of the suspects. In
their study, legal variables illustrated stronger effects than extra-legal ones, but this
depended on the officers’ attitudes toward community policing.

Terrill et a1. (2003) found that officers who closely embody the values of the
police culture are more coercive compared to those who differentially align with the
culture. Encounters involving pro-cultural ofﬁcers had nearly a twenty percent chance of
physical restraint, compared with ﬁfteen percent in those encounters involving non-pro-
cultural ofﬁcers. He concluded with “Police use of force is a function of ofﬁcers’ varying
attitudinal commitments to the traditional view of police culture (Terrill et al., 2003,

p.1101)”.

18

Organizational Factors, Situationa_l_F_actors and Job Perform_a_n§£

Previous research examined the factors that inﬂuence ofﬁcers’ decision making.
In addition to the inﬂuence of ofﬁcers’ attitudes, organizational and situational factors,
ofﬁcers’ demographic factors may affect ofﬁcers’ behavior (Novak et al., 2002; Frank
and Brand], 1991; Worden, 1989). Much research has constructed its own theoretical
frame and suggested the inﬂuence of the organizational, situational, and demographic
factors on ofﬁcers’ behavior.

Worden (1989) reassessed the value of situational and attitudinal variables as
parts of a theory of police behavior. He examined effects of situational factors and
ofﬁcers’ attitudes on trafﬁc stops. He reported that situational factors (e.g., discretionary
time, graveyard shift, evening shift, and seriousness of offense) have a signiﬁcant effect
on ofﬁcers’ decisions to make trafﬁc stops, as previous research also indicated.

From an organizational and situational perspective, Novak et a]. (2002) found that
there is no signiﬁcant direct inﬂuence of assignment on arrest decision, while situational
factors such as evidence, citizen age, and citizen noncompliance significantly affect arrest
decision. Furthermore, regarding the situational, psychological, and organizational
context, Worden (1995) found that to some extent, the use and abuse of force by police
are inﬂuenced by characteristics of the situation in which officers and citizens interact;
neither ofﬁcers’ characteristics nor attitudes had a substantively signiﬁcant effect on the
use of force; bureaucratic agencies use more force. Speciﬁcally, he found that ofﬁcers are
more likely to use force against those who offer physical resistance, and who are blacks;
compared with officers in more bureaucratized departments, officers in less

bureaucratized departments either are less likely to use force when it would be justified or

19

are less likely take actions early in an encounter that has an high probability of force later
(Worden, 1995).

Engel et a]. (2000) exarrrined the relationship between the demeanor of suspects
and the police behavior, and found that demeanor of suspects did not affect police
behavior. Considering the ﬁndings collectively, however, the researchers thought that in
most circumstances ofﬁcers do not treat hostile juveniles or adults, males and females, or
blacks and whites differently.

Utilizing a situational, psychological, and organizational theoretical framework,
Terrill and Mastrofski (2002) found higher rates of force in Indianapolis than St.
Petersburg, which attributed to more aggressive policies. Their ﬁnding indicates that
force was more likely in encounters involving inexperienced ofﬁcers; encounters initiated
by ofﬁcers themselves involved a great likelihood of force.

From the neighborhood context, Smith (1986) found that police are more likely to
exercise coercion toward suspects toward non-whites and racially mixed neighborhoods.
Moreover, he found that these effects are independent of the race, sex, and demeanor of
the suspect, the type of problem involved, and whether the encounter occurs in a public
or private setting.

In sum, previous research illustrates there is no firm conclusion that

organizational factors and situational factors affect ofﬁcers’ job performance.

20

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research HvDOtheses

The primary hypothesis in this study is that police officers’ actions are based
according to previous perceptions. This, of course, sets a discretionary environment forth
as a premise. When police ofﬁcers have high amounts of discretion, their behaviors may
be consistent with ordinary citizens exercising discretion. As an explanation of behavior,
many social psychologists claim that attitudes can predict behavior (e.g. Cushman and
McPhee, 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Moreover, many researchers, including police
scholars have argued there is a signiﬁcant relationship between attitudes and behaviors
(Brehm & Gates, 1997; Mastrofski et al., 1995; Terrill et al., 2003). Thus, these ﬁndings
lead to the hypotheses in this study.

One key factor in forming the hypotheses was the consistency of attitudes and
behaviors. Police researchers have often failed to identify the relationship between
ofﬁcers’ attitudes and their behaviors. This failure has been attributed to problems in the
measurement of police attitudes, behaviors, or both (Frank and Brand], 1991; Worden,
1995). Previous literature has shown that often researchers have measured officers’
behaviors not corresponding to their attitudes, but merely focusing on their attitudes. In
order to properly assess the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors, it is
important that the attitude and behavior be theoretically related (Frank and Brand], 1991).
Because attitudes refer to predisposition of behaviors, it is reasonable that specific

attitudes predict speciﬁc behaviors (Ajzen, 1988). For example, a research hypothesis is

21

considered logical when an officer who has positive attitude toward arrest is expected to
make many arrests. Thus, hypotheses in this study were constructed by the logic where

each attitudes and behaviors are consistently related.

Null Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: There is no relationship between officers’ attitudes toward police work
and job performance.
A: There is no relationship between positive attitudes toward law
enforcement and law-enforcement activities.
B: There is no relationship between positive attitudes toward order
maintenance and order-maintenance activities.
C: There is no relationship between positive attitudes toward service

provisions and service-provision activities.

Another point of consideration is the systematic ordering of variables. Actually,
the systematic ordering of propositions regarding attitude-behavior relationship is still
controversial at least in two areas: the closure of the system of propositions, and the
stipulation of relationships as direct, indirect, or spurious (Cushman and Mcphee, 1980).
Thus, the assumption that there is a direct causal relationship between attitudes and
behavior is an oversimpliﬁcation of a very complex process. Frank and Brand] (1991)
suggest that police behaviors are affected by many factors systematically. Although this
model does not provide the rationale of ordering, it attempts to explain and predict police

behavior systematically through recruiting diverse factors. Some hypotheses were

22

constructed on the basis of this model, which emphasized the importance of investigation
of organizational and situational factors’ inﬂuence on ofﬁcers’ behavior. Therefore, this

model suggests that organizational or situational factors predict officers’ behavior.

Hypothesis II: There is no relationship between perception of organizational factors and
ofﬁcers’ job performance.
Hypothesis 111: There is no relationship between perception of situational factors and

officers’ job performance.

23

DataCollection and Sampling Procedure
Survey Population and Sampling Procedure

The target population of this study is police officers Who are currently working at
J igoo-Dae (community police corps) in police departments in Seoul, South Korea.
Seoul’s population was estimated at 10,276,968 at the end of 2003. This accounts for
about a quarter of the total national population. Seoul is known as a center of politics,
economy, society, and culture since the 1300s. Thus, examining police ofﬁcers from
Seoul is an appropriate sample and provides an understanding South Korean police
ofﬁcers.

In South Korea, there are 14 provincial police agencies, 233 police stations, 866
Jigoo-Daes and 92,488 police ofﬁcers who are working for provincial police agencies.
Among the provincial police agencies, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (SMPA)
has 31 police stations, 14] Jigoo-Daes, and 24,560 police ofﬁcers, which account for
approximately a quarter of South Korean police officers working for the SMPA. The
number of police ofﬁcers who work at Jigoo-Dae in the SMPA is 10,020 as of 2003. If
the respondent was not a police ofﬁcer from SMPA in South Korea, he or she was
excluded from the sample. Chiefs of Jigoo-Dae were also excluded since several
questions were not appropriate for Chiefs of Jigoo-Dae. In Seoul, each police station has
2 to 6 Jigoo-Daes, and has 149 to 442 personnel, so police departments were stratiﬁed.
Four police stations were selected from a convenience sample. According to the KNPA
(2004), Police station A has ﬁve Jigoo-Daes and 432 police officers; Police station B has
ﬁve Jigoo-Daes and 343 police ofﬁcers; Police station C has six Jigoo-Daes and 408; and

Police station D has 4 Jigoo—Daes and 245 police officers. The expected number of

24

sampled officers was approximately 1,300 persons, which represented 13 percent of the

parameter of Jigoo-Dae ofﬁcers in Seoul.

Development of Survey Instrument

The purpose of the study is to assess the relationship between officers’ attitudes
and their job performance. To measure attitudes, most social psychologists and police
scholars have used the survey method because it is considered both reliable and attainable.
To measure behaviors, many psychologists also used this method, while recent police
scholars have attempted to use observation method. Despite its strength, the observation
method typically involves additional time, personnel, and costs. For these reasons, the
survey method was used to measure behavior as an alternative.

The questionnaire was developed on basis of a thorough review of the literature.
The overall frame of the instrument followed Frank and Brandl’s model. According to
Frank and Brand] (1991), it is necessary to measure organizational and situational factors
as well as attitudinal factors to assess the attitude-behavior relationship. To determine
attitudinal factors, previous research instruments were utilized. Some instruments were
modiﬁed to assess situational and organizational factors, as well as job performance in a
Korean context. The ﬁrst question items were open-ended. Upon informal discussion
with Korean police officials, changes were implemented to ensure reliability of the
instrument. The ﬁnalized version was closed-ended. The questionnaire was pre-tested by
investigators at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (SMPA). After examining the
result of the pre-test, the ranges of each question item were modiﬁed. Items were added

to assess policing issues. The finalized instrument was an eight page questionnaire

25

consisting of 93 items.

For the Korean version, the items were translated by the author, who is proﬁcient
in the language. The translation was reviewed by several natives for reliability and
applicability. All respondents were notiﬁed that participation was completely voluntary,
and that the survey could be terminated at any time without consequence or penalty. Both
the English and Korean questionnaires were submitted to the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University (MSU) for

approval to ensure the rights of human subjects in this study were upheld.

Data Collection

A letter of solicitation was sent the chiefs of four police stations to obtain survey
respondents in January 2005. Personal identifying information was not requested and
only the author viewed responses. The Korean version was printed and sent from Korea
to the four police stations. Designated ofﬁcers at each police station received the
questionnaires and distributed copies to representatives of J i goo-Dae. A voluntary
representative of the ofﬁcers working for Jigoo-Dae served as a survey administrator in
each police station. The representative distributed the surveys together with envelopes.
During the distribution, the survey administrators stressed the importance of anonymity
and voluntary participation. The respondents were asked to submit their completed
surveys directly to the representatives within two weeks. The survey was administered in
ofﬁce of Jigoo-Dae, where respondents have privacy. The representatives subsequently
mailed the collected surveys to the author. The overall response rate was 56.6 percent;

among 10,020 officers in the four police stations, 737 usable responses were received.

26

Omrationalization

Measure of Independent Variables

The main independent variable in this study is police officers’ attitudes. In social
psychology, an attitude is an individual’s predisposition to behave in a particular way in
response to given stimuli within his or her world (McCroskey, 1973). That is, ofﬁcers’
attitudes can be referred to officers’ predisposition to behavior. An attitude represents an
evaluation of a particular focus. Therefore, the evaluation of police work represents an
ofﬁcer’s attitudes. For example, Paoline et a]. (2000) states that ofﬁcers’ attitudes toward
problem solving concerns “the degree to which ofﬁcers’ role conceptions encompass a
responsibility for handling problematic conditions (Paoline et al., 2000, p.589)”. The
degree to which officers’ conception of police work encompasses their work represents
attitudes toward police work. By asking ofﬁcers the extent of their conceptions about
police work, ofﬁcers’ attitudes can be measured.

Most items used to construct independent variables regarding attitudes were
developed from previous research. Terrill et a]. (2003) and Engel and Worden (2003)
tested items through factor analysis and assembled highly related items to construct a
new variable. Most items were formatted on a Likert-type scale since it is a common way
of measuring attitudes (Singleton and Straits, 1999). Officers were asked to indicate the
degree of agreement or disagreement that they felt about each concept according to the
following scale: “Disagree Strongly (1)”, “Disagree Somewhat (2)”, “Agree Somewhat
(3)” and “Agree Strongly (4)”; and “Never (1)”, “Rarely (2)”, “Sometimes (3)”, and
“Always (4)”. A high score indicates that an ofﬁcer is supportive of a particular concept.

Responses to items were summed to create a composed variable.

27

In addition to ofﬁcers’ attitudes, organizational and situational factors were also
operationalized as independent variables. According to Frank and Brand] (1991), except
for the attitudes, organizational and situational factors are considered to affect ofﬁcers’
behavior. Organizational factors include demand for production, formal organizational
rules, and organizational culture inﬂuence. That is, some organizational factors such as
the desire to get promoted may directly inﬂuence behavioral intentions and behavior such
as increasing arrests. For this study, organizational factors refer to these kinds of direct
inﬂuential organizational factors. The organizational factors can be divided into two
groups: a group of motivation factors providing rewards when ofﬁcers perform well, and
a group of frustration factors that punish officers when officers do perform poorly. The
organizational factors can be found in officers’ evaluation of these factors.

Police theorists have emphasized the value of situational factors as part of a
theory of police (Worden, 1989; Frank and Brand], 1991). Frank et al. (1991) noted that
situational and organizational factors are expected to either increase or decrease
correlations between attitudes and behaviors. Situational factors refer to the speciﬁc
characteristics of the situations in which police encounter citizens. Situational factors can
be found in the complainant or perpetrator (age, sex, race, demeanor, etc.) and the degree
to which the situation is visible (Friedrich, 1980).

Demographic characteristics may also be related to behaviors. Demographics
refer to officers’ gender, age, marital status, rank, education, length of total service, and
length at current position. These independent variables are utilized in order to measure
the relationship between ofﬁcers’ attitudes and their job performance. Table 1 illustrates

the independent variables.

28

Table 1. Independent Variables, Coding, Frequencies, Percentages, Mean, and Standard

 

 

Deviation.
Independent Variables Coding N Percent a Mean (3D,)
Total Number of Cases 737 ' 100.0
Attitudes toward Role of Police
Law Enforcement a 2 - 8 6.71 (1.27)
Order Maintenance 3 3 - 12 9.09 (1.82)
Service Provision a 3 - 12 9.65 (1.84)
Organizational Factors
Arrest
- Motivation Factors 3 3 - 12 8.52 (2.16)
- Frustration Factors a 3 - 12 6.71 (1.95)
- Order Yes = 1 506 68.7
N0 = O 215 29.2
- Training Yes 2 1 351 47.6
N0 = 0 375 50.9
Police Ticket
- Motivation Factors 3 3 — 12 6.85 (2.16)
- Frustration Factors 3 3 - 12 6.78 (1.96)
- Order Yes = 1 469 63.6
N0 = 0 259 35.1
- Training Yes = 1 293 39.8
N0 = 0 432 58.6
Situational Factors
Probability concerned arrest 1 — 4 2.81 (.82)
Probability concerned police 1 - 4

ticket 2.73 (.77)

 

3 Refer to appendix 1 for factor analyses of aggregate variables
Missing cases not reported

29

I. Attitudes toward Police Role

According to Wilson (1980), the role of police is divided into three areas: law
enforcement, order maintenance, and service provision. Correspondingly, the concept of
attitudes toward police role can be divided into three-dimensional attitudes, such as
attitudes toward law enforcement, order maintenance, and service provisions. Thus,
utilizing factor analysis, three factors including attitudes toward law enforcement (See
Appendix B, Items 12, 19), attitudes toward order maintenance (See Appendix B, Items
21, 22, 23), and attitudes toward service provision (See Appendix B, Items 14, 16, 17)
were created to measure attitudes toward police role. Through factor analysis (See
Appendix A), three types of attitudes emerged toward police role: attitudes toward law
enforcement, order maintenance, and service provisions.

Ofﬁcers’ predisposition toward aggressive enforcement concerns “the extent to
which ofﬁcers endorse a proactive style of patrol involving frequent stops and ﬁeld
interrogations (Paoline et al., 2000, p.588)”. To measure attitudes toward law
enforcement, officers were asked to respond to two statements: 1) The primary function
of police is to handle crime-related problems; 2) Strict enforcement of the law is a patrol
ofﬁcers’ most important responsibility. These items were used in previous research in a
similar manner (Terrill et al., 2003; Engel et al., 2003).

Ofﬁcers’ inclination toward order maintenance involves the degree to which
officers include in their role conception a responsibility for handing routine order-
maintenance situations. For measuring attitudes toward order maintenance, ofﬁcers were
asked by three questions: 1) How often do you think that patrol ofﬁcers should respond to

neighbor disputes? 2) How often do you think that patrol officers should respond to

30

domestic disputes? 3) How often do you think that patrol officers should respond to
nuisance violations that may be problematic for community residents (e. g. abandoned
cars and houses)? The former two question items were extracted previous research for
measuring attitudes toward order maintenance. The ﬁnal question items were applied to
measure attitudes, since factor analysis revealed that ofﬁcers regarded this item as the
same as the former two question items, although Terrill et a]. (2003) used this item to
measure attitudes toward problem—solving policing.

In the same context, officers were asked to respond to three statements concerning
attitudes toward service provisions: 1) The primary function of police is to provide
community service; 2) The primary purpose of police is to serve the citizen; 3) the
primary function of police is to safeguard citizens’ rights. The questions were developed

to measure officers’ focus of attention.

2. Perceptions of Organizational Factors

Frank and Brand] (1991) noted that organizational factors might directly inﬂuence
behavioral intentions and behaviors. The authors indicated that ofﬁcers who believe the
way to get promoted is through increased arrests may engage in this behavior irrespective
of their attitudes. Waegel (1981) states organizational factors include the organizational
setting where the work is performed, which places distinctive constraints and demands on
legal agents. This study follows Waegel’s conception of organizational factors.
Organizational factors can be classified as: inducement of promotion and evaluation,
frustration of transfer and undermining competency, and special directives and training.

Thus, officers were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following

31

statements “Making a lot of arrests/Issuing a lot of tickets helps obtain a job promotion”
(See Appendix B, Items 45, 55); “Making many arrests/Issuing many tickets helps you
receive a good evaluation” (See Appendix B, Item 46, 56); “Making few arrests/Issuing a
few tickets leads to an unexpected transfer to another department” (See Appendix B,
Items 49, 59); “Making few arrests/Issuing few tickets leads to the undermining of your
competency among fellow police officers” (See Appendix B, Items 50, 60). Through
factor analysis (See Appendix A), two organizational factors concerned with making
arrests or issuing tickets emerged: motivation factors and frustration factors. Besides,
experience of training and receiving orders was asked. They were the questions “During
the past six months, did you receive an order from your supervisor to focus on making
numerous arrests (See Appendix B, Item 53) or on issuing tickets (See Appendix B, Item
63)?”; “Did you receive special educational training focusing on making arrests (See

Appendix B, Item 54) or issuing tickets (See Appendix B, Item 64)?”. ~

3. Perceptions of Situational Factors

Worden (1989) noted that police behavior can be affected by situational factors.
Features of social structure, such as the social status of victims, complainants, and
suspects, represent extra-legal criteria on the basis of which sanctions are applied. In
previous research, situational factors refer to the features of social structure, social status
of victims, measured by the severity of the offense, the visibility of the encounter,
characteristics of the suspects, characteristics of the victims, and the relationship between
the parties (Worden, 1989). Situational factors in this study refer to the features of social

structure when the police work is executed. Due to the research design, it is difficult to

32

elicit information concerning all situational factors. For convenience, officers were asked
only about the visibility of the suspects with the statement “The probability of
encountering suspects concerned with Five Indexed Crimes (FIC) is higher in your
jurisdiction than in the other jurisdictions (See Appendix B, Items 51)” and “The
probability of encountering suspects concerned with Basic Order Violation (BOV) is

higher in your jurisdiction than in the other jurisdictions (See Appendix B, Items 62).”

4. Demographics Factors

Six demographic characteristics, including gender (See Appendix B, Item 1), age
(See Appendix B, Item 2), marital status (See Appendix B, Item 3), rank (See Appendix B,
Item 4), education (See Appendix B, Item 5), length of total service (See Appendix B,
Item 6), and length of current position (See Appendix B, Item 7) were asked to provide
background information. Gender was measured on the basis of respondents’ self-
identiﬁcation. Age was measured according to respondents’ self-description. Marital
status contained three categories: married, single or never married, and other (divorced,
widowed, etc.). Rank was measured in four categories: Patrol officer, Senior Patrol
ofﬁcer, Assistant Inspector, and Inspector. Education was measured on a continuum of
four categories from high school or below to graduate or above. Length of total service

and length in current position were measured according to officers’ self-description.

33

Measure of Dependent Variables

Wycoff and Manning (1983) stated that police officers’ job performance refers to
the execution of police work that is independent of its consequences after their work is
completed. Wilson (1968) stated that police have three major types of work: law
enforcement, order maintenance, and service provisions. Therefore, the conceptual
deﬁnition of ofﬁcers’ job performance in this study is in regard to the performance of the
three major types of work independent of consequences. Wilson (1968) suggested that
law enforcement activities are crime-control activities such as making arrests, checking
vehicles, and investigating a burglary in progress; order maintenance activities refer to
control behavior that either disturb or threatens to disturb the public peace or involves a
dispute over what is right or seemly conduct; service provisions are exempliﬁed through
such activities as assisting persons, dealing with drunkenness or public intoxication, and
escorting vehicles. The difference between the law enforcement and order maintenance is
that former is what he does when there is no dispute, while the later is what he does when
there is a dispute with culpability.

Table 2 illustrates the dependent variables regarding officers’ job performance.
Frequencies of making an arrest represent ofﬁcers’ job performance regarding law
enforcement duties. Previous researchers measured ofﬁcers’ law enforcement activities in
the same manner (Terrill et al., 2003; Engel and Worden, 2003). In Korea, several crimes
such as murder, robbery, rape, theft, and violence are accentuated in officers’ duties
because these crimes are considered the most heinous by Korean police managers, and
are also referred to as the Five Index Crimes (FIC). As a result, making a FIC arrest is

valued more in ofﬁcers’ evaluation, so officers are more likely to focus on making FIC

34

Table 2. Dependent Variables, Coding, Mean and Standard Deviation (N = 737)
DeJendent Variables Coding Mean (SD)

 

 

Law Enforcement (N a = 708)
Arrest (Five Indexed Crime) 1 — 8 ' 2.39 (1.69)

Order Maintenance (N a = 699)
Police Ticket (Basic Order Violation) 1 — 8 4.29 (2.66)

Service Provision (N a = 703)
Time 1 — 8 4.00 (2.06)
3 Missing is not reported

 

arrests rather than arrests for petty crimes. Yet, both FIC arrests and arrests for other
crimes in Korea represent officers’ law enforcement activities/duties. In 2003, the Korean
police made 399,119 FIC arrests. During the last decade, the number arrests by Korean
police have slightly increased.

In this study, frequencies of issuing tickets of Basic Order Violation represent
officers’ job performance for order maintenance. In Korea, police issue a ticket for a
violation of a Minor Criminal Act as of the Basic Order. The Minor Criminal Act was
initiated in 1954 and amended in 1983. It is intended to prevent crime, to maintain public
peace and order, and to achieve other purposes. Furthermore, it is intended to punish
minor immoral acts that do not meet the criteria for violations defined in the Criminal
Act. Some of the acts prescribed in the Minor Criminal Act are as follows: simple assault,
jaywalking, begging, public indecency (exposure), dumping garbage in a public place,
urinating in public, spitting, public drunkenness, and smoking where prohibited. Police
can issue a ticket, called “Tonggo-Cheoboon,” which exempts violators from an ordinary
expensive legal procedure unless they disobey the ‘Tonggo-Cheoboon”. If a violator

accepts the ”Tonggo-Cheoboon”, he or she pays a ﬁne without going onto one’s record.

35

In 2003, Korean police issued 800,392 tickets nationwide, 761,683 of which accepted the
“Tonggo-Cheoboon” and 38,709 of which preferred an ordinary legal procedure, called
“Jeokeyol,” a summary trial. During the last decade, the number of tickets issued by
Korean police has ﬂuctuated.

Time spent providing citizens with police services represents officers’ job
performance regarding service provisions. Previous qualitative researchers measured
ofﬁcers’ community policing activities through observing their time spent with citizens
(Terrill et al., 2003; Engel & Worden, 2003; DeJong et al., 2001). These studies
examined the time that ofﬁcers spent on problem-solving activities as dependent

variables for estimating the effects of officers’ opportunities, attitudes, and police culture.

1. Job Performance of law Enforcement

An item was created to measure arrest activities concerning the FIC (Item 65).
The item was generated for the Korean context. Respondents were asked to indicate how
many arrests they had made during the past six months. Item (65) “arrest of FIC” was
broken down into eight separate parts: (1)0 — 1, (2) 2 — 3, (3)4 - 5, (4) 6 — 7, (5) 8 - 9,
(6) 10 - 11, (7) 12 — 13, (8) Over 14. The range of each item was decided after
examining several ofﬁcers’ arrest rates. High values indicate higher law enforcement

activities.

2. Job Performance of Order Maintenance

This study uses issuing tickets for a Basic Order Violation (BOV) as a dependent

variable for order maintenance (Item 67). For Item 67, respondents were asked to indicate

36

the number of BOV tickets they issued during the past six months. Item (67) “police
ticket of a BOV” was broken down into eight separate parts: (1) 0 - 6, (2) 7 — 13, ( 3) 14
— 20, (4) 21 — 27, (5) 28 — 34, (6) 35 — 41, (7) 42 — 48, (8) Over 49. The range of the item
was decided after examining several ofﬁcers’ ticketing rates of BOVs. High values

indicate higher order maintenance activities.

3. Job Performance of Service Provision

This study uses time spent providing citizens with services as a dependent .
variable for service provisions (Item 69). Ofﬁcers were asked to indicate the amount of
time spent providing services to citizens during each shift (09:00-21:00), excluding time
spent staying in the ofﬁce, making arrests, and issuing tickets. The item “time spent-
service provisions” is broken down into eight separate parts: (1) 0— 15 Min., (2) 16— 30
Min., (3) 31- 45 Min., (4) 46— 60 Min., (5) 61— 90 Min., (6) 91— 120 Min., (7) 121- 150
Min., and (8) Over 151 Min. The range of the item was decided after examining several

officers’ working styles. High values indicate higher service provision activities.

37

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

This paper investigates the relationship between officers’ attitudes toward the role
of police and their job performance, using data collected from four police stations in
Seoul, South Korea. Several hypotheses which examine the inﬂuence of three factorial
attitudes, organizational factors, and one situational factor on officers’ job performance
were tested. This chapter begins with a discussion of the descriptive statistics and the

bivariate correlations among the variables. Next, multivariate analyses are reviewed.

Explmtions of Demographic Factors

Table 3 illustrates the demographic characteristics of police officers in Seoul,
Korea (N=737). In regard to gender, 95.4 percent of officers were men, while 1.9 percent
of ofﬁcers were women. The age of ofﬁcers ranged from 21 to 57 years old; both the
middle-aged group (33-44 years old) and the older group (45 or more) were larger than
the younger group (21-32 years old). Of the ofﬁcers, 58.7 percent were less than 45 years
old. Regarding marital status, 79.6 percent of ofﬁcers were married, while divorced or
widowed ofﬁcers only amounted to .5 percent. In regard to rank, 92.2 percent of the
ofﬁcers were Assistant Inspectors or lower level ofﬁcers, while 4.2 percent of the officers
were Inspectors. Almost half of the ofﬁcers had the equivalent of a high school education
or less, while 25.8 percent of the officers had the equivalent of a four-year college degree
or above. The total length of serve as a police officer ranged from zero to 388 months.

Officers who had 10 years or less experience amounted to 31.1 percent, while 36.4

38

Table 3. Sample Characteristics

 

 

Demographics N * Percent*
Total Number of Cases 737 100.0
Gender

Male 703 ‘ 95.4

Female 14 1.9
Age

21-32 152 20.6

33-44 281 38.1

45 or more 273 37.0
Marital status

Married 587 79.6

Single, Unmarried 120 16.3

Others (Divorced, Widow, etc.) 4 .5
Rank

Patrol ofﬁcer 130 17.6

Senior Patrol ofﬁcer 214 29.0

Assistant Inspector 336 45.6

Inspector 31 4.2
Education

High School or Below 377 51.2

2-year College 133 18.0

4-year College or Above 190 . 25.8
Length of Total Service (Month)

0- 120 229 31.1

121-240 268 36.4

241 or more 203 27.5
Length of Current Position (Month)

0-12 270 36.6

13-24 303 41.1

25 or more 121 16.4

 

* Missing is not reported

percent had 10 to 20 years of service, and 27.5 percent had more than 20 years of service.
For length in current position, 77.7 percent of the ofﬁcers served two years or less, while
16.4 percent of the officers had more than two years experience in the community

policing corps.

39

Descriptive and Univariate Statistics

Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the frequencies, percentages, means and standard
deviations for all variables. In regard to attitudes toward the police role, the mean of
positive attitude toward law-enforcement activities was 6.71 with a standard deviation of
1.27, while the mean of positive attitude toward order-maintenance and service-provision
activities were respectively 9.09 with a standard deviation of 1.82 and 9.65 with a
standard deviation of 1.84.

For perceptions of organizational factors, the mean of motivation factors for
making arrests was 8.52 with a standard deviation of 2.16, while the mean of frustration
factors of making arrest was 6.71 with a standard deviation of 1.95. The mean of
motivation factors for issuing tickets was 6.85 with a standard deviation of 2.16, while
the mean of frustration factors for issuing tickets was 6.78 with a standard deviation of
1.96. Almost 70 percent of ofﬁcers received an order from their supervisor to focus on
making arrests, while less than half of the ofﬁcers (48%) received special educational
training concerned with arrests. More than half of the ofﬁcers (64%) received an order
from their supervisor to focus on issuing tickets, while less than half of the ofﬁcers (40%)
received special educational training concerned with issuing tickets.

For ofﬁcers’ perceptions of situational factors, the mean of the likelihood of
encountering suspects for arrest was 2.81 with a standard deviation of .82, while the
mean of the likelihood of encountering individuals for issuing tickets was 2.73 with the
standard deviation of .77.

For the dependent variables, the mean of arrests for a Five Index Crime (FIC) was

2.39 with a standard deviation of 1.69; the mean of tickets for a Basic Order Violation

40

was 4.29 with a standard deviation of 2.66; and the mean of the time spent on service

provisions was 4.00 with a standard deviation of 2.06.

Bivariﬁate mtistics

To see the bivariate relationship between demographic characteristics and arrest,
issuing tickets and time spent on service provisions, One-Way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was conducted. When F value was statistically signiﬁcant, the Turkey
analysis was conducted for multiple comparisons. Table 4 illustrates the mean
differences by demographic characteristics. For age on ofﬁcers’ job performance, the
middle-aged group made more arrests (2.53) than the young group (2.17). Interestingly,
regarding time spent on service provisions, young officers more spent on service
provision than the old group (4.25, 3.78, respectively).

Married officers made more arrests (2.45) than single or unmarried officers (2.10),
although the Turkey statistic indicated the mean difference between them was not
statistically signiﬁcant.

In regard to rank, Senior Patrol officers made most arrests (2.69), while Patrol
officers made fewest arrests (1.96). Regarding tickets, Senior Patrol ofﬁcers issued the
most police tickets (4.61), while the mean for Assistant Inspectors was 4.38, and
Inspectors issued the fewest tickets (2.39). Regarding time spent on service provisions,
Patrol ofﬁcers (4.24) spent more time on service provisions than Inspectors (3.24).
Higher-ranking ofﬁcers were spent on less time on service provisions (Patrol ofﬁcer-4.24,
Senior Patrol officem4. 10, Assistant Inspector=3.88, Inspectom3.24), even though

multiple comparisons of the Turkey statistic only showed the mean difference between

41

Table 4. Comparison of Mean Differences (ANOVA) for Respondent Characteristics

 

 

Arrest a Police Ticket 8 Time a
Age
21-32 2.17/150 3.98/148 4.25/148
(1.54) . (2.64) (2.15)
33-44 2.53/275 4.50/272 4.10/272
(1.79) (2.62) (2.12)
45 or more 2.36/255 4.18/252 3.78/256
(1.64) (2.70) (1.95)
F Value 2.33* 2.04 2.88*
Marital Status
Married 2.45/565 4.33/559 3.97/560
(1.70) (2.66) (2.07)
Single, Unmarried 2.10/116 3.96/114 4.11/116
(1.53) (2.60) (2.10)
Others (Divorced, Widow, etc.) 3.50/4 4.50/4 3.75/4
(3.00) (2.89) (2.06)
F Value 2.88* .93 .25
Rank
Patrol officer 1.96/ 128 3.67/126 4.24/127
(1.45) (2.51) (2.15)
Senior Patrol ofﬁcer 2.69/206 4.61/204 4.10/203
(1.76) (2.64) (2.14)
Assistant Inspector 2.37/324 4.38/323 3.88/320
(1.64) (2.65) (2.02)
Inspector 2.38/26 2.39/23 3.24/29
(2.26) (2.68) (1.68)
F Value 5.01** 7.47*** 239*
Education _
High School or Below 2.39/36] 4.35/357 3.90/360
( 1.69) (2.75) (2.07)
2-year College 2.56/131 4.26/128 3.96/128
(1.79) (2.49) (1.98)
4-year College or Above 2.27/ 182 4.05/182 4.25/183
(1.64) (2.59) (2.13)
F Value 1.12 .756 1.78
Length of Total Service (Month)
0-120 2.26/226 4.14/224 4.24/223
(1.58) (2.56) (2.13)
121-240 2.61/259 4.59/256 3.90/256
(1.79) (2.70) (2.00)
241 or more 2.26/190 4.05/188 3.79/191
(1.64) (2.70) (2.03)
F Value 352* 2.76* 2.78*
Length of Current Position (Month)
0-12 2.22/258 3.85/254 4.12/257
(1.64) (2.54) (2.11)
13-24 2.46/294 4.66/292 3.87/291
(1.66) (2.74) (2.04)
25 or more 2.69/118 4.27/116 4.13/116
(1.86) (2.59) (2.07)
F Value 3.31* 6.53“ 1.23

 

a . .
Mean scores / number of cases; (standard devratron)

* p S .10, ** p S .01, *** p S .001; *, **, ***: Turkey analysis was used for multiple comparisons.

42

Patrol officers and Inspectors was statistically significant.

In education, no statistically significant mean differences were found. However,
the results showed interesting patterns on ofﬁcers’ job performance: more educated
ofﬁcers made less arrests and issued fewer tickets (arrests=2.39, 2.56, 2.27 respectively;
tickets: 4.35, 4.26, 4.05 respectively); and more educated ofﬁcers spent more time on
service provisions (3.90, 3.96, 4.25 respectively).

For the length of total service, statistically significant differences of the means
were found in almost all job performance areas. Speciﬁcally, those with 10-20 years
service made most arrests (2.61), compared to those with 10 years or less of service or
ofﬁcers with 20 or more years of service (2.26). Ofﬁcers with 10-20 years of service
issued the most tickets (4.59), while those with 20 years or more issued fewer tickets
(4.05). Regarding the time spent on service provisions, those with 20 years or more of
service (3.79) spent less time on service provision than those with 10 years or less of
service (4.24).

As for the length in current position, statistical mean differences were found in
two job performance areas. Regarding arrest, ofﬁcers who spent 2 years or more in
current positions (2.69) made more arrests than those who spent 1 year or less in current
positions (2.22). Regarding ticket, one to two years in the current position issued the most
tickets (4.66) compared to other groups (3.85, 4.27, respectively), while the mean
' difference among them was not statistically signiﬁcant, according to the Turkey statistic.

The correlation coefﬁcients (Pearson’s r) for the variables included in the analyses
are displayed in Table 5. An examination of the coefficients reveals several signiﬁcant

relationships among the independent variables. More specifically, service provision-

43

.2336 3?: Se 2: a edge»: a eoesoeeu
$25-9 _o>o_ 3o 2: a 28:2? 2 8.3280 ..

 

 

:v0g. :02. :02. 35. :08. a8.- 30. :NE. ~83: no 523305

.tmao. :03. .am _. .08. .vao. 000.- 2-0. ..v0_. 3.2.8 00 com—Bangs”
:2 _. :30. 0 _ o. .30. we. :aao. 08. 0:0.- wEESH
.mwo. coo. a5. 08.- :3 M. . wmc. :30. v3. EEO
:am0. woo. wmor amor 35.. v00.- .ms. 500. magnum :oambman—
:ovm. :Eh. 08. N50. 340.- 08. Re. vmo. 392$ 503002

Soc—own. oozom
03. .mwo. 08. .30. 58. 000. m8.- mmo. wet—02H.
:m ~ _. 03. 03. wmc. .30. too. :wao. mmo. 820
_0o. 03. to: mac. 2b.- N-wo. v.00. 382$ eon—Ewan
:3” _. LC. :30. a3. owe. mvo. mcouonm coagaoE

~35

:Nvm. :03. 30. So.- 03. 53305 333m

:w0~ . .boo. So. 03. coca—.8282 .505

who. moor 5N0. eeoEoocouem 33

.03. 30. 082.

:Ohm. Hoe—o; com—om

“mug

Eouomm accomm E5305 ooemcuHEe—z Echocﬁem
:onebmam conguoz oo_>..om EEO 3 08¢. “cc—o:- oozom $2.2.
“mug $2.3. . 3

 

£522 $5022.50 EEO ocoN .m 20a.

44

.6253 :32 So on. a ace-Ewe e eoesoeoc
623-8 as. 86 cs 3 Eocene a 83850 ..

 

 

.84. :8. ..§. .oE. ins. e8. So. ease o 5:585
.98. .25. c8. ewe. as. one. nose cc 5538..

tmmm. .oB. rmﬂ. tone. :02. wees;

:5. . N8: ...-.2. ram. 520

tam. So. $8. cocoa Seesaw

n00. wvo. £98m 503002
coco:- 8:9.

ran. wees;

. HDUhO
£98m :ozabmam
€8er :oumzcoz

38.9.

.5335 835m

3:38:82 60.5

EoEoocoEm 33

ca:

cocoa. oozoe

~85
6on we “more we wage; EEO 958$ 398”— wemﬁaﬁ. 505
3:535 £335 5on 8:8 sec. case Seneca”. 82sec: :22 .85.

coco; oo=£ cocoa. 8:8

 

Goneucouv .er2 9802850 EEO ocoN .m 20$.

45

oriented officers were more likely to be motivated in arresting than law enforcement-
oriented ofﬁcers (r = .134, .098, respectively). Service provision-oriented ofﬁcers were
more likely than law enforcement-oriented ofﬁcers to regard the probability of
encountering suspects for arrest and issuing tickets as higher than other jurisdictions (r

= .159, .094; r = .105, .096, respectively). In terms of organizational factors, officers
encouraged by motivation factors for arrest were more likely to also be encouraged by
motivation factors for issuing tickets than officers encouraged by frustration factors of
arrest (r = .447, .240, respectively). Finally, ofﬁcers encouraged by motivation factors to
issue tickets were less likely to perceive encounters as higher than other jurisdictions than
ofﬁcers encouraged by frustration factors (r = .125, .189).

While signiﬁcant relationships exist among a number of independent variables,
there are also several independent variables related to ofﬁcers’ job performance. An
examination of the coefﬁcients reveals several significant relationships between the
independent and dependent variables. In regard to arrest, only situational factors were
statistically associated with arrest. Speciﬁcally, the probabilities of encountering suspects
for both arrests and tickets were signiﬁcantly associated with arrest (r = .164, .102). For
issuing tickets, several organizational factors were statistically associated with issuing
ticket activities. Speciﬁcally, ofﬁcers who received orders to make increased arrests were
more likely to issue more tickets than those who did not (r = .098). One attitudinal factor
was associated with the time spent on service provisions. Order maintenance-oriented
officers were weakly associated with the time spent on service provision (r = .097).
Training experience as an organizational factor was also associated with the time spent on

service provisions (r = .099).

46

The results of the bivariate correlations illustrate that attitudes, organizational
factors, and situational factors are associated with an ofﬁcers’ job performance. In order
to determine to what degree to which each variable inﬂuences outcomes at each stage,

controlling for all other variables in the model, multivariate analysis is needed.

47

Test of Hypotheses

The hypotheses tests were based on assessments of direction, statistical
signiﬁcance, and size of the individual level regression coefficients and the coefficient of
determination (R2). The generalized linear regression analysis was used to test the
hypotheses since all dependent variables consisted of more than eight levels, most of
which were ordinal or ratio level. Typically, when two variables are an interval or ratio
level, the relationship between the two variables is usually measured by linear regression
analysis. However, this study used generalized linear regression analysis. In the
generalized linear regression, the eta statistic is reported, which conveys the extent of the
total explained variance (R2) contributed by individual predictors. In this study, p S .10
was used as an indicator that an effect was greater than zero.

Multivariate linear regression analysis, including all demographic characteristics
was conducted to analyze the relationship between all the independent variables
including demographic factors and dependent variables. Table 6 displays the multivariate
correlates on job performance. To determine the relative inﬂuence of each factor of
attitudes, organizational and situational perceptions, linear regression analysis was
performed. The coefﬁcient of determination (R2 = .04) illustrates that four percent of the
variance in making arrest activities is explained by all attitudinal, organizational, and
situational factors. In addition, the R-squared value represents that four percent of the
variance in both issuing tickets (.04) and time spent on service provisions (.04) is

explained by all the factors.

48

Table 6. Multivariate Correlates of Officers’ Job Performance

 

 

Arrest Police Ticket Time
b (S.E.) b (S.E.) b (S.E.)
Attitudes .
Law Enforcement .03 (.05) -.04 (.09) .09 (.07)
Order Maintenance .03 (.04) .01 (.06) .06 (.05)
Service Provision -.03 (.04) -.05 (.06) .00 (.05)
Organizational Factors
Arrest
-Motivation Factors -.00 (.03) .06 (.06) .00 (.04)
-Frustration Factors .02 (.04) .02 (.07) -.07 (.05)
-Order .00 (.17) .17 (.27) .06 (.21)
-Training '.17 (.18) -.23 (.29) -.13 (.23)
Police Ticket
-Motivation Factors .02 (.04) -.05 (.06) .08* (.05)
—Frustration Factors .03 (.05) .11 (.07) -.07 (.06)
-Order .05 (.16) .74** (.26) .13 (.20)
-Training -.00 (.19) -.01 (.30) .45* (.23)
Situational Factors
Probability of arrest .29*** (.09) .22 (.14) -.20* (.11)
Probability of ticket .08 (.09) -.15 (.15) .03 (.12)
Constant .70 .58 3.16 .94 3.45 .73
R2 04 .04 .04

 

* p s .10, ** p s .01, *** p s .001

The Relationship between Oﬁicers ’Attitudes and Their Job Performance

The ﬁrst hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between ofﬁcers’ attitudes and
job performance. Illustrated in Table 6, essentially no relationship exists between ofﬁcers’
attitudes toward police role and job performance. Regarding the relationship between
ofﬁcers’ attitudes toward the police role and arrest, no statistically significant relationship
was found. Speciﬁcally, although the law enforcement-oriented officers made more or
less arrests (b = .03, .03, -.03, respectively), when ofﬁcers’ orientation increased by 1 unit,

there was no statistically signiﬁcant relationship. Regarding the relationship between

49

officers’ attitudes toward police role and issuing tickets, no statistically signiﬁcant
relationship was found. Speciﬁcally, even if the order maintenance-oriented officers
made more or less arrests (b = -.04, .01, -.05, respectively), when ofﬁcers’ orientation
increased by 1 unit, there was no statistically significant relationship. Finally, no
signiﬁcant relationship was found for the relationship between officers’ attitudes toward

police role and spent time in service provisions.

The Relationship between Organizational Factors and Oﬂicers’Job Performance

It was also hypothesized that there may be a relationship between organizational
factors and ofﬁcers’ job performance. Illustrated in Table 6, there are weak relationships
between several organizational factors and job performance. Speciﬁcally, regarding the
relationship between organizational factors and making arrests, no statistically signiﬁcant
relationship was found. However, regarding the relationship between) organizational
factors and both issuing tickets and time spent on service provisions, signiﬁcant
relationships were found. Moreover, officers who received orders to focus on making
arrests issued more tickets (.74). Ofﬁcers encouraged by motivational factors of issuing
tickets spent more time on service provisions (.05) when ofﬁcers’ encouragement
increased by 1 unit. Lastly, officers who received special education about police ticket

spent more time on service provisions (.45) when they received specialized training.
The Relationship between Situational Factors and Oﬂicers’Job Performance

This study investigated the relationship between situational factors and officers’

job performance. Table 6 indicates there are two relationships between ofﬁcers’

50

perception of situations and job performance. Speciﬁcally, in regard to the relationship
between officers’ perception of the possibility of encountering suspects for arrest and
arrest, a statistically strong relationship was found. Ofﬁcers. who thought they would
encounter more suspects to arrest than other jurisdictions made .29 more arrests when
their perception increased by 1 unit. However, ofﬁcers who thought they would
encounter more suspects for arrest than other jurisdictions spent less time on service

provisions (-.20).

51

Multivariate Analysis of Job performance Involving Demographic Factors

To further explore the effects of all independent variables on ofﬁcers’ job
performance, multivariate analysis including demographic factors was performed. Linear
regression was used for the multivariate analysis. Table 7 displays the multivariate
analysis of all independent variables including demographic factors on officers’ job
performance. An R2 value of .08 illustrates that eight percent of the variance in making
arrests is explained by all attitudinal, organizational, situational factors, and several
demographic factors. Furthermore, eight percent of the variance in issuing tickets is
explained by all the attitudinal, organizational, situational factors, and several
demographic factors (R2=.08). Finally, six percent of the variance in time spent on service
provision is explained by all attitudinal, organizational, situational, and several
demographic factors (R2=.06).

The results of the analyses are mixed. Speciﬁcally, attitudinal (factors did not have
statistically signiﬁcant relationship with ofﬁcers’ job performance. Regarding the
relationship between organizational factors and ofﬁcers’ job performance, two
statistically signiﬁcant relationships were found: Ofﬁcers who received orders to focus on
making arrests issued more tickets (.72); and ofﬁcers who received special educational
training regarding tickets spent increased time on service provisions (.44). Regarding
situational factors and ofﬁcers’ job performance, only one relationship was found.
Ofﬁcers who thought they would encounter more suspects to arrest than other
jurisdictions made .29 more arrests when their perception increased by 1 unit.

Several statistically signiﬁcant relationships were found for demographic

characteristics and officers’ job performance. In regard to the demographic factors and

52

Table 7. Multivariate Correlates of Job Performance (Including Demographics Factors)

 

 

Arrest Police Ticket Time
b (S.E.) b (S.E.) b (S.E.)
Attitudes
Law Enforcement .01 (.06) 7.10 (.09) .ll (.07)
Order Maintenance .05 (.04) .OO (.06) .06 (.05)
Service Provision -.01 (.04) -.OO (.06) .Ol (.05)
Organizational Factors
Arrest
- Motivation Factors -.Ol (.04) .08 (.06) -.01 (.05)
- Frustration Factors .0] (.04) .02 (.07) -.08 (.06)
- Order -.01 (.17) .17 (.28) -.01 (.22)
- Training -.10 (.19) -.12 (.31) -.02 (.24)
Police Ticket
- Motivation Factors .05 (.04) -.OO (.06) .07 (.05)
- Frustration Factors .04 (.05) .ll (.07) -.04 (.06)
- Order .09 (.17) .72** (.27) .13 (.21)
- Training -.08 (.20) -.15 (.32) .44* (.25)
Situational Factors
Probability of arrest .31*** (.09) .14 (.15) -.18 (.11)
Probability of ticket .08 (.10) -.07 (.16) -.OO (.13)
Ofﬁcers’ Characteristics
Age
- Young (21-33) .21 (.37) .82 (.59) .41 (.46)
- Middle (3344) -.15 (.25) .13 (.40) .26 (.31)
- Old (45-57) Reference Group
Marital Status
- Married Reference Group
- Single, Unmarried .ll (.24) .19 (.38) -.19 (.30)
- Other (Divorced, Widow, etc.) -.90 (1.19) -.16 (1.89) -1.00 (1.48)
Rank
- Patrol Ofﬁcer -.27 (.35) -l.04* (.56) -.05 (.44)
- Senior Patrol Ofﬁcer 50* (.21) .05 (.34) .23 (.27)
- Assistant Inspector Reference Group
- Inspector .14 (.36) -2.07*** (.60) -.93* (.43)
Education
- High School or Below -.07 (.19) .04 (.30) -.07 (.24)
- 2—year College -.05 (.21) .13 (.30) .19 (.24)
- 4-year College or Higher Reference Group
Length of Total Service (Months)
- 0-10 years (0-120)
- 10-20 years (121-240) .43* (.24) .25 (.39) -.O4 (.31)
- 20 years or more (241-388) .14 (.35) .11 (.56) .12 (.44)
Length of Current Position (Mon.)
- 1 year or less (0-12) -.20 (.20) -.55* (.25) .31 (.20)
- 1-2 years (13-24) Reference Group
- 2 years or more (25-336) .14 (.19) -.33 (.30) .28 (.24)
Constant .13 (.71) 3.30 (1.14) 2.92 (.89)
R2 .08 .08 .06

 

* p5 .10, ** pf .01, *** p5 .001

53

arrests, two statistically significant relationships were found. Speciﬁcally, Senior Patrol
ofﬁcers made more arrests than Assistant Inspectors (.50) while those who served 10-20
years made more arrests than those with 10 years or less of service (.43).

An examination of demographics and issuing tickets revealed two statistically
signiﬁcant relationships. Patrol officers issued fewer tickets than Assistant Inspectors (-
1.04) while Inspectors issued the fewest tickets compared to the Assistant Inspectors (-
2.07).

With regard to the relationship between demographic factors and time spent on
service provisions, only one statistically signiﬁcant relationship was found. Inspectors

spent less time on service provisions than Assistant Inspectors (-.93).

54

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Summm of Findings

This study examined the factors which influence officers’ job performance. More
specifically, the attitudinal inﬂuence, including organizational and situational factors on
ofﬁcers’ job performance were assessed. The purpose of this paper was to determine if
there was a relationship between officers’ attitudes and their job performance; between
perceptions of organizational factors and job performance; and between perceptions of
situational factors and ofﬁcers’ job performance. Overall, the results indicate: 1) there
was little, if any, relationship between ofﬁcers’ attitudes and their job performance; 2)
several organizational factors seemed to affect officers’ job performance; 3) one
situational factor of probability of an arrest encounter in an officer’s jurisdiction
signiﬁcantly increased the probability of arrest. However, the relatively low amount of
explained variance in the dependent variables described above indicates there are other

predictors which inﬂuence job performance.

Discussion

The results are consistent with most previous research findings concerning the
attitudinal inﬂuence on ofﬁcers’ behavior. Since no relationship between attitudes and
behavior emerged, this suggests a similar dilemma of social psychologists’ understanding
of the attitude-behavior relationship. Social psychiatrists have identiﬁed complex

relationships between attitudes and behavior. Ideally, positive attitudes manifest well-

55

adjusted behavior. However, in some cases healthy attitudes may result in destructive
behavior. Similarly, in this study, service provision-oriented ofﬁcers spent less time on
service-provisions, made fewer arrests and issued fewer tickets, although this relationship
was not signiﬁcant. Studies have demonstrated that inconsistencies between attitudes and
behavior can redirect behavior. Ofﬁcers in this sample may perform their jobs differently,
inconsistent with components of the attitude-behavior relationship.

It is also possible that some of the measurement problems regarding the
independent and dependent variables resulted in an inability to fully capture all of the
elements of the attitude and behavior relationship. This author measured attitudes toward
order maintenance by dividing into the item “how often do you think patrol ofﬁcers
should respond to nuisance violations which may be problematic for community residents
(e.g. abandoned cars and houses)”? However, some researchers used this item to measure
attitudes toward community policing. The result of the factor analysis of the attitudinal
items illustrated that this item was considered the same to respondents as attitudes toward
order maintenance. This may result from a difference in perceptions between US. police
ofﬁcers and South Korean police ofﬁcers. Yet, clearly it illustrates the difﬁculty of
measuring an attitudinal dimension.

Moreover, measuring behavior had additional complications. Most research
previously utilized one dependent variable as a behavioral dimension, such as arrest, time
spent on problem solving, or use of force, etc. This type of approach may also result in an
insufﬁcient measure of the dependent variable. That is, in investigating a relationship
between role-oriented attitudes and job performance, simply measuring one aspect of job

performance is not sufﬁcient. In order to address consistency, a broader range of police

56

behavior was measured compared to previous research. For example, to measure order
maintenance activities, the number of issuing tickets for Basic Order Violations was
obtained; for law enforcement duties, the number of arrests. was measured; and ﬁnally,
for service provisions, time on service-provision was measured. The research was
designed to measure attitude-consistent job performance in policing. However, measuring
the dependent variables still appeared to have critical problems. This problem was
illustrated particularly in the construction of scales. The univariate analysis of arrests
indicated that half of the officers made less than three arrests during the past six months,
resulting in little variation. In addition, measuring time spent on service-provisions was
also problematic. A quarter of officers spent over 151 minutes during the day shift on
service provisions. Comparing the mean time of 31-45 minutes, the officers’ time spent is
quite difﬁcult to interpret. It may be due to the measurement of scales or the overall
difﬁculty in measuring the dependent variable of job performance.

Another explanation of no-relationship for the effect of attitudes upon job
performance may be attributed to the unique dynamics in the organization. Even if police
on the street have broader discretion than other criminal justice officials, this may be
restricted by increased organizational pressure. In Korea, the purpose of implementing
Jigoo-Dae system was in large part, due to the deficiency of police force (KNPA, 2004).
This resulted in the suspension of patrolling by police vehicles (KNPA, 2004).
Regretfully, there has been little research that examines the perceptions of police officers’
concern with their environment.

Several studies have examined the organizational inﬂuence on officers’ job

performance. However, no ﬁrm conclusion has been reached among police scholars. For

57

example, Novak et al. (2002) found that assignment as a community policing officer has
no direct effect on officers’ decision to arrest. In addition, Worden (1995) found that
ofﬁcers in more bureaucratic agencies use more force. Terrill and Mastrofski (2002)
found that ofﬁcers with more aggressive policies use more force. Although several
studies have examined the organizational effects on arrest and coercion, there is little
research for organizational effects on order maintenance or service provisions. Moreover,
this author could not locate any research concerning a relationship between officers’
attitudes toward the organization and their job performance. Of particular interest,
although not statistically signiﬁcant, frustration from issuing few tickets or few arrests
slightly increased the number of issued tickets or arrests, but decreased the time spent on
service provisions. One possible explanation is that Korean police ofﬁcers may be
apprehensive regarding certain aspects of their job performance, which led them to
perform their duties passively. Another explanation is that ofﬁcers who were encouraged
by frustration factors may not be likely to conduct their occupational duties proactively in
circumstances where job performance is not monitored. Both explanations may be
important for Korean police managers.

One situational factor on ofﬁcers’ job performance was assessed, since this study
focused on attitudinal factors rather than other factors (and also due to cost restrictions).
The most recent studies in the United States have utilized the observation method. For
better observation techniques, Mastrofski et al. (1995) conducted the systematic social
observation (SSO) methodology with trained researchers. Generally, previous research
has found that situational factors affect arrest decision-making. Yet, regarding specific

situational factors, prior research indicates differences. For example, a suspect’s race, sex,

58

and demeanor are respectively found as inﬂuential factors on officers’ job performance
(Novak et al., 2002; Worden, 1995; Engel et al., 2000; Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002;
Smith, 1986).

The ﬁndings indicate that officers who perceived they encountered more suspects
in their jurisdiction than in other jurisdictions made more arrests, while there was no
signiﬁcance for ofﬁcers who perceived they encountered more individuals for issuing
tickets. Although this ﬁnding was restricted by measurement ﬂaws, it showed ofﬁcers’
arrest decisions may be affected by situational factors.

The result of the multivariate analysis including demographic factors displayed
similar ﬁndings to the multivariate analysis of independent variables. Like the
multivariate analysis of independent analysis, a high probability of encountering suspects
increased actual arrests. However, several signiﬁcant factors in the independent variables
resulted in no statistically signiﬁcant relationships. For example, motivation factors of
making arrests had no statistically signiﬁcant effect on time spent on service provisions.
Likewise, the probability of encountering suspects for issuing tickets did not have a
statistically signiﬁcant effect on time spent on service provisions.

Several demographic factors revealed a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with
officers’ job performance. Particularly, rank had a signiﬁcant effect on officers’ job
performance. These results of multivariate analysis clearly showed some demographic

factors’ inﬂuence on officers’ job performance.

59

Research Implicgtions

This study improves upon past research in several ways. Most studies examining
the relationship between officers’ attitudes and behavior have focused on one aspect of
job performance as a behavior. To increase the scope, this study attempted to measure
diverse dimensions of police performance. Moreover, this is consistent with the
suggestion of social psychologists who assert the consistency of the relationship between
attitudes and behavior is an important factor for Operationalization. For consistency,
service provisions were measured, corresponding to attitudes toward service provisions
as a police function; and order maintenance was measured, corresponding to attitudes
toward order maintenance as a police function. Additionally, this also enables a
comparison of each job performance per the independent variables.

This research also suggests that more elaborate items concerning attitudes are
needed. South Korean police officers often interpret several items differently than US.
police ofﬁcers. For example, in US. research, the item of “how often do you think that
patrol officers should respond to nuisance violations that be problematic for community
residents?” is intended to measure an attitude toward community policing. For the South
Korean police, however, this item was interpreted as an order maintenance function.
Moreover, South Korean police identiﬁed the role of service provision with activities of
serving citizens. Through factor analysis, this study suggests that South Korean police
officers identified their role as three types: 1) law enforcement, 2) order maintenance
through resolving citizens’ disputes or expected problems, and 3) service provisions by
serving citizens. These role conceptions are slightly different than Wilson’s typology.

Therefore, additional research is needed to identify “what police do” from ofﬁcers’

60

perspectives.

Despite its strengths, this study has several limitations which must be expressed.
First, there is a concern regarding the constructed scales of items relating to job
performance. Although a pre-test for the scale of job performance was administered, the
result of this study raises a question that several items incorporated into the scale may be
inappropriate for proper measurement. For example, on average, ofﬁcers made fewer
than four arrests during the past six months, which corresponds with the range of two to
eight. This ﬁnding confounded the analysis because the variance was very small. In
addition, for a more precise measurement of officers’ job performance, the observation
technique is needed.

Second, although the survey instrument captured diverse attitudinal dimensions,
this study could not measure several situational factors. Noted from previous research
which found a relationship between situational factors and ofﬁcers’ job performance, the
observation technique, such as the systematic social observation (SSO) method, is a

useful and important consideration for the research design.

Policy Implications

One policy implication is the importance of training. The findings suggest that
ofﬁcers’ job performance regarding both the issuance of tickets and service provisions
was affected by ofﬁcers’ training experience. Many scholars in the United States have
considered training as an important tool in the process of facilitating change within police
organizations. Yet, one finding of interest is that training for arrest did not indicate a

significant inﬂuence on officers’ job performance. That is, only training concerning order

61

maintenance increased service provisions, while training concerning law enforcement
duties did not demonstrate a significant inﬂuence on any job performance. On the basis
of the ﬁndings, for more effective training, police managers are suggested to focus on
order maintenance training rather than law enforcement based training. Yet, as these
ﬁndings came from the responses to two questions asking whether or not ofﬁcers
experienced training and supervisors’ special directives, it is unclear what factors of
training affect officers’ job performance. Therefore, additional research is needed to

identify both factors and mechanisms.

62

Conclusion

This research investigated three relationships between: 1) officers’ attitudes and
their job performance, 2) organizational factors and ofﬁcers’ job performance, and 3)
situational factors and job performance. Following Wilson’s (1968) typology of police,
ofﬁcers’ job performance and their attitudes toward their role were categorized into three
areas: law enforcement duties, order maintenance, and service provisions.

The findings of this study do not provide any evidence for attitudinal inﬂuence on
job performance. Therefore, the ﬁrst hypotheses were not supported in regard to law
enforcement, order maintenance, and service provisions. However, there is some
evidence for organizational factors’ inﬂuence on job performance with respect to order
maintenance and service provisions. Yet, the ﬁndings do not provide support for the
inﬂuence of organizational factors on job performance. Moreover, the second hypothesis
was partially supported with regard to order maintenance and service provision activities.
These results do provide support for situational factors’ inﬂuence on job performance.
However, this was found in regard to law enforcement duties. The third hypothesis was
also partially supported for law enforcement.

The above results should be approached with caution, since statistical significance
was reported only in light of speciﬁc areas of job performance. The findings only suggest
that many factors exist which inﬂuence ofﬁcers’ job performance although unexplained.
In addition, the R-squared values in the multivariate models were quite low. This suggests
that there are other important variables that affect officers’ job performance. Therefore,
the hypotheses tests and results reveal ambiguity in job performance for the inﬂuence of

attitudinal, organizational, and situational factors.

63

The nature of ambiguity involved in the existence and explanation of the
relationships is meaningfully compared with the result of Engel and Worden’s (2003)
research on attitudes, behavior, and supervisors’ inﬂuence. They primarily did not ﬁnd a
relationship between attitudes and behavior, and supervisors’ priorities modestly, but
negatively affect ofﬁcers’ job performance. The authors attributed this failure of ﬁnding
signiﬁcance for the attitude-behavior relationship to the variation in how officers perform
their jobs as being not congruent with their occupational attitudes. They also stated that
situational pressures or factors inherent to the police organization may have also
accounted for their ﬁndings. In this study, ofﬁcers’ job performance, similar to ﬁndings in
the United States, was scarcely affected by officers’ attitudes. Therefore, Engel and
Worden’s assumption can be applied to Korea in regard to this relationship.

In conclusion, these issues raise important questions for further direction of future
research. In some areas of social psychology, conducting research with newly developed
models and measurements has provided support for the attitude-behavior relationship.
Therefore, if future researchers develop more sophisticated models, they may ﬁnd
different results. While the present study found some organizational or situational factors’
inﬂuence on job performance, these factors may or may not directly affect job

performance, or may also have an interactive effect.

64

APPENDICES

65

Appendix A. Factor Analyses of Independent Variables

 

 

Variables Survey Items (range of each item = 1-4) :23: 82:56:11”
Law 12. The primary function of police is to handle crime related 64
Enforcement problems. - ' 1 24

19. Enforcing the law in a strict way is a patrol ofﬁcer’s most 86 '
important responsibility. '
Order 21. How often do you think that patrol ofﬁcers should respond 83
Maintenance to neighbor disputes? '
22. How often do you think that patrol ofﬁcers should respond 85
to domestic disputes? ' 1.96
23. How often do you think that patrol ofﬁcers should respond
to nuisance businesses that may cause problems for community .71
residents (e.g. abandoned cars and houses)?
Service 14. The primary function of police is to provide community 80
Provision service. '
16. The primary purpose of police is to serve the citizens. .85 2.01
17. The primary function of police is to safeguard citizens’ 73
rights '
Motivation 45. Making many arrests will help you to achieve your 89
Factors promotion. '
(Arrest) 46. Making many arrests helps you receive a good evaluation .93 2.37
47. Making many arrests helps to gain recognition for your good 85
work from your supervisor '
Frustration 48. Making few arrests leads to consequences from your 75
Factors supervisor '
(Arrest) 49. Making few arrests leads to a transfer to an unexpected 87 1 99
workplace or department ' '
50. Making few arrests leads to undermining your competency 83
among fellow police ofﬁcers '
Motivation 55. Issuing many police tickets helps you in achieving your 83
Factors promotion. '
(Police 56. Issuing many police tickets helps you in receiving a good 91 2 12
Ticket) evaluation ' '
57. Issuing many police tickets helps you in receiving 74
recognition from your supervisor '
Frustration 58. Issuing few police tickets leads to consequences from your 72
Factors supervisor '
(Police 59. Issuing few police tickets leads a transfer to an unexpected 81 1 90
Ticket) workplace or department ' '
60. Issuing few police tickets leads to undermining my 81

competency amogg fellow police officers/ofﬁcials.

 

66

Appendix B. Questionnaires

SOUTH KOREAN OFFICERS’ JOB ATTITUDES AND JOB PERFORMANCE

Dear Colleagues,

This scientific research study is intended to identify relationships between officers’
attitudes and job performance. That is, the questionnaire is designed to assess the effects
of your perceptions of police work, supervisors, and the organization upon job
performance. Please ﬁll out the questionnaire as completely as possible. The survey
administrator does not know the names of the respondents who choose to
participate in the study nor do the surveys have any identification marks. All
responses will remain conﬁdential to the maximum extent allowable by law and will

not be used in anyway that may identify the participant.

Please remember that your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you
may refuse to answer any questions or stop participation at any time without penalty.
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this

questionnaire. This survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.

Should you have any questions regarding this research, please feel free to contact us. If
you have questions or concerns regarding your right as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if
you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects by email: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, IVII 48824, USA.

Many thanks and much appreciation for your time and cooperation.
Jongbo Kim Email: l_<imion18@m_§.edu
Dr. Vincent J. Hoffman Email: hoffmﬂvébmsuedu
Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice

518 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

67

 

 

Part 1. Background Information: Please answer the following questions by circling

the numbered response that best expresses your background, or write down the answer.

 

1. Are you male or female? 1) Male 2) Female
2. What was your age on your last birthday? Years Old

3. What is your current marital status?

1) Married 2) Single, never married 3) Other (Divorced, Widow, etc.)

4. What is your rank?

1) Patrol officer 2) Senior Patrol officer 3) Assistant Inspector 4) Inspector

5. What is your highest level of education?

1) High school or below 2) 2-year college 3) 4-year college 4) Graduate or above
6. How long have you been a police ofﬁcer? Years Months
7. How long have you worked in your current position? Years Months

8. In which department do you primarily work? (Please select only one response.)
1) Police Administration, Planning 4) Public Security
2) Crime Prevention 5) Intelligence, National Security

3) Criminal Investigation

9. If you had the opportunity, in which department would you like to work? (Please select
only one response.)

1) Police Administration, Planning 4) Public Security

2) Crime Prevention 5) Intelligence, National Security

3) Criminal Investigation

10. What is your gross annual family income?

1) Below 20,000,000 Won 6) 40,000,001 — 45,000,000 Won
2) 20,000,001 — 25,000,000 Won 7) 45,000,001 — 50,000,000 Won
3) 25,000,001 — 30,000,000 Won 8) 50,000,001 —- 55,000,000 Won
4) 30,000,001 — 35,000,000 Won 9) Over 55,000,001 Won

5) 35,000,001 — 40,000,000 Won

68

 

11. Which police station do you currently work for? Police Station

 

 

Part 2. Role Orientation: Please respond to the following statements or questions by

circling the numbered response that best expresses your personal view.

 

12. The primary function of police is to handle Crime related problems.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

13. The primary function of police is to maintain public order.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

14. The primary function of police is to provide community service.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

15. The primary purpose of police is to serve the government.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

16. The primary purpose of police is to serve the citizens.

I) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

17. The primary function of police is to safeguard citizens’ rights

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

18. The primary function of police is to safeguard government interests.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

19. Enforcing the law in a strict way is a patrol ofﬁcer’s most important responsibility.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

20. How often do you think that patrol ofﬁcers should check a suspicious person or a
suspicious car?
1) Never 2) Rarely 3) Sometimes 4) Always

21. How often do you think that patrol officers should respond to neighbor disputes?
1) Never 2) Rarely 3) Sometimes 4) Always

22. How often do you think that patrol officers should respond to domestic disputes?

1) Never 2) Rarely 3) Sometimes 4) Always

69

 

23. How often do you think that patrol officers should respond to nuisance businesses
that may cause problems for community residents (e.g. abandoned cars and houses)?

1) Never 2) Rarely 3) Sometimes 4) Always

24. How often do you think that patrol ofﬁcers should respond to drunken persons for
care?

1) Never 2) Rarely 4) Sometimes 4) Always

 

 

Part 3. Attitudes toward Supervisor: Please respond to the following statements or

questions by circling the numbered response that best expresses your personal view.

 

25. Your supervisor (chief of Jigoo-Dae) provides clear expectations to ofﬁcers.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

26. Your supervisor (chief of Jigoo-Dae) is concerned for the personal welfare of his/her
subordinates.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

27. Your supervisor (chief of J i goo-Dae) tends to take credit for work that you deserve.

l) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

28. You are satisﬁed with your supervisor (chief of Jigoo-Dae).
1) Very Dissatisﬁed 2) Dissatisfied Somewhat 3) Satisfied Somewhat 4) Very
Satisﬁed

29. Your supervisor (chief of J i goo-Dae) tends to avoid responsibilities he or she should
take.
1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

30. Your supervisor(chief of J i goo-Dae)’s approach tends to discourage you from giving
extra effort.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

31. Your supervisor (chief of Jigoo-Dae) is NOT the type of person you enjoy working
with.

70

 

l) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

32. Which function does your supervisor (chief of Jigoo-Dae) emphasize most on police
work?
1) Crime control of criminals 2) Order maintenance for society 3) Service provision for

citizens

 

 

Part 4. Attitudes toward Rewards: Please respond to the following statements or

questions by circling the numbered response that best expresses your personal view.

 

33. The one who works hard in your department tends to receive citations for merit.

l) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

34. The one who works hard in your department tends to receive a good evaluation.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

35. The one who works hard in your department tends to be promoted.

l) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

36. Considering your work ethic (low, medium, high), are you satisfied with the amount
of your salary?

1) Very Dissatisﬁed 3) Satisﬁed Somewhat

2) Dissatisﬁed Somewhat 4) Very Satisﬁed

 

 

Part 5. Attitudes toward Citizens: Please respond to the following statements by

circling the numbered response that best expresses your personal view.

 

37. In general, citizens are suspicious of police ofﬁcers.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

38. Most citizens in the community respect police ofﬁcers.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

39. Most citizens are willing to report a crime to the police when they are victimized.

71

 

 

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

40. Most citizens are willing to call the police if they see suspicious activity or witness a

crime.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

 

 

Part 6. Attitudes toward Discretion: Please respond to the following statements by

circling the numbered response that best expresses your personal view.

 

41. A police ofﬁcer should perform job functions by following the orders from
supervisory ofﬁcers.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

42. Police ofﬁcers do a better job when they follow clear, precise guidelines in handling
mmmm.

l) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

43. Police officers should have the right to make decisions regarding the enforcement of
laws rather than be obliged to follow organizational policies.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

44. In order to perform job duties, patrol ofﬁcers must sometimes overlook search and
seizure laws and other legal guidelines.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

 

 

Part 7. Attitudes toward Organization and situation (Arrests): Please respond to the
following statements or questions by circling the numbered response that best expresses

your personal view.

 

45. Making many arrests will help you to achieve your promotion.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

46. Making many arrests helps you receive a good evaluation.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

72

 

 

47 Making many arrests helps to gain recognition for your good work from your
supervisor.

l) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

48. Making few arrests leads to consequences from your supervisor.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

49. Making few arrests leads to a transfer to an unexpected workplace or department.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

50. Making few arrests leads to undermining your competency among fellow police
ofﬁcers.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

51. The probability of encountering suspects of the Five Index Crimes is higher in my
J igoo-Dae than in the other Jigoo-Dae.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

52. The probability of encountering criminal suspects (except for the Five Index
crimes) is higher in your Jigoo-Dae than in the other Jigoo-Dae.

l) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

53. During the past six months, did you receive an order from your supervisor to focus on
making numerous arrests?

1) Yes 2) No
54. During the past six months, did you receive special educational training focusing on
making arrests?

1) Yes 2) No

 

 

Part 8. Attitudes toward Organization and Situation (Police Ticketing): Please
respond to the following statements or questions by circling the numbered response that

best expresses your personal view.

 

55. Issuing many police tickets helps you in achieving your promotion.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

73

 

56. Issuing many police tickets helps you in receiving a good evaluation.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

57. Issuing many police tickets helps you in receiving recognition from your supervisor.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

58. Issuing few police tickets leads to consequences from your supervisor.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

59. Issuing few police tickets leads a transfer to an unexpected workplace or department.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

60. Issuing few police tickets leads to undermining my competency among fellow police
ofﬁcers/ofﬁcials.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

61. The probability of encountering drivers or pedestrians who violate the traffic order is
higher in my Jigoo-Dae than in the other J i goo-Dae.

1) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

62. The probability of encountering violators of the Basic Order is higher in my Jigoo-
Dae than in the other J i goo-Dae.

l) Disagree Strongly 2) Disagree Somewhat 3) Agree Somewhat 4) Agree Strongly

63. During the past three months, did you receive an order from your supervisor to focus
on issuing tickets (trafﬁc tickets or the Basic Order Violation tickets)?

1) Yes 2) No
64. During the past year, did you receive special educational training on order
maintenance (e.g. traffic tickets or the Basic Order Violation tickets)?

1) Yes 2) No

 

 

Part 9. Performance (Arrests, Police Ticketing, and Time Spent for Community
Service): Please answer the following questions by circling the numbered response that

best expresses your performance.

 

65. How many arrests concerning the Five Index Crimes have you made during the past

six months?

74

 

1)0—1 2)2—3 3)4—5 4)6—7 5)8—9 6) 10— 11 7) 12— 13 8)Over 14

66. How many arrests have you made during the past six months excluding the Five

Index Crimes?

1)0—6 2) 7— 13 3) 14—20 4) 21 —27 5)28—34'6)35—417)42—48 8) Over49

67. How many tickets have you issued in regard to the Basic Order Violation in the past

six months?

1)0—6 2)7— 13 3) 14—20 4) 21 -27 5) 28—34 6) 35—41 7)42—48 8) Over49
68. How many traffic tickets have you issued during the past six months (Please
exclude the cases concerning trafﬁc accidents)?

1) 0— 19 2) 20— 39 3) 40— 59 4) 60— 79 5) 80— 99 6) 100— 119 7) 120— 139 8) Over 140

69. How much time do you spend with citizens providing some services during the each
day duty (09:00-21:00)? (Exclude time spent staying in the ofﬁce, making arrests, and
issuing police tickets.)

1)0— 15 Min. 2) 16— 30 Min. 3) 31- 45 Min. 4) 46— 60 Min. 5) 61— 90 Min.
6) 91— 120 Min. 7) 121— 150 Min. 8) Over 151 Min.

 

 

Part 10. Perceptions of Crime and Disorder: Please answer the following questions

by circling the numbered response that best expresses your personal view.

 

70. To what extent are broken windows in buildings problematic or not problematic in
your jurisdiction?
1) Not at all problematic 2) Seldom problematic 3) Somewhat problematic 4) Very

problematic

71. To what extent is public drunkenness problematic or not problematic in your
jurisdiction?
1) Not at all problematic 2) Seldom problematic 3) Somewhat problematic 4) Very

problematic
72. To what extent is assault by strangers problematic or not problematic in your
jurisdiction?
1) Not at all problematic 2) Seldom problematic 3) Somewhat problematic 4) Very

problematic

75

 

73. To what extent is robbery problematic or not problematic in your jurisdiction?

1) Not at all problematic 2) Seldom problematic 3) Somewhat problematic 4) Very

problematic

74. To what extent are vacant lots filled with litter problematic or not problematic in your

jurisdiction?

1) Not at all problematic 2) Seldom problematic 3) Somewhat problematic 4) Very

problematic

 

 

Part 11. Motivation and Job Satisfaction: Please respond to the following statements

by circling the numbered response that best expresses your personal view.

 

SD: Strongly disagree D: Disagree somewhat A: Agree somewhat SA: Agree

Strongly

A. What is your motivation to work as a police officer ?
75. Need forasteady job 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
76. Early retirement and good pension 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
77. Good salary 1) SD 2) D ‘ 3) A 4) SA
78. Fringe beneﬁts (health care, etc.) 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
79. The security of the job 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
80. The excitement and adventure 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
81.The chance to fight crime 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
82. Working independently 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
83. Prestige and status of the occupation 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
84. Enforcement of the law 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
85. Authority and power 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
86. The opportunity to help people 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
87. The opportunity for promotion 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
88. Good colleagues 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA
89. Worthwhile job 1) SD 2) D 3) A 4) SA

76

 

B. Job Satisfaction
90. I am satisﬁed with my career 1) SD
91. I will probably quit my job soon. 1) SD
92. I enjoy going to work each day. 1) SD
93. I will recommend policing as a career 1) SD

to friends.

77

2)D
2)D
2)D
2)D

3)A
3)A
3)A
3)A

4) SA
4) SA
4) SA
4) SA

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajzen, Icek. 1988. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Open University Press

Brehm, John & Scott Gates. 1997. Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic
Response to a Democratic Public. Ann arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Brown, Michael K. 1988. Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of
Reform. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJ S) (2001). Community policing impacts 86 percent of US.
population served by local police departments, [Electronic version]. Retrieved Nov.
13, 2003, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/cplp99prhtm

Cushman, Donald P. & Robert D. McPhee. 1980. Attitudes, Behaviors, and Messages:
An Introductory Overview. In Cushman & McPhee, Message-Attitude-Behavior
Relationship. Academic Press, Inc. pp.l-41.

DeFleur, M. L., & Westie, F. R. 1963. Attitude as a Scientific Concept. Social Forces 42,
pp.17-31.

DeJong, Christina, & Mastrofski, Stephen D., & Parks Roger B. 2001. Patrol ofﬁcers and
problem solving: An application of expectancy theory. Justice Quarterly 18, pp.3l-
61.

Engel, R. & Sobol, J. & Worden, R. (2000). Further exploration of the demeanor
hypotheis: The interaction effects of suspects’ characteristics and demeanor on police
behavior. Justice Quarterly, 17, 235-258.

Engel, Robin S. & Rober E. Worden. 2003. Police ofﬁcers’ attitudes, behavior, and
supervisory inﬂuences: an analysis of problem solving. Criminology 41, iss. 1,
pp. 131-166.

Fazio, R.H. & C]. Williams. 1986. Attitude Accessibility as a Moderator of the Attitude
Perception and Attitude-Behavior Relation: An Investigation of the 1984 Presidential
Election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, pp.505-514.

Fishbein, M. & Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Frank, James & Steven S. Brandle. 1991. The police attitude-behavior relationship:
Methodological and conceptual considerations. American Journal of Police 5, pp.83-
103.

Friedrich, R. J. 1980. Police Use of force: Individuals, Situations, and Organizations. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 452, pp.82-97.

78

Garling, Tommy & Robert Gillholm & Anita Garling. 1998. Reintroducing attitude
theory in travel behavior research. Transportation, 25. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Je, Gab Ju. 1998. A study for Neutralization of Korean Police. Seoul National University.

Korea National Police Agency (KNPA). 2004. Reference Library. [Electronic version]
Retrieved Jan. 10, 2005 from
http://www.police.go.kr/data/white/white2004 01 03 2.iSp

Mastrofski, Stephen D., R. Richard Ritti, & Jeffrey B. Snipes. 1994. Expectancy theory
and police productivity in DUI enforcement. Law & Society Review 28, pp.113-144.

Mastrofski, Stephen D., R. Richard Ritti, & Jeffrey B. Snipes. 1995. Law enforcement in
a time of community policing. Criminology 33, pp.539-563.

McCroskey, J .C. 1973. Audience-Centered Messages. Communication. Special Edition,
2. pp. 69-106. Retrieved 11 Nov. 2004 from
http://www.jamescmccroskeycom/publication§/52.htm

McGuire, W. 1969. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3). Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley. pp. 136-314.

Moore, M. H. 1992. Problem-solving and Community Policing, In Tonry, M and Moris,
N., 1992, Modern Policing, The University of Chicago Press, 15, pp.99-158.

Munhwa Ilbo. 2004. Introducing Autonomic Police System in 2006. [Electronic Version]
Retrieved Jan. 16, 2005 from
http://www.munhwa.com/societv/200409/17/2004091701010243049002.html

Novak, Kenneth J ., & Frank, James, & Smith, Brad W., & Engel Robin Shepard. 2002.
Revisiting the Decision to Arrest: Comparing Beat and Community Officers. Crime &
Delinquency, vo. 48 No.1, pp.70-98.

Paoline , Eugene A., III, Stephanie M. Myers & Robert Worden. 2000. Police culture,
individualism, and community policing: Evidence from two police departments.
Justice Quarterly 17, pp.575-605.

Rainey, Hal G. 2003. Understanding and Managing public organizations. 3rd edition.
Published by J ossey-Bass.

Schwartz, 8. H. 1977. Normative inﬂuences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology. Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press. pp.221-279.

Seibold, D. R., & Roper, R. E. 1979. Psychosocial determinants of health care intentions:

79

Test of Triandis and Fishbein models. In I. D. Nimmo (Ed.). Communication
Yearbook 3, New Brunswick, N .J .: Transaction Books.

Shuman, H., & Johnson, M. P. 1976. Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Sociology
2. PP.161-207.

Singleton Jr., Royce A. & Straits, Bruce C. 1999. Approaches to Social Research. 3rd Ed.
Oxford University Press.

Smith, D. (1986). The neighborhood contest of police behavior. In Reiss, A. & Tonry,
M., Communities and crime, Crime and Justice: A review of research, 8, University
of Chicago Press. pp.313-342.

Smith, Douglas A. & Jody R. Klein. 1983. Police agency characteristics and arrest
decisions. In Gordon P.Whitaker and Charles David Phillips (eds.), Evaluating
Performance of Criminal Justice Agencies. Beverly Hills, Calif. Sage. pp.63-97.

Smith, Douglas A. & Jody R. Klein. 1984. Police control of interpersonal disputes. Social
Problems 31. pp.468-481.

Terrill, William & Stephen D. Mastrofski. 2002. Situational and ofﬁcer-based
determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly 19, pp.215-248.

Terrill, William, Eugene A. PaolineIII & Peter K. Manning. 2003. Police Culture and
Coercion. Criminology 41 , iss. 4, pp.1101-1132. '

Waegel, W. B. 1981. Case Routinization in Investigative Police Work. Social Problems
28. PP.263-275.

Wilson, James Q. 1968. Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and
Order in Eight Communities. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Worden, Robert E. 1989. Situational and Attitudinal explanations of Police Behavior: A
Theoretical Reappraisal and Empirical Assessment. Law and Society Review 23, iss.
4, pp.667-711.

Worden, Robert E. 1995. Police ofﬁcers’ belief systems: A framework for analysis.
American Journal of Police 14, pp.49-81.

Worden, Robert E. 2003. Police ofﬁcers’ attitudes, behavior, and supervisory inﬂuences:
an analysis of problem solving. Criminology. 41, 1, pp. 131-166. Research Library

Core.

Wortley, Richard K. 2003. Measuring police attitudes toward discretion. Criminal Justice
and Behavior. Thousand Oaks, 30, iss. 5, pp.538-558.

80

Wycoff, Mary Ann & Manning, Perter K. 1983. The Police and Crime Control. In
Whitaker, Gordon P. & Phillips Charles D. (Ed.) Evaluating Performance of Criminal
Justice Agencies. Sage Publications. pp. 15-32

81

Illlllllllllllllllll