illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll\llllllllltlllljllll 5...“,

3 1293 10425 275
LBWQERY
masts Mifi 3‘snai state
i University
\ ,l

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE EFFECTS OF A STRESS REDUCTION PROGRAM
ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIONS OFFICER
JOB SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION
IN THE WASHTENAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

presented by

Lynn Marie Fr answay

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. S. degreein Criminal Justice

 

 

Mfflefit °

Major professor

WWW”

0-7639

 

TVIESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
4—! your record. FINES will

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

5.4.576 $396730?

1% '1 V—L Erma

Trim
, r359

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ott‘foo Tuls- ‘III 2""

 

l

c.v.n.~..

A .xhb~ohpuwhh«gh~huflhuknou£u 3501

4v..i

Iii-Iago v 0

lode.

it 4..

THE EFFECTS OF A STRESS REDUCTION PROGRAM

ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIONS OFFICER
JOB SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION

IN THE WASHTENAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

BY

Lynn Marie Fransway

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Criminal Justice

1980

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF A STRESS REDUCTION PROGRAM
ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIONS OFFICER

JOB SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION
IN THE WASHTENAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

BY

Lynn Marie Fransway

The exploratory research reported in this thesis
investigated the effects of a Stress Reduction Program
on the self-reports of job satisfaction in law enforcement
and corrections personnel in a medium-sized sheriff's de-
partment. The ten month program had four stress reduction
intervention modes: physiological training, psychological
training, a combination of physiological and psychological
training, and professional training. .

It was hypothesized that the Stress Reduction Program
would result in 1) an increase in job satisfaction for the
entire experimental group, 2) increases of satisfaction
within groups, and 3) significant differences of satisfac-
tion between the four groups.

The research hypotheses were generally not supported.
It was concluded that the Stress Reduction Program did not
have a significant effect upon job satisfaction of the
participants, and that no one form of intervention was more

powerful than another in increasing satisfaction.

Dedicated to my Mother, Father and Brother

Claire, Robert and Tony Fransway

Because you are my best friends,

and are so dear.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank all of my committee members for
their assistance and support in the preparation of this
thesis: Dr. Kenneth E. Christian, chairman, Dr. Robert C.
Trojanowicz, and Dr. Robert H. Scott.

A special note of appreciation is extended to
Dr. Christian for his constant and considerable assistance
and guidance not only in this thesis, but academically and
professionally throughout my master's program. His help
has been invaluable to me over the years.

I would also like to thank Dr. Michael W. O'Neill
for his patience, moral support and statistical expertise;
all are deeply appreciated.

To Wayne B. Hanewicz, my sincere appreciation for his
generosity of spirit and flexibility during the time of
completing this thesis.

I would like to acknowledge and thank Sheriff Thomas
E. Minick, and all Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department
participants in the Stress Reduction Program.

Finally, thanks to all of my family and friends for

helping me through.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . .
Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theory . . . . . . . . '
, Overview of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

‘

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Law Enforcement Stress Research , ,
Identification of Stressors . . .
Pertinent. Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corrections Stress Research . . . . . . . .

Relationship of Stress to Job Satisfaction , ,

The Importance of Stress Research . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER III: 'DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The Stress Reduction Program . . . . . . . .
Select1on of Participants , . , . . . . . . . .
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . . .

 

Method of Invitation . . . . . . . . . . .'

Assignment to Intervention Groups , , , . .
Demographic Data and Stressors Indices Data , ,
Pre- and Post-Testing . . . . . . .
Psychological Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Physiological Tests , . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interventions . . . . . . . . . . .
Physical Training Intervention . . . . . . . .
Psychological Intervention . . . .
Physiological and Psychological Interventions.
Professional Interventions . . . . . . . . . .
Protection of Human Subjects . . . . . . . . . .
Confidentiality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Presentation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . .

Design of the Thesis. .
The Police Job Stress Invmentory . .
Administration of Pre- and Post-Tests , ,
Statistical Hypotheses , , , , , , , . . , , , ,
Analysis of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

iv

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS OF THE PRE-TEST DATA

Characteristics of the Sample . . . . .
Analysis of the Pre-Test PJSI Data . .
General Levels of Satisfaction - - .
Analysis of Variance - . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER V: TESTS OF HYPOTHESES

General Levels of Satisfaction - - . .
Within Sample Changes - - - . - - . . .
Within Group Changes - - . .
Between Group Differences - - - . - . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER VI: INTERPRETATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

Demographic Variables Analysis - - - -
Race 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

sex 0 C O O O O O ‘ I O O O O O O O O
DiViSion O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0
Age 0 C C O O O O O O O O O O I O Q

Seniority

Analysis of Subject Termination from Program

summary a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Analysis of Demographic Variables - -
Analysis of Terminations from Program

CHAPTER VII: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Method . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions - - . . . . . a
Discussion of the Results
Lack of Significance . -
Unexpected Direction of Significance
Interpretative Data . - - . . . . .
Drop-Outs vs. Non-Drop Outs - - . . .
Recommendations - - - - . - . . . . . .

APPENDIX A: Michigan State University,
Washtenaw County Sheriff's Project,
Informed Consent Form . - - - - - . . -

APPENDIX B: Center for Fitness and Sports

Research, Evaluation and Training Services

95

95
95
97
98
99
99
105
107
108
109

113

115

APPENDIX C: The University of Michigan
Department of Physical Education,
Informed Consent Form, Washtenaw County
Sheriff's Project . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX D: Police Job Stress Inventory .

APPENDIX E: Instructions for Completing
Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX F: Analysis of Variance Tables .

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

116
118

136
137

150

Table

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

IX

XI

XII

XIII

XI

LIST OF TABLES

Group Composition by Unit Assignment . . . .
Pre-Test Mean Sample Scores, Question 14 . .
Pre-Test Mean Sample Scores, Question 19 . .

Analysis of Variance of Mean Group Scores,
Question 19 (Pre-Test) . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance of Mean Group Scores,
Question 19 (Pre-Test . . . . . . . . .

Pre- and Post-Test Sample Means,
Question 19 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0

‘Pre- and Post-Test Sample Means,

Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample
Means, Questions 14 and 19‘. . . . . . . .

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample
Means, Questions 14 and 19, Group A . . .

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample
Means, Questions 14 and 19, Group B . . .

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample
Means, Questions 14 and 19, Group C . . .

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample
Means, Questions 14 and 19, Group D . . .

Analysis of Variance of Mean Differences,
Pre- and Post-Test Group Means,
Questions 14 and 19 . . . . . . . . . . .

T-Tests of Black vs. White Mean Differences
on Pre- and Post-Tests, Questions 14
and l 9 O O O O O O O O O C O I I O O O O 0

vii

30
54
55

57

58

62

63

66

68

69

70

71

74

79

Table

XII T-Tests of Male vs. Female Mean
Differences on Pre- and Post-Tests,
Questions 14 and 19 . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII T-Tests of Corrections vs. Law Enforce-
ment Officers Mean Differences on
Pre- and Post-Tests, Questions 14 and 19

XIV T-Tests on Older vs. Younger Officers
on Increased and Decreased Satisfac-
tion, Questions 14 and 19 . . . . . . . .

XV T-Tests of Senior vs. Junior Officers
(Mean Years of Service) and Increased
and Decreased Satisfaction, .
Questions 14 and 19 . . . . . . . . . . .

XVI T—Tests of Drop-Outs vs. Non-Drop-Outs
on Pre-Test Questions 14 and 19 . . . . .

XVII Pre- and Post—Test Satisfaction
Differences by Strata . . . . . . . . . .

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Within the last decade, the problem of occupational
stress experienced by professionals working in the Criminal
Justice System has been identified. Stress endured by
law enforcement officers received scant attention until
the mid-1970's,1 and research into stress sustained by
corrections officers was, and still remains, virtually
non-existent. Most of the initial research efforts
have involved law enforcement stress, with development
of methods and programs aimed at understanding and re-
ducing this phenomenon.

Since occupational stress is a relatively recent
focus of criminal justice research, many of the studies
undertaken have been exploratory and descriptive in

orientation. Early studies concentrated primarily upon

 

1James Hillgren, et. al. "Primary Stressors in Po-
lice Administration and Law Enforcement." Journal of
Police Science andfiAdministration, Vol. 4, 4,December
1975, p. 445. And George Kelling and Mary Pate, "The
Person-Role Fit in Policing: The Current Knowledge and
Future Research," in William H. Kroes and Joseph J.
Hurrell, Job Stress and the Police Officer: Identifying
Stress Reduction Techniques, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 1975, p. 117.

2

 

Ibid., Kelling, p. 128.

 

the identification and definition of stress and stressors.
Subsequent endeavors involved analyzing the relationship
between stress and the delivery of police services, between
stress and the individual officer's psychological and/or
physiological status, and on programmatic methods designed
to minimize police stress. Most of the research efforts

have not been empirically oriented.

Need for the Study

 

The field of law enforcement and corrections stress
research is still in the early stages of development. Many
questions remain unanswered, and there is a dearth of em-
pirical research in these efforts to clarify and understand
the problem. There is a need to develop an empirical, ex-
panded understanding of law enforcement and corrections
stress in general, of the types of indices used to measure
stressors, and of the various forms and effectiveness of

stress reduction interventions.

Purpose of the Study

 

The exploratory research conducted in this thesis in-
vestigates theieffects of a carefully developed stress
reduction program on the self—reports of job satisfaction
in law enforcement and correctional personnel in a medium-
sized sheriff's department. Pre- and post-test results of
a Police Job Stress Inventory are analyzed in an effort to

identify which of the four types of program interventions

most affect self-reported job satisfaction of program par-

ticipants. These four intervention modes are professional

training, psychological training, physiological training,

and a combination of psychological and physiological

training interventions.

Research Hypotheses

 

Several primary research hypotheses will be tested

based on the following assumptions:

Assumption:

 

Assumption:

 

Assumption:

 

Hypothesis:

 

Hypothesis:

 

Persons in the law enforcement and correc-
tions professions experience stress as a
result of the nature of their occupation.

Self-reported job satisfaction or job
dissatisfaction may serve as an index of
occupational stress.

The extent to which an officer exper-
iences stress will be reflected in the
self-reports of the individual.

The implementation of a stress reduction
program will result in an increase of
self-reported job satisfaction on the
part of subjects involved in the program.

There will be significant differences
between the four intervention groups in
increases of self-reported job satisfac-
tion.

IF the above research hypotheses are supported, then

several additionally specific sub-hypotheses will be tested.

The assumptions and related hypotheses follow:

A. Assumption: The psychological training interven-

 

tion will have some effect on the
level of stress experienced by the
officer.

Assumption:

 

Assumption:

 

Assumption:

 

Assumption:

 

Hypothesis:

 

Assumption:

 

Assumption:

 

Assumption:

 

Hypothesis:

 

The physiological training will have
some kind of an effect on the level
of stress experienced by the officer.

The psychological and physiological
training will have some kind of effect
on the level of stress experienced by
the officer.

The professional training intervention
will have some kind of an effect on
the level of stress experienced by an
officer.

A combination of interventions may be
more powerful than any one single in-
tervention.

The combination of psychological and
physiological stress reduction inter-
ventions will have the greatest effect
on self-reported increases of job
satisfaction.

Of the three types of interventions,
psychological, physiological and pro-
fessional, one will have a greater
effect on reducing stress than the
others.

Law enforcement and corrections per-
sonnel are traditionally somewhat
threatened by the possibility of mental
illness, and by psychologists and psy-
chiatrists, and are therefore less re-
ceptive to psychological training.

Law enforcement and corrections per-
sonnel find physical exercise to be

an acceptable, non-stigmatizing type
of activity.

The physiological intervention of the
stress reduction program will have a
greater effect on increasing self-

reported job satisfaction than either

the psychological or the professional
interventions.

C. Assumption: Awareness of stress is an important
factor in stress reduction.

 

Assumption: Expression of the experience of stress
is an important factor in stress
reduction.

 

Assumption: The professional group will not be
actively discussing stress, per se,
and therefore will be the least aware
and least expressive, as a group, of
personal stress.

 

Hypothesis: The professional intervention of the
Stress Reduction Program will have the
least effect on increases in self-
reported job satisfaction in comparison
to the psychological, physiological, or
combination psychological and physio-
logical interventions.

 

The testing and analysis of these hypotheses will clar-
ify the extent to which each type of intervention is
reflected in the self-reported job satisfabtion of partici-

pants.

Theory

The theoretical framework upon which this research is
founded has evolved from the work of Hans Selye, the pioneer
of stress research. Selye defines stress as the "non-

specific response of the body to any demand."3 It is

 

3Hans Selye. The Stress of Life, McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, Revised Edition, 1978, p.1.

 

"non-specific" in that it can be produced by almost any
agent.4 ‘The defensive reaction to a stressor is described
in terms of the "General Adaptation Syndrome,"5 a syndrome
referring to a group of symptoms and signs which appear

6 The three stages of this response consist of

together.
1) the alarm reaction, wherein the body initially reacts
to the first exposure to a stressor; 2) the stage of re-
sistance, wherein the characteristic signs of the alarm
response subside and resistance occurs "if continued ex—
posure to a stressor is compatible with adaptation;"7 and
3) the stage of exhaustion, wherein continued exposure to a
stressor exhausts the energy used for adaptation, and where
the signs of the alarm reaction reappear, and become irre-
versible.

A stressor is simply defined as "that which produces
stress."8 Selye notes that the most important stressors

for people are emotional, and that some of the more health

threatening stressors relate to occupations.9 Specifically

 

4Ibid., p. 63.

51bid., p. 1.
61bid., p. 472.

7Hans Selye. Stress Without Distress, Signet Books
New York, 1975, p. 27.

 

892, cit., Selye, 1978, p. 472.

9Ibid., p. 370-1.

related to police work, Selye stated that "it is hardly
surprising that highly responsible and dangerous police
assignments can be the cause of considerable distress."lo
He further cited shift work as probably being the most
severely disturbing toithe physiological functions of

11 This is particularly

corticoid and adrenaline production.
relevant in police and corrections work where officers fre-
quently change working hours to accommodate any one of three
daily shift schedules.

It is upon the above described theoretical framework
that the experimental design in this research was developed
to test the types of remedies available for reducing the

psychological and physiological distress resulting from

stressors encountered in law enforcement and corrections.

Overview of Thesis

 

The following outline represents the format for dis-
cussion and analysis of results in the ensuing chapters of
this thesis.

In Chapter Two, the literature related to police

stress are reviewed and summarized.

 

l°Ibid., p. 376.

11Ibid., p. 374.

The experimental design of the entire Stress Reduction
Program, as well as that portion specifically relevant to
this thesis, are presented in Chapter Three.

In Chapter Four, there is an analysis of demographic
data gathered from departmental records on the character-
istics of all subjects in the Stress Reduction Program.
There is also an analysis of the pre-test data gathered
from the Police Job Stress Inventory which provides base
line, descriptive statistics on the general reports of
the participants as they relate to levels of job satisfac-
tion and dissatisfaction in the department.

An analysis of the results of the pre- and post-test
Police Job Stress Inventory, and of the hypotheses testing
is presented in Chapter Five.

In Chapter Six, additional information on the subjects
relating to variables of race, sex, division, age and
seniority as compared to job satisfaction are presented.

An analysis of pre-test satisfaction levels for those sub-
jects who dropped out, compared to those who did not is

also included.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Law Enforcement Stress Research

 

It is generally conceded that the law enforcement occu-
pation is a high stress profession. High incidences of the
indices of stress have been found among police officers.

For example, suicide rates have been found to be higher
among police officers than the general public;1 alcohol-
ism has been considered a major problem;2 divorce rates are
higher for police officers than for the general public;3
and psychosomatic symptoms and physiological disorders

associated with stress are found at higher rates among

police professionals than many other occupations.4

 

1Paul Friedman. "Suicide Among Police," in Edwin
Schneidman's Essays_in Self Destruction, Science House,
Inc., New York, 1967. And, Michael Heiman, "The Police
Suicide," Journal of.Pglice Science and Administration,
Vol. 3, 3, September 1975, pp. 267—273.

 

 

2John Stratton. "Police Stress: An Overview. Part
I and Part II," Police Chief, April 1978.

 

3John Blackmore. "Are Police Allowed to Have Problems
of Their Own?" Police Magazine, Vol. 1, 3, July 1978, pp.
47-55.

4William Kroes, et. a1. "Job Stress in Policemen,"
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 2, 2,
June 1975, p. 145.

 

10

Identification of Stressors. The question of what fac-
tors cause or contribute to the levels of stress experienced
by law enforcement officers was initially researched by
William Kroes.5 Kroes' research was conducted in 1972 at
the Cincinnati Police Department, and consisted of inter-
views with one hundred policemen during regular patrol duty.
The forty-five minute interview presented four questions de-
signed to elicit information on job stress. The study iden-
tified major categories of stressors experienced by officers:‘
administration, courts, community relations, equipment, line
of duty crisis situations, changing shift routines, isolation,
boredom and inactivity. Kroes determined that of these
stressors, the most significant ones were those which
threatened the officer's sense of professionalism; e.g.,
lack of professional recognition, negative public opinions,
and little participation in the decision making process vis-
a-vis policies and procedures.

Kroes' work was followed by numerous articles specula-
ting on identifying the stressors in law enforcement. The

most comprehensive of these works, by Eisenbergfsoutlines

 

51bid., pp. 145-155.

6Terry Eisenberg. ”Labor Management Relations and
Psychological Stress: View From the Bottom," Police Chief
Vol. 49, 4, April 1978, pp. 12-15.

11

the bulk of the major stressors identified to date, and con-
sidered of primary importance to the police. The identified
stressors include: fear of physical harm, sense of useless-
ness, cumulative effects of stress, incompetency, being a
minority officer, withdrawal of friends, being a non-con-
formist in a highly conforming environment, role conflict,
danger, the stressor of seeing people in pain, the absence

of closure in one's work, the problem of low rewards for

 

the work, problems with supervisors, peer pressure, lack
of career development opportunities, poor equipment, shift
work, departmental policies, excessive paperwork, disci-

plinary policies, poorly devised rating systems, methods of

 

assignment within the job, community attitudes, problems
with the courts, problems with the correctional system of
the criminal justice system in general, unfair press cover-
age, minority relations with the community, inadequate
referral systems, and difficulties in interacting with other

local government agencies.

Pertinent Studies. The need for additional research and

 

implementation of stress reduction programs has been indi-
cated in several studies to date. There have been many ad-
hoc types of stress reduction programs implemented in the
past few years, the majority of them consisting of some kind
of provision for counseling services tor facilities for

physical fitness and exercise. Few of these programs have

12

been subjected to the empirical analysis needed to objec-
tively evaluate the success and effectiveness of services
for participants. Several studies have aimed at identi-
fying various types of services which might be most effec-
tive in stress reduction.

One such study was conducted by James Anderson, in his
analysis on "The Effect of EMG Biofeedback and Relaxation
Training on Police Personnel Responses to Occupational
Stress."7 This study investigated the ability of twenty-
four policemen to.learn a relaxation response designed to
assist in adaptation to stress. Four types of training
were administered: one group practiced electromyogram
feedback (EMG), which provided visual and sound recordings
of electric waves associated with skeletal muscle activity;
one group practiced a combination of EMG feedback and con-
scious relaxation training; the third group practiced solely
the relaxation training, without benefit of EMG feedback.

A fourth group was a control group, wherein subjects were
asked to relax, but not given any instructions on how to do
so.

The results of the study indicated that EMG feedback
was effective in helping the officers achieve a state of

physiological relaxation, and in fact, was more effective

 

7James Anderson. "The Effect of EMG Biofeedback and
Relaxation Training on Police Personnel Responses to
Occupational Stress," Dissertation Abstracts, July 1975,
3665-B.

 

13

than any of the other methods. Of note.however, was that
while the electromyogram feedback group succeeded in reducing
levels of arousal in terms of muscular relaxation, there were
no significant differences between groups in terms of the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, an instrument that measures

a person's characteristic predisposition to anxiety, as

well as his immediate subjective, consciously perceived
anxieties. This research points to the need for a better
understanding of the nature between the physiological and
psychological aspects of stress and stress reduction tech-
niques, and of the effectiveness of such techniques on
subjects.

Another research effort by Zausmer investigated the
relationship between personality variables of Machiavel-
lianism and Risk Taking, the police environment, and sub-
jects' health in the Oklahoma City Police Department.8
In a study of three hundred and ten law enforcement agents,
Zausmer gathered data on 1) blood pressure, 2) indices of
Machiavellianism and Risk Taking; and 3) personal informa-
tion on employee health status and stress factors related

to the job and working environment. The data gathered

 

8Fred Joseph Zausmer. "Factors of Stress in the Okla-
homa City Police Department: A Consideration Thereof,"
Dissertation Abstracts, 1976, 1189-B; and Tom L. Heggy and
Fred Zausmer, F'EEullets and/or Management," Public Safety
Labor Reporter, May 1976, pp. 28-34.

 

 

 

14

on stress factors were then related to the personality and
physiological data. }

Conclusions in this study were that 1) there is a re-
lationship between aspects of Machiavellianism, Risk Taking,
the law enforcement environment, and health; 2) the number
of illnesses reported by participants in the study were
higher than those found in other studies; 3) management
is the source of most of the stressors associated with
occupational health problems; and 4) participants had
higher degrees of hypertension than found in other occupa-
tions, and that subjects‘ blood pressure readings were
associated with increased insurance premiums and increased
mortality. I

Recommendations evolving from this study included
provision of stress training programs for police personnel,
and further research to ascertain the kind of work environ-
.ment conducive to effective, less stressful policing.

A third study, by Gary W. Singleton,9 focused on "The
Effects of Job Related Stress on the Physical and Psycho-
logical Adjustment of Police Officers." It tested the

hypothesis that increases in physically threatening encounters

 

gGary W. Singleton. "The Effects of Job-Related Stress

on the Physical and Psychological Adjustment of Police
Officers," Dissertation Abstracts, 2384-B.

 

15

would result in increased physical, psychological and
interpersonal difficulties and decreased job satisfaction.
Ninety patrolmen were divided into three stress groups in
terms of their history of on-duty stress. Participants
took a battery of psychological tests, including the Corn—
well Medical Index, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, the
Situation Anxiety Scale, the Crown-Marlowe Social Desire-
ability Scale, and SCL-90 (Symptoms Checklist), and a Job
Satisfaction Scale.

Results of this study indicated that significant dif-
ferences could be found among the three stress groups on
scales of hostility, paranoia and interpersonal sensitivity
and difficulty. The Specific relationship between physical
stress, and the presence of hostility, suspiciousness,
social discomfort and interpersonal difficulties was unclear.
The officers reported no increase in physical or psycho-
physiological complaints, anxiety or depression, and the
research attributed this to defensiveness towards the pre-
sence of an "outsider" administering psychological instru-
ments.

This research effort indicated a need for clarification
between the physiological and psychological dynamics of
stress, and the indices of stress in a police environment.
Further, there is a need for additional research to deter-
mine which kinds of interventions are most effective in

reducing police stress.

16

Corrections Stress Research

 

While a great deal of criminal justice research has
focused on the qualities and problems of law enforcement
officers, Farmer notes that researchers have "systemati—

10 Certainly, this

cally ignored correctional personnel."
has been the case in the area of occupational stress ex-
perienced by corrections officers. No studies to date
were available in the literature on correctional stress.
As Farmer points out, this is unfortunate in that
many of the same problems and situations encountered by
law enforcement officers in their work are similarly en-
countered by corrections officers. They are both 1) in-
volved in working with people, 2) fulfilling "socially
authorized authoritarian roles" designed to protect the
safety of the public, and 3) involved with occupational
factors of danger, fear, and isolation.11
Expanding on this list, several other parallels might
be drawn between law enforcement and corrections stressors.
Corrections officers encounter a potentially volatile

population on a daily basis, and may be victims of assaults

by inmate personnel; thus, they too may well fear physical

 

10Richard E. Farmer. "Cynicism: A Factor in Correc-
tions WOrk," Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, 3, Fall
1977, p. 237.

11

 

Ibid., p. 239.

17

harm to their being. They also work in a paramilitary
structure, and may be victims of similar pressures as
those described by Eisenberg for police: role conflict,
low rewards for work, problems with supervisors and peer
pressure, being a non-conformist in a conforming environ-
ment, lack of career development opportunities, poor
facilities, shift work, departmental paperwork, poorly de-
vised rating systems and disciplinary policies, methods of
assignment with the job. At this point, discussion is

speculative due to lack of empirical research.

Relationship of Stress to Job Satisfaction

The relationship between occupational stress and job
satisfaction has not been clearly explicated in the liter-
ature. Job satisfaction, however, may be utilized as an
index of occupational stress. Cooper and Payne indicate
that "the most general dimension of the work environment,
prestige, or status level of a job is clearly associated
with higher job satisfaction and with better mental

health."12

These most general dimensions also appear to be
inextricably related to stress as well. One is struck, when
reading about job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, by the

marked similarity between satisfaction factors, and factors

 

12Cary Cooper and Roy Payne. Stress at WOrk, John
Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1978, p. 13.

 

18

relating to the police stressors described by Kroes and Eisen-
berg. In Cooper and Payne's extensive review of job satis-
faction literature, the following factors were related to

low job satisfaction:

1) Conditions at work: presence of health
and safety standards, and unpleasant work
conditions, such as fast paced and physi-
cally demanding work; long hours of work

(if this is forced on the worker); after-
noon and night shifts; unclear tasks; lack
of control over work, such as pacing.

(2) Work itself (Job content): lack of

use of skills and abilities; highly frac-
tionated repetitive tasks involving few
different operations. 3) 'The Work Group:
no opportunity to interact with co-workérs;
work groups which are large and lack cohe-
siveness; non-acceptance by co-Workers.

4) Supervision: no participation in de-
cision-making; inability to provide feedback
to supervisor; lack of recognition for good
performance; supervisors who are not consid-
erate or understanding. 5) The Organization:
large organization with 'flat organization
structure'(relatively few levels in the
organization); having a staff position (vs.
a line position); discrimination in hiring.
6) Wages and Promotidn: low financial re-
wards or perceived inequity in wages; lack
of promotional opportunities.

 

 

 

 

It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that in
light of previous research, job satisfaction may be viewed
as an indication of stress levels experienced by people in
a working environment. Indeed, the concept that job satis-

isfaction is dependent on the independent variable of levels

 

13Ibid., p. 25.

19

of stress has been specifically noted in Cooper and Payne's
review of the literature.

Several studies on police job satisfaction point to the
similarities between factors of job satisfaction, and factors
of stress. Jeffrey Slovak surveyed eight different police
departments in six different western and midwestern states on

14 The self-administered

various aspects of job satisfaction.
survey was distributed to small departments, ranging in sizes
from seventeen to eighty-three personnel; the return rate was
no less than a five/eighths response level in each department.
Each officer was requested to indicate his level of satisfac-
tion with various aspects of his job, using a Likert type
scale (of highly dissatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satis—
fied, and highly satisfied.

The results of the study indicated a relatively high
level of job dissatisfaction, evidenced by only twenty-one
percent of the satisfaction aspects having a mean score
rising above neutrality. It was further concluded that there
are three major dimensions of satisfaction in law enforcement:
l) "hardware/preparation" dimension; 2) "compensation/advan-
cement" dimension; and 3) "management/organization" dimension.

These three aspects of job satisfaction would contain many

of the stressors reported by officers in the stress research.

 

14Jeffrey S. Slovak. "Work Satisfaction and Municipal
Police Officers," Journal of Police Science and Administration,
Vol. 6, 4, 1978, p.462-470.

20

A study by Griffin, et. al.,15 examined different factors
associated with job satisfaction, and related it to educa-
tional attainments of officers. A large southwestern police
department serving a population of 500,000 completed 756
questionnaires. One of the questions posed on a five-point
Likert type scale was: "To what extent do you feel satis—
fied with your job as a police officer?" There were no
significant differences between those respondents who had
a high school education or less, those who had some college,
and those who had obtained a college degree, all reported a
high degree of job satisfaction.

Officers also reported perceptions on their personal
and supervisory effectiveness in policing, as well as the
extent to which they find themselves getting angry or tense
on the job. Officers with a high school education felt
that both they, and their superiors, were doing a good job,
and reported higher job satisfaction; officers with a
college degree apparentlywihinot relate job satisfaction to
the quality of work of their superiors. The researchers also
concluded that persons with high school educations associate
feelings of tension with less job satisfaction; increases in
tension corresponded with increases in job dissatisfaction.

It was found that in college educated officers, however,

 

15Gerald R. Griffin, Rober L. Dunbar, and Michael E.
McGill. "Factors Associated With Job Satisfaction Among
Police Personnel," Journal of Police Science and Administra-
tion, Vol. 6, l, 1978, pp. 77-85.

 

21
reported tension was "weakly but positively related"16 to
job satisfaction. Feelings of anger, however, were associa-
ted with increases in job dissatisfaction.
Additional analyses of questions revealed that officers
who believe the police role "involves enforcing rather than

17 also have higher job satisfaction,

questioning justice,"
The researchers also found support for the hypothesis that a
reduction in the uncertainty and conflict found in the police
role resulted in increases of job satisfaction. This was
particularly important in that this uncertainty and con-
flict "may generate stress for the police officer, which,

in turn, may result in feelings of job dissatisfaction."18

Again, the relationship between stress and job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction is confirmed.

 

16Ibid., p. 81.

l71bid., p. 83.

IaIbid.

 

22

The Importance of Stress Research

In the literature, it seems as though almost every
aspect of the professional life of law enforcement agents
has been identified as a stressor. The questions inevi-
tably arise: How important are these stressors? Is police
work more stressful as an occupation than other types of
occupations? What can be done to reduce police stress?
The same questions may be posed for the corrections occupa-
tion.

Kroes believes that while stressors on policemen are not

unique when compared to other occupations, one may answer

an "unqualified yes" in response to the question of whether
police work is a uniquely high stress occupation.l4
Perhaps more important than whether policemen experience
stress at greater levels than other occupations, is whether
the impact of this stress is ultimately more damaging for
the policeman and for society. Given equal levels of stress,
the potential amount of damages which may occur in the law
enforcement profession extend far beyond the realm of the
individual,into the realm of the community. The types of
services delivered by officers who are entrusted with the

responsibility of carrying out the laws, and are empowered

both on and off duty with the use of force in order to do so,

 

149p. cit., Kroes, p. 155.

23

must be implemented in an effective, careful, and just way.
High levels of stress, and even low levels of stress, may
have an important impact on the officers which ultimately
affect the manner in which services are delivered. The im-
portance of understanding and reducing stress experienced
by law enforcement agents, therefore, is of vital importance
to both the daily operations of the criminal justice system,
and to society in general.

In a corresponding vein, corrections officers also
carry an important responsibility to deal with prison popu-
lations in a humane and just manner. Overloads of stress
may lead to ineffectiveness or abuses of power, to the detri-
ment of both the officer and the inmate. From a rehabilita-
tive standpoint, and for the benefit of the inmate, the of-
ficer, and society in general, it is vital that corrections
officers be provided with Opportunities to understand and

alleviate stress resulting from aspects of their occupation.

Summary

A review of the literature indicates that much research
remains to be done in the area of police stress, and that
there is a great need for research into corrections officers
stress. Current research is primarily aimed at law enforce-
ment, and is just immediately past the point of identifying
what constitutes police stressors. There is a need to

determine, among other important aspects of stress, what

24

types of methods may be employed to reduce stress among law
enforcement and corrections professionals. There is a need
tO‘ascertain the relationships between utilization of dif-
ferent types of methods, and their effects on perceivedlevels
of stress. In addition, research needs to be undertaken to
analyze the effects of stress reduction techniques upon job
satisfaction as one index of stress.

Towards meeting these needs, the research in this thesis
will analyze the effectiveness of various types of stress re-
duction techniques upon one indicator of law enforcement and

corrections stress: job satisfaction.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The exploratory research in this thesis is a subcom-
ponent of a larger Stress Reduction Program which was
conducted under the auspices of a National Institute of
Mental Health Project, granted to Michigan State University,
and operating in the Washtenaw County Law Enforcement and
Corrections Facility. In order to fully understand the
specific area of study relevant to this thesis, it is
important to present a broad overview of the experimental

design of the Stress Reduction Program.

The Stress Reduction Program

 

The Stress Reduction Program was an experimental study,
oriented towards determining whether various kinds of stress
reduction intervention techniques had an effect on reducing
levels of stress experienced by law enforcement and correc-
tions professionals. The broad research effort sought to
determine whether there is a direct relationship between a
stress reduction program and improved job performance, and
furthermore, to ascertain whether physiological, psychologi-
cal, professional training, or a combination of physiologi-
cal and psychological interventions were more conducive to

stress reduction.

25

26

The comprehensive focus of the Stress Reduction Pro-

gram was to test three hypotheses:

Hypothesisl: Presentation of a stress conditioning
program will result in improved police
performance.

 

Hypothesisz: Both physically and psychologically-
based stress programs will present
greater improvement than the general
Hawthorne effect associated with any
experimental program.

 

One of the two approaches, physical
or psychological, will result in
greater improvement than the other.

Hypothesis

 

3:

Towards testing these hypotheses, the Stress Reduction
Program was conducted in four different modes. One approach
consisted of purely physical interventions.- A second utili—
zed purely psychological interventions. The third consisted
of a combination of both physical and psychological inter—
ventions. ‘And the fourth consisted of professional, in-
lservice training. The fourth intervention was not a strictly
null treatment, nor a pure control group, in that deliberate
efforts were made to bring about improvements. What distin-
guiShed this mode from the other three was that: a) no
training or conditioning specifically related to stress was
employed; b) no professional stress trainers were involved;
and c) no resources beyond regular departmental budgets were

utilized.

27

Selection of Participants

 

ngulation. The population from which the sample

 

groups were drawn consists of all regular, full-time road
patrol personnel, detectives, and corrections officers in
the Washtenaw County Law Enforcement and Corrections com-
ponents of the Sheriff's Department. Included in this
population are line officers and sergeants drawn from the
Road Patrol Unit, the Corrections Unit, and the Detective
Bureau. Excluded from the population are the following
top level command personnel: The Sheriff, the Undersher-
iff, the Executive Lieutenant, the Commander of the Road
Patrol, and the Commander of the Corrections Unit. The
total number of individuals included in this population

number one hundred and fifty-three.

Sample. All eligible individuals as delineated in
the above population description were listed and numbered
in alphabetical order. Using a random numbers table,
ninety names were drawn, and invitations were extended to
all individuals on the list. Out of the invitations extended,
fifty-nine individuals agreed to participate. From a second
list of randomly drawn names, twenty-nine individuals
agreed to participate in the program, resulting in the

desired n of eighty-eight voluntarily involved subjects.

28

From the tOtal one-hundred and fifty-five population subjects,
therefore, eighty-eight of those eligible agreed to partici-
pate in the Stress Reduction Program; thirty-nine of those
eligible and approached declined participation in the pro-
gram; and twenty-eight of those eligible were neither
approached nor offered participation opportunities in the

program.

Method of Invitation. .Participation in the Stress

 

Reduction Program was on an entirely voluntary basis.
Through the methods described above, the individuals were
contacted by staff from the Social Justice Team Project

and were requested to speak in private with the staff person
extending the invitation. The extension of this invitation
was a private matter, and no one except the project staff
personnel and the invitee knew that the invitation was
being extended 'or knew of the outcome of the invitation
should the invitee choose not to participate.

The invitation was extended in a standardized format,
with a verbal explanation of the project given to the invitee,
and assurances of the protection of their privacy per the
confidentiality restrictions designed for the Stress Reduc-
tion Program. The invitee was then given an "Informed
Consent Form" which described the Stress Reduction Program
in writing, and reiterated the verbal information shared by

project personnel with the invitee. (See Appendix A.)

29

If the individual agreed to participate, he/she author-
ized, with signature, the "Informed Consent Form," which was
witnessed by signature on the part of the Project Staff per-
sonnel extending the invitation.

If the individual declined participation in the program,
indication of an extenSion of the invitation was noted only
in the confidential records of the Project, and otherwise
remained strictly confidential. However, once an individual
agreed to participate, the fact that he was participating
.was no longer considered a strictly confidential matter.

All other concerns of confidentiality as described below
were approached per the restrictions designed in the Program.

Since participation in the program was an entirely vol-
untary matter, the subjects could, at any time, withdraw from
the program. Assurances were given to the subjects that such
a withdrawal would have no_adverse professional or personal
effects on them from either the Department or the Social

Justice Team Project.‘

Assignment to Intervention Groupp

 

Of the eighty-eight subjects who agreed to participate
in the program, four groups were formed consisting of twenty-
two subjects in each group. Assignment to these groups was
accomplished by first proportionately stratifying the entire
sample according to sex, age and unit assignment, and then

randomly selecting for each group based on. this stratification.

30

The reason for the age and sex stratification was to ensure
that all groups would be equally represented in terms of
physical ability as influenced by age and sex considerations
since such variables would have an effect upon physical per-
formance. Composition of each group in terms of unit assign-

ment are indicated in Table I, below.

 

 

TABLE I

Group Composition by Unit Assignment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Group Group Group
Assignment A B C D Total
Deputies 10 10 10 9 39
Corrections
Officers 5 7 7 ll 30
Sergeants 3 2 2 0 7
Lieutenants l O 0 0 l
Detectives 3 3 3 2 11
Total per
Group 22 22 22 22 88

 

 

The labels assigned to each randomly selected inter-
vention group were: Group A, Physical and Psychological
Training; Group B, Physical Training; Group C, Psychological

Training; and Group D, Professional Training.

31

Demographic Data and Stressors Indices Data

 

Demographic data was gathered on the sample, and
for the entire department,on variables of age, sex, race,
date of hire and seniority, rank and division. In addi—
tion, data was gathered from department records on each
participant, and in some cases on the entire population,
for various occurrences which may be related to, or indi-
cative of, levels of stress. This data includes the num—
ber of vehicle accidents, injuries, sick time used, com-
pensatory time used, leaves of absences, disciplinary
actions,.and citizen complaints. Information was collec-
ted for a period of several years preceeding implementa-
tion of the Stress Reduction Program, as well as for the
entire implementation period. This data is to be used

in the final analysis of the Stress Reduction Program.

Pre-Testing and Post-Testing

 

Both psychological and physiological pre- and post-
tests were administered to subjects. The pre-testing occurred
from January to early March of 1978; the post-testing occurred
from January to early April of 1980, following completion
of the ten month intervention period. Pre- and post-testing
were essentially the samein.content and format as described
below. Psychological testing was administered on the same

day as physiological testing for both pre— and post-tests.

32

Psychological Tests. Psychological testing consisted

 

of subject completion of five different self-administered
instruments. The first instrument was the Michigan Alco-
holism Screening Test (MAST),l which is designed to identify
individuals who are experiencing problem drinking or alcohol-
ism. The second instrument was the Symptoms Checklist
(SCL.90),:2 which is a measurement of self-reported physio-
logical symptoms categorized into nine primary dimensions,.
and three global indices of distress. The third is the State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI),3 a self-report scale indi-
cating how anxious an individual presently is, as well as

how anxious he characteristically is. The fourth was the
Police Job Stress Inventory (PJSI),4 which is a broad-based
research tool designed to identify areas of stress in a
police environment. The fifth was the Myers—Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) ,5 which is a questionnaire designed to identify

people in terms of Jung's theory of psychological types.

 

1Melvin Seltzer. University of Michigan Psychiatric
Clinic (Riverview), Ann Arbor, Michigan.

2Available through the University of Michigan Psychia-
tric Clinic (Riverview), Ann Arbor, Michigan.

3C.D. Spielberger, R.L. Goruch and R. Lushene.
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California.

4Social Justice Team Project, NIMH Grant, Michigan
State University, School of Criminal Justice.

5Isabel Briggs Myer. Center for Applications of
Psychological Type, Gainesville, Florida.

33

All instruments were administered at both the pre- and post-
testing, with the exception of the Myers-Briggs Type Indica-
tor, which was administered only during the pre-testing.
Results of the psychological tests were not shared with
participants during the ten month intervention period;
results were shared following completion of the post-testing.
One exception to this, however, was the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator, results of which were shared with the psychological
intervention groups as a tool to stimulate self-discovery and

insight in the subjects.

Physiological Tests. The physiological pre- and post-

 

testing consisted of subject evaluation in the Center for
Fitness and Sports Research's Human Performance Laboratory
at the University of Michigan. These tests included the
following: 1) an Exercise Performance Test, 2) a body
composition analysis, 3) a blood profile analysis, 4) a
muscle strength test, and 5) a health hazard appraisal test
given by a. physician in the Department of Preventive Medicine.
(See Appendix B.) Subjects signed an "Informed Consent
Form" developed by the University of Michigan Department

of Physical Education, and the Social Justice Team Research
Project. (See Appendix C.) This form delineated the pur-
poses, procedures and risks of the various types of physio-
logical testing, and was signed by the subject and witnessed

at the time of the tests.

34

Results of the physiological tests were shared with
participants upon completion of the post-testing; this is
with the exception of those subjects who participated in
the physical components of the Stress Reduction Program.

The reason for restricting access to this information from
those involved in purely psychological or professional inter-
ventions was to limit subject awareness of physiological
concerns which may have developed primarily in response to
participation in the testing procedures at the Human Per-
formance Laboratory, and in so doing, limiting contamination
effects of the intervening physiological variable on the
psychological and professional groups. Exceptions to this
procedure of information sharing were made in cases where
the results of the tests indicated a medical condition re-
quiring attention and treatment. In these cases, only the
diagnosed individual, per the appropriate confidentiality

ethics, received the results of the tests.

Interventions

 

Following completion of the pre-testing, the groups
began their involvement in the sub-group to which they were
randomly assigned, for the ten month intervention period
beginning March 1, 1979, and ending December 31, 1980.

Interventions of each group are described below.

35

Physical Training Intervention: Group B. The subjects

 

involved in this group were provided with routine fitness
conditioning programs based on the analysis of each indivi-
dual's level of fitness as ascertained through tests in the
Human Performance Laboratory. The programs were designed

to meet the specific needs and exercise interests of the
individual: and those persons experiencing medical concerns
received appropriately designed prescriptions. The physical
training intervention also consisted of a nutritional, as
well as exercise program. Each officer was expected to
exercise for approximately forty-five minutes, three days
each week, for the duration of the intervention period.

To assist in facilitation for fulfillment of the exercise
programs, the University of Michigan physical education
facilities were made available to all officers in this
group. Officers could also exercise at home, at the Station
I facilities, or at any other suitable place.

The twenty-two subjects in this group attended an intro-
ductory meeting during which time they received their
physiological test results (but no psychological results),
with the appropriate explanations, and exercise programs.
During the course of the program, a representative from the
Center for Fitness and Sports Research was availableiJEatany
time the subject desired an individual conference concerning

his or her program. In addition, written newsletter

communications were sent to all participants in the group

36

from the Center for Fitness and Sports Research; the news-

letter discussed various aspects of health and fitness.

Psychological Intervention: Group C. Subjects assigned

 

to this group participated once every two weeks in an hour
and a half group session coordinated by one of two psychia-
trists selected for the Psychological Intervention Component
of the Stress Reduction Program. The groups ranged in num-
bers from six to twelve subjects and met in sessions which
were homogeneously divided in terms of unit assignments;
that is, all sergeants met in one group, corrections officers
mettogether as groups, and deputies and detectives met to-
gether as groups. The reason for this type of segregation
was based on the idea that the types of stressors experienced
in the different assignments would most effectively be
discussed and analyzed through discussions with persons
from the same professional occupation.

The psychological intervention mode was based on the
group dynamics principle, and focused on the following
aspects of stress:

1) the general dimensions and medical implications
of physical and psychological stress:

2) the understanding of how stress affects behavior,
performance and one's social and marital relation-
ships;-

3) the sources of stress generating from the police
and corrections roles generally, and in the Wash-
tenaw County Law Enforcement and Corrections

Facility specifically;

37

4) the distinguishment between those stressors that
are controllable and uncontrollable on the part
of the officers;

5) the ways to develop coping abilities for those
stressors which are uncontrollable and cannot
be changed; and

6) the ways to develop skills of reducing the nega-
tive impact of stress on oneself and one's peers.

There was, naturally, some degree of personal involvement
between the psychiatrists and the subjects in this group;
however, no deep psychological probing or analysis was em-
ployed in this particular mode. Group discussion stimula-
ted by films was the basic format for this intervention.

All interactions which occurred were considered confiden-
tial, and exchanges of information were restricted to those

involved in the immediate intervention group.

Psygholpgical and Physiological Interventions: Group A.

 

Subjects assigned to this group received ngh_psychological
and physiological interventions as described above for

Group B and Group C. Each subject was to exercise forty-five
minutes, three days each week, and participatedin the group

sessions for an hour and a half once every two weeks.

Professional Intervention: Group D. The subjects in

 

the Professional Group received technical and professional
training information on new procedures, laws, equipment,
tactics, etc. This intervention consisted of two sub-groups,

one being a law enforcement professional group, and one

/ .

 

 

38

being a corrections professional group. The group did not
receive any physical or psychological training which was
specifically stress oriented.

This fourth mode was not developed as a placebo, or
a null treatment, or a strictly pure control group, rather,
the group was designed to address the concerns of the Haw—
thorne and/or leadership affect. It has been indicated in
past research that any attention to different aspects of
one's working conditions may raise morale, improve employee
satisfaction, and increase job performances. Since:vulner-
ability to stressors appears to be related to such factors,
the intervention of this group may well improve the subjects'
ability to cope with stress. This group, then, is seen as
one which may establish minimal standards of improvement
for any proposed mode that is specifically oriented towards
stress reduction.

The types of activities which occurred in this group
involved those concerns pertinent to law enforcement and
corrections on an on-going basis, excluding stress specific
concerns. Lectures, guests speakers, audio-visual aids,
discussions and field trips were utilized for that purpose.
Each groupnet for one and a half hours every other week;
the Law Enforcement Group was coordinated by the Commander
of the Road Patrol, and the Corrections Group by the

Commander of the Corrections Unit.

39

Protection of Human Subjects

 

. Because of the great amount of personal information
gathered in the course of this study, every effort has been
made to minimize risks to subjects, and to support ethical
, treatment of individuals. While these hazards and risks
were for the most part minimal, protections were included
in the design of the research program.

Confidentiality. All information gathered during thezxpm

 

gram waskept confidential to the project staff in coded
form. To prevent inadvertent or unintentional leakage of
raw data to unauthorized persons, data was coded and stored
in segregation. After each item of data was gathered, the
names of subjects were converted to identification codes.
Original data records were kept in a locked cabinet until
destroyed.

Presentation of Data. The greatest risks to subjects

 

involved possible embarrassment or adverse consequences
resulting from the disclosure of confidential information.

To prevent such an occurrence, all statistics from data
analysis are presented in aggregation. No data is presented

in any manner wherein a single officer can be identified
directly or indirectly; this rule extended from official

to unofficial reports. The Administrative and Command

staff of the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department understood
these concerns, and agreed to the importance of confidentiality

and data presentation, and requested no exceptions.

40

Design of Thesis Study

 

As indicated earlier, the purpose of this thesis is
to research the effects of the four modes of interventions
employed in the Stress Reduction Program on the self-
reported measures of job satisfaction obtained during
pre-testing and post-testing. Being a subcomponent of
the Stress Reduction Program, this thesis has the identical
population, samples, procedures and interventions as de-
scribed in the preceeding section outlining the Stress

Reduction Program.

The Police Job Stress Inventory

 

One of the psychological instruments administered
to the eighty-eight subjects was the Police Job Stress
Inventory, presented in both pre- and post-testing. The
Police Job Stress Inventory (PJSI) was developed by re-
searchers working for the Police Foundation, the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Inter-
national Conference of Police Associations, and was adapted
in parts by the Social Justice Team Project in developing
the final PJSI instrument administered to Stress Reduction
Program participants. Results of data analysis from the
original researchers have not as yet been disseminated,
and therefore will be unavailable for comparison purposes

on responses, national norms, reliability and validity.

41

The instrument, therefore, may be viewed as an exploratory
research test.

"The PJSI is a broad-based research instrument designed
to identify areas of stress experienced in a police environ-
ment. (See Appendix D.) It includes both inter-organization-
al, intra-organizational, and extra-organizational factors
which may be contributory to the occupational stress ex-
perienced by law enforcement and corrections personnel.

There are three-hundred and sixty eight variables in the
questionnaire, formed into forty-four questions. The ques-
tions deal with the following specific aspects of law enforce-
ment and corrections: 1) information pertaining to length
of service in the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department,

type of assignment, amount of overtime, supervisory respon-
sibility, hours worked per week, educational achievements,
and previous law enforcement/corrections experience in other
departments; 2) perceptions as to personal and professional
likes and dislikes as they relate to a variety of occupation-
al responsibilities andtle extent to which officers feel tense
or relaxed in a variety of occupational responsibilities; 3)
officer perceptions of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction;
4) vehicular accidents both on and off duty; 5) the effect

of working hours on various aspects of the respondents' per-
sonal lives. 6) general questions about health, exercise,

alcohol abuse; and 7) questions pertaining to marital status.

Although a wide range of considerations are measured
in the PJSI, this thesis will analyze only those questions
which specifically relate to self reported job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction, and does not analyze any questions per-
taining to the other concerns, with the exception of some
of the initial descriptive data on length of employment
and type of assignment within the department.
The two questions which have been analyzed are
Item 14 on the Pre-Test (Item 7 on the Post Test) and
Item 19 on the Pre-Test (Item 12 on the Post Test).1
Item 14. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with

the following elements of your job as a
police officer? Use the following code:

 

 

 

Very dissatisfied
Moderately dissatisfied
Slightly dissatisfied
Slightly satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Very satisfied

mU'Ithl-J
II II II II II II

Job security
Fellow officers
Promotion system
Academy training
Overtime pay
Excitement
Salary

Equipment maintenance

lllllllll

Top administration

 

|-"

The post-test PJSI did not contain seven of the
descriptive questions posed on the pre-test PJSI to prevent
duplication of data gathering which would have remained
constant.

43

Immediate supervisor

Disciplinary system

Middle management

In—service training

Amount of overtime

System of determining work schedules
Personal appearance code

Method of determining days off
Performance evaluation system
Freedom to make decisions

Method of determining assignments

Recognition from supervisors

Item 19. Below are some phrases which indicate how you
might see yourself in your work. For example,
if you think that you are very "successful"
in your work, put a circle around the number
right next to the word "successful." If you
think that you are not at all successful in
your work, circle the number next to the words
"not successful." If you think you are some-
where in between, circle the appropriate number.

 

Successful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Successful
Sad at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Happy at Work
Not important at'work l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important at Work
Doing my best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Doing my Best

Administration of the Pre- and Post-Tests

 

The PJSI was administered as part of the battery of
tests described previously. Each subject completed both
the physiological tests at the Human Performance Laboratory,
and the psychological inventories on the sameaday. A packet

of tests was distributed to each subject, with written

44

instructions for completing the examinations. (See Appendix
E.) The instructions explained the purpose of the tests,
and the manner in which answer forms were to be completed.
All test materials and answer sheets were coded by
number so that the individual's identity was protected at
'all times throughout the testing process. Following com-
pletion of the psychological tests, the materials were
gathered and entered into the coding and storing process
previously described. Data was stored in the computer

systems at the University of Michigan.

Statistical Hypotheses

 

The first research hypotheses posits that "the imple-
mentation of a stress reduction program will result in an
increase of self-reported job satisfaction on the part of
subjects involved in the program." This hypotheses may
be statistically tested in several ways, the first involving
all subjects, the second involving analysis by group strata
individually. Thus, a restatement of this major research
hypothesis into two sub-hypotheses are as follows: I

S321: The implementation of a stress reduction

program w1ll result 1n an overall 1ncrease
of self-reported job satisfaction on the

part of all subjects involved in the
program.

Subz: The implementation of a stress reduction
program will result in within group
increases of self-reported job satisfaction.

45

It is important to emphasize that the second sub-hypothesis
in no way suggests that there are significant differences
between the groups, or that one type of group treatment
is more effective than another. It does suggest that
there may have been significant within group changes as
a result of the interventions.
The null hypothesis for the first sub-hypothesis
is as follows:

Null: thsl = thsz

 

The null may be read as "The mean of the total number of
subjects in the pre-test is equal to the mean of the total
number of subjects in the post-test."

The null hypothesis for the second sub-hypothesis

is as follows:

 

Null: 2A1 = XAZI
X31 = X32,
rel = rcz,
EDI = i132

This may be read as "The Mean of Group A on the pre-test
is equal to the mean of Group A on the post—test, the
mean of Group B on the pre-test is equal to the mean of
Group B on the post-test, the mean of Group C on the pre-
test is equal to the mean of Group C on the post-test and
the mean of Group D on the pre-test is equal to the mean

of Group D on the post-test."

46

The second major hypothesis refers to between group
change, and posits that "there will be significant differ-
ences between the four intervention groups in increases of
self-repOrted job-satisfaction." This research hypothesis

will be tested using the statistical hypothesis:

Null: XA2 - XAl = XB2 - XBl = xC2 _ Xcl =

 

IF the above null hypothesis is rejected, the following
alternative statistical hypothesis will be tested to deter-
mine how the groups are significantly different from one
another.

Alternative The combination of psychological and

Hypochesisl: physiological stress reduction inter-
ventions will have the greatest
effect on self-reported increases of
job satisfaction.

Hal: xA2 - XA1 > 3332 '- X31
XAQ - 2A1 :> 2C2 - iCl
XAZ ’ XA1 > X02 ' ZDl
Alternative

Hypothesisz: The physiological intervention of
the stress reduction program will
have a greater effect on self-re-
ported job satisfaction than either
the psychological or the professional
interventions.

 

47

Ha2: XB2 - xBl > xC2 - xCl
X - X X - x
B2 B1 7 D2 D1.
Alternative
Hypothesis3: The professional intervention of

 

the Stress Reduction Program will

have the least effect on increases

in self-reported job satisfaction in
comparison to the psychological, phy-
siological, or combination psychologi-
cal and physiological interventions.

Ha3‘ x132 ' an < XAZ ' XAl
XDZ - xDl < XBZ - xBl
X132 - xDl < xc2 - xCl

It is anticipated, then, that statistical analysis of
the mean scores on the post-test of the four groups will
reveal the following between-group differences: 1) the
combination intervention of psychological and physiologi-
cal modes will.have the most effect on increasing the self—
reported job satisfaction; 2) the physiological intervention
will have the second most effect; 3) the psychological inter-
vention will have the third greatest effect; and 4) the pro-
fessional intervention will have the least effect upon

participants.

48

Analysis of Data

 

Several statistical methods will be utilized to test
the hypotheses. For the two related hypotheses concerning
within group change, dependent,or matched,t-tests of
significance will be computed. A t-test computed on
all subjects for pre- and post-tests will determine
whether there were significant differences between
measures for the entire sample. A t-test computed on
subjects in each group will determine whether there were
significant differences within the separate groups from
pre-test to post-test: again, this in no way implies that
one group significantly changed more than another. The
t-tests will be computed on all twenty-five PJSI variables
and will determine whether any of the actual differences
are significantly larger than those expected by chance at
the .05 level of probability.

The statistical method used to determine whether there
are significant differences between the four group means
on the PJSI variables following the intervention period is
the Analysis of Variance. The analysis of variance will
be computed on the differences between the pre-test and
post-test means, and thus on a change score rather than
solely on the post-test mean scores. The reason for use

of differences scores in the analysis is that there were

49

significant differences between the four groups in several
of their responses prior to introduction of the interven-
tions (See Chapter IV.) The ANOVA assumption for analysis
of post-test means is that randomly formed groups should

be essentially equal for pre-test means. This assumption
was not met, and ananalysis of difference scores, there-
fore, is the more appropriate statistic to use. The ANOVA
will determine whether there are significant differences
between the groups at the .05 level of probability for each
of the twenty-five variables being considered.

In the event that the above statistical analysis
support significant differences between the groups, then
additional computation to determine how the groups are
different will be undertaken. The procedure used will
be a multiple comparisons test, which involves computation
of a special form of the t-test in which combined variance
for all four groups is taken into account. The procedure
determines how the groups are significantly different,
and in what direction; i.e., increase in satisfaction or
decrease in satisfaction.

Should no statistically significant differences be
found either within groups or between groups, then addi-
tional interpretive analyses will be undertaken.

These will be in the form of t-test and ANOVA's computed

on the twenty five PUSI variables as they relate to

50

demographic data such as age, race, sex, division and
seniority. While these analyses will not provide statis-
tical explanations for any lack of significance, they
will furnish some insights into the characteristics of
the participants and the relationship between levels of
satisfaction and the Stress Reduction Program. Further-
more, a comparison will be made of those subjects who
dropped out vs. those subjects who remained in the program
on the PJSI variables and the demographic data.

To compute the t-tests and ANOVAs, the University
of Michigan's Amdahl 470V/6 computer will be utilized.
The overall operation of this computer is controlled by
the Michigan Terminal System (MTS), which contains a
large number of programs. One of these programs is known
as the Michigan Interactive Data Analysis System (MIDAS);
MIDAS has the statistical capabilities to run the t-tests,

ANOVAs, and multiple comparisons t-tests.

Summary

The experimental design of this study consists of
pre- and post-testing of eighty-eight randomly selected
participants to determine the effects of four different
stress reduction intervention modes on self-reported job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. T-tests will be

conducted to determine significant differences between

51

pre- and post-testing for the entire sample, as well as
for the individual groups. Analysis of Variance tests
will be computed to determine whether there are signifi-
cant differences between the means of the four inter-
vention groups. All tests will be considered statisti-
cally significant at the .05 level. If the analysis
reveals that there are significant differences between
the four groups, then multiple comparison t-tests will
be conducted to determine how they are different, and
in what direction. If no statistically significant
differences are found, then analyses of demographic
data as it relates to the PJSI variables will be con-
ducted to provide interpretive insights into the
relationship between self-reported satisfaction and

the Stress Reduction Program.

52

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE PRE-TEST DATA

The purpose of this chapter is twofold, first,to pre-
sent some descriptive statistics on the characteristics of
the sample group gathered from department records, and
second,to present an analysis of data on the Police Job

Stress Inventory pre-test variables.

Characteristics of the Sample

An analysis of characteristics of all subjects in the
sample revealed that there were thirty-nine deputies (44%
of total sample), thirty corrections officers (34%), eleven
detectives (13%), seven sergeants (8%), and one lieutenant
(1%). Seventy-four of the subjects were male (84%) and
nine female (16%), having a mean age of between thirty
and thirty-one years (30.6 years). There were twelve blacks
in the sample (14%) and seventy-six whites (86%). The mean
seniority in the sample was between five and six years (5.4).
Of the eighty-eight subjects, thirty-five had worked for
other law enforcement or corrections departments for an
average of between three and four years (3.5). The analysis

of variance computed to assess differences between

53

intervention groups in regards to.variables of race, sex,
birth, rank, seniority, and division indicated no signifi-

cant differences.

Analysis of the Pre-Test PJSI Data

 

Prior to the pre-testing, four persons dropped out
of the program reducing the number of persons in the sam-
ple from eighty-eight to eighty-four. Of these four, two
were corrections officers and two were deputies. Three
individuals resigned from the program for personal reasons,
and one individual dropped out because he terminated his
employment with the department. In addition to these for-
mal drop-outs, some of the questionnaires were incomplete-
ly filled out, resulting in further decreases in sample

size and data gathered on some of the items.

General Levels of Satisfaction

 

General levels of satisfaction reported by all sub-
jects was ascertained by analyzing the mean scores for the
entire sample. The mean scores for each item on Question
14 and Question 19 are presented in Table II and Table III,

respectively.

 

 

TABLE II
PRE-TEST MEAN SAMPLE SCORES

QUESTION 14

 

Variable Mean*
Job Security 3.05
Fellow Officers 4.32
Promotional System 2.90
Academy Training . 3.58
Overtime Pay 4.29
Excitement 4.62.
Salary 4.18
Equipment Maintenance 3.63
Top Administration 3.56
Immediate Supervisor 4.49
Disciplinary System 2.94
Middle Management 3.60
In-Service Training 3.16
Amount Overtime 3.89
System Determining Work Schedule 3.82
Personal Appearance Code 4.16
Method of Determining Days Off 3.95
Performance Evaluation 3.04
Freedom to Make Decisions 4.27
Method of Determining Assignments 3.67
Recognition from Supervisors . 3.18

 

*N varies from 74-79 because of missing data

Scale: 1 = Very Dissatisfied 4 = Slightly Satisfied
2 = Moderately Dissatisfied 5 = Moderately Satisfied
3 = Slightly Dissatisfied 6 = Very Satisfied

 

 

55

 

 

TABLE III
PRE-TEST MEAN SAMPLE SCORES

QUESTION 19

 

Variable Mean*
Successful at WOrk/Not Successful at Work 2.10
Happy at Work/Sad at Work 5.19
Not Important at WOrk/Important at Work 5.01

Doing My Best/Not Doing My Best 1.91

 

issing data.

*N varies from 74-76 because of m
Scale: Successful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Successful
Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sad
Not Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important
Doing Best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Doing Best

 

 

In regards to general levels of overall satisfaction
as reported in Question 19, the meansof the sample respon-
ses indicate that subjects feel they are doing their
best at work, and feel successful in their work. They
also report feeling moderately happy and moderately im-
portant while at work.

Mean sample scores for satisfaction pertaining to
the specific aspects of Question 14 indicate that in no
case did the mean score fall below the moderately dissat-

isfied level, and in only one case did the mean sample

56

score indicate a very satisfied level. Approximately six
percent of the responses ranged from moderately to slightly
dissatisfied (2.00-2.99); fifty-seven percent of the re-
sponses ranged from slightly dissatisfied to slightly sat-
isfied (3.00-3.99); and thirty-three percent of the re-
sponses were in the slightly to moderately satisfied cate-
gory (4.00-4.99).

On the whole, it may be concluded from direct reports
on Question 14, that the respondents were neither very
dissatisfied, nor very satisfied with the measured aspects
oftheir work. The sample was somewhat less than moder-
ately satisfied, with ninety percent of the responses fal-
ling in the range of slightly dissatisfied to moderately

satisfied.

Analysis of Variance

 

The pre-test data was initially analyzed-u:
determine whether the four intervention groups were sig—
nificantly different in order to decide upon the appro-
priate statistical technique to be used on post-test data
analysis. An analysis of variance was conducted on all
three-hundred and sixty-eight variables of the Police
Job Stress Inventory, and revealed that the four groups,
prior to introduction of interventions were essentially

equal on the self-report items measured. Out of all items

57

on the PJSI there were significant differences between the
groups at the .05 level of significance in only twenty-
four of the responses, or approximately six percent.

While the analysis of all PJSI variables showed the
groups to be essentially equal, there were significant
differences between the groups in three of the twenty-
five variables considered in this thesis. The means
of each group for each variable considered, and the
levels at which the groups were significantly different
as computed by the analysis of variance are presented in

Table IV and Table V.

 

 

TAUELEIIIV

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN GROUP SCORES*
QUESTION 19

Mean Scores

 

Variable A B C D Pr<.05
Successful/Not Success. 2.21 2.24 1.84 2.11 .69
Happy at Work/Sad 4.76 5.19 5.39 5.39 .60
Not Important/Important 5.12 5.00 5.05 4.89 .98
Doing Best/Not Doing Best 1.89 1.76 2.05 1.94 .91

 

*N varies from 74-76 because of missing data.

Scale: Successful at Work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Successful
Sad at Work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Happy
Not Important at Work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important
Doing Best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Doing Best

 

 

 

 

 

TAIHHZ‘V
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN GROUP SCORES
QUESTION 14
Mean Scores**
‘Variable A B c D p.g;os*
Job Security 2.90 2.38 3.50 3.50 .03*
Fellow Officers 4.45 3.81 4.53 4.56 .13
Promotional System 2.85 3.00 2.95 2.78 .97
Academy Training 3.95 2.95 3.68 3.82 .17
Overtime Pay 4.25 3.95 4.75 4.22 .27
Excitement 4.40 4.48 5.10 4.50 .15
Salary 3.60 4.14 4.70 4.28 .11
Equipment Maintenance 3.25 3.67 3.65 4.00 .44
Top Administration 3.30 3.43 3.75 3.78 .70
Immediate Supervisor 4.70 3.86 4.75 4.72 .10
Disciplinary System 3.10 2.71 3.30 2.61 .35
Middle Management 3.40 3.48 3.60 4.00 .36
In-Service Training 2.85 3.24 3.35 3.22 .75
Amount Overtime 3.85 3.24 4.70 3.78 .0007*
System Deter. Wk Sched. 3.80 3.48 4.00 4.06 .58
Personal Appearance Code 3.85 4.24 4.20 4.39 .67
Method Deter. Days Off 3.95 3.57 4.10 4.22 ' .60
Performance Evaluation 2.63 2.95 3.32 3.29 .40
Freedom to Make Decisions 4.05 4.05 5.05 3.89 02*
Method Deter. Assignments 3.85 3.33 3.85 3.67 .61
Recog. from Supervisors 2.70 3.05 3.60 3.39 .28

 

**N varies from 76-79 because of missing data.

Scale:

1
2
3

= Very Dissatisfied
Moderately Dissatisfied
Slightly Dissatisfied

4 = Slightly Satisfied
5 = Moderately Satisfied
6 = Very Satisfied

 

 

58

59

Significant differences between the groups were found
only in Question 14 items, on three variables relating to
Job Security, Amount of Overtime, and Freedom to Make De-
cisions. In regards to Job Security, the means for Groups
C and D were higher than for Groups A and B. The mean for
group C was also higher than the other three groups for sat-
isfaction relative to the Amount of Overtime worked, and
Freedom to Make Decisions. While not statistically sig-
nificant, a comparison of Tables IV and V with Tables II
and III reveals that the means for GroupC were consistently
above the sample means; conversely, the meansfor Group B
was consistently below the sample means.

In that there were some significant differences be-
tween the groups on pre-test variables,there was concern
as to whether an analysis of variance could be used on
just the post-test data. This concern arises from the
assumptions which should be met in using an analysis of
variables solely on post-test data; that is, pre-test
.variables should be essentially equal on self reports
from the four different intervention groups considered.

To account for these differences, it was determined
that the appropriate statistical technique to be used in

hypothesis testing would be an analysis of variance on the

differences between the means of the pre- and post tests.

This provides an analysis of the changes occurring between

60

pre—and post-testing. In analyzing the amount of change
occurring in each group, rather than simply the post-test
scores, the results will show more clearly the dynamics

and effects of the Stress Reduction Program on job satis—
faction.- The analysis of variance used in testing the
statistical hypotheses, therefore, will not be using solely
pre-test or solely post-test data, but the differences be-

tween the two.

Summary

An analysis of variance of the pre-test data indicates
that there are some significant differences between the
four intervention groups in regards to reported job satis-
faction on items of Job Security, Amount of Overtime, and
Freedom to Make Decisions. In that these items compose
twelve percent of the items analyzed in this thesis, it
is determined that an analysis of variance of the differences
between pre- and post-test means is the appropriate sta-
tistical technique to use in hypothesis testing.

Generally speaking, thegrespondents were neither very
dissatisfied nor very satisfied with the job satisfaction
items prior to implementation of the Stress Reduction in-
terventions. The sample was somewhat less than moderately
satisfied on theoverall job satisfaction indices. In terms
of general feeling about their work, respondents report they
are mostly doing their best, feel successful at work, and

feel moderately happy and important while at work.

CHAPTER V

TESTS OF HYPOTHESES
In this chapter, an analysis of participant attrition,
general levels of post-test satisfaction, and hypotheses

testings are presented.

Participant Attrition

 

Prior to, or at the time of poSt-testing, a total of
twenty-seven subjects (31%) resigned from the Stress
Reduction Program, leaving an n of sixty-one subjects.
There were no significant drop-out rate differences between
the four intervention groups. The numbers were fairly
even with six dropping out of Group A, seven from Group B,
eight from Group C, and six from Group D. This resulted
in group n'd of sixteen subjects for Groups A and D,
fifteen subjects in Group D, and fourteen subjects in
Group C. An in-depth discussion of participant attrition
is presented in Chapter VI.

In addition to formal drop-outs, some of the post-
test questionnaires, as with pre-test questionnaires, were
incompletely filled out. This resulted in a further re-

duced n for data analysis; most of the variables were

61

62

analyzed for approximately fifty subjects, with between
eleven and fourteen in each of the four intervention
groups. While ideally a greater number of subjects per
group would have been desirable, it is not concluded
that the reduced n significantly impairs analysis of

results.

General Levels of Satisfaction

General levels of satisfaction for both pre- and post-
test, and the increases and decreases in satisfaction
during the intervention period may be ascertained by re-
viewing the sample means for Questions 19 and 14. These

means are presented in Tables VI and VII, respectively.

 

 

THUELE \KI '

Pre- and Post-Test Sample Means
Question 19

 

 

Variable Pre-Test Mean* Post-Test Mean*

Successful/Not Successful 1.96 2.04

Happy at Work/Sad at Work 5.31 5.14

Not Important at Work/Important 5.08 4.88

Doigg Best at Work/Not Doing Best 1.92 2.61

n 8 49

Scale: Successful at Work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Successful
Happy at Work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sad at Work
Not Important at Work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important at Work
Doing My Best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Doing Best

 

 

 

 

TABLE VII

Pre— and Post-Test Sample Means
Question 14

 

Element Pre-Test Mean* Post-Test Mean*
Job Security 2.98 3.40
Fellow Officers 4.22 4.31
Promotional System 3.04 2.67
Academy Training 3.61 3.33
Overtime Pay 4.48 4.04
Excitement 4.77 4.52
Salary 4.35 4.42
Equipment Maintenance 3.85 3.88
Top Administration 3.67 3.38
Immediate Supervisor 4.69 4.56
Disciplinary System 3.04 2.96
Middle Management 3.65 3.61
In-Service Training 3.42 3.21
Amount Overtime 3.79 3.50
Syst. Deter. Wk. Sched. 3.90 3.83
Personal Appearance Code 4.23 4.34
Method Deter. Days Off 4.04 4.17
Performance Evaluation 3.21 3.06
Freedom to Make Decisions 4.52 4.35
Method Deter; Assignments 3. 77 3.90
Recognition from SuperVisors 3.38 3.52

 

*N varies from 48 to 52 because of missing data.

4 - Slightly Satisfied
5 a MOderately Satisfied
6 a Very Satisfied

Scale: 1 a Very Dissatisfied
2 = Moderately Dissatisfied
3 8 Slightly Dissatisfied

 

64

It is important to note that the pre-test means presented
in thischaptervary slightly from those presented in Chapter
IV. The reason for these differences is attributed to the
reduced number of subjects for which the means were computed;
means for pre-test variables in this chapter are computed
only for those subjects remaining in the sample at the time
of post-testing.

In terms of changes in overall satisfaction from pre- to
post-testing as determined in responses to Question 19,
the sample generally felt happier, but less successful, less
important, and less that they were doing their best at the
end of the intervention period. The responses to Question 14
indicated that the sample satisfaction increased by the time
of post-testing for thirty-eight percent of the variables,
and decreased for sixty-two percent of the variables. .In-
creases in satisfaction were found in the variables of Job
Security, Fellow Officers, Salary, Equipment Maintenance,
Personal Appearance, Method of Determining Days Off, Method
of Determining Assignments, and Recognition From Supervisors.
Decreases in satisfaction were found in the Promotional
System, Academy Training, Overtime Pay, Excitement, Top-
Administration, Immediate Supervisor, Disciplinary System,
Middle Management, In-Service Training, Amount of Overtime,
System of Determining Work Schedules, Performance Evaluations,
and Freedom to Make Decisions.

Of note is the fairly slight amount of increases and

65

decreases in the sample means from pre- to post-testing.

In pre-testing, approximately five percent of the variables
fell in the 2.00—2.99 range; fifty-seven percent were in
the 3.00-3.99 range; and thirty-eight percent were in the
4.00-4.99 range. In post-testing, approximately ten
percent of the variables were in the 2.00-2.99 range;
fifty-two percent were in the 3.00-3.99 range; and thirty-
eight percent were in the 4.00-4.99 range. For pre-testing,
ninety-five percent of the responses were in the slightly
dissatisfied to moderately satisfied range; for post-
testing ninety percent of the responses were in the

same range.

Within Sample Changes

 

The extent to which the above increases and decreases
in satisfaction were significant was hypothesized that
"the implementation of a stress reduction program will re-
sult in an overall increase of self-reported job satisfac-
tion on the part of subjects involved in the program."

The null hypothesis that X = X

tssl tssz was tested by a

matched pair t-test for the entire sample on each of the
twenty-five variables. A summary of the t-tests are
presented in Table VIII for Questions 14 and 19. A nega-
tive mean difference is symbolized by a minus sign pre-
ceeding the statistic (decrease in satisfaction); a
positive mean difference has no preceeding sign (in-

crease in satisfaction).

66

 

 

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample Means**
Questions 14 and 19

TABLE VIII

 

Mean

Element Diff. s.d. t-stat. p.905*
Job Security .42 1.81 1.69 .0976
Fellow Officers .98 1.35 .52 .6051
Promotional System, - .37 1.80 -1.46 .1504
Academy Training - .27 1.47 -l.33 .1886
Overtime Pay - .44 1.58 -2.02 .0484*
Excitement — .25 1.30 -l.39 .1705
Salary - .77 1.10 .50 .6162
Equipment Maintenance .38 1.48 .19 .8522
Top Administration - .29 1.50 -1.39 .1714
Immediate Supervisor - .13 1.53 - .63 .5298
Disciplinary System - .78 1.48 - .38 .7069
Middle Management - .38 1.36 - .20 .8389
In-Service Training - .21 1.68 - .91 .3694
Amount Overtime - .29 1.50 -l.39 .1714
System Deter. Wk. Sched. - .77 1.12 - .50 .6218
Personal Appearance Code .11 1.22 .68 .4966
Method Deter. Days Off .13 1.44 .67 .5039
Performance Eval. System - .15 1.25 - .81 .4247
Freedom to Make Decisions - .17 1.23 -1.01 .3159
Method Deter. Assignments .13 1.33 .73 .4684
Recognition from Superv. .13 1.44 .67 .5039
Successful/Not Successful .82 .93 .61 .5426
Sad/Happy - .16 1.76 - .65 .5192
Not Important/Important - .16 2.14 — .53 .5965
Doing Best/Not Doing Best .69 1.90 2.56 .0136 *

 

** N varies from 48-52 because of missing data

 

 

 

 

 

l .lJl a... -

67

The results of the t-test indicate that there were sig-
nificant differences within the sample between pre- and post-
tests in only two of the twenty-five variables. There was
1) a significant decrease in satisfaction at the proposed
alpha with Overtime Pay, and 2) a significant decrease in
participant reports that they were doing their best. Thus,
the null hypothesis was rejected in only two variables,
and in the opposite direction as that hypothesized. The
hypothesis that the stress reduction program would result
in an increase of overall sample satisfaction was, there-

fore, not supported.

Within Group Changes

 

The hypothesis that "the implementation of a stress
reduction program will result in within group increases of
self-reported job satisfaction," was tested using a t-test

analys1s for the null of XAl = XAZ, XB1 = X32, XCl = ng'

and Xbl = X52. 'The matched pair t-test was separately
run on all twenty-five variables for each of the four in-
tervention groups. The results of these four t-tests are
presented in Tables IX, X, XI and XII, fOr Groups A, B,

C and D, respectively.

 

 

TABLE IX

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample Means**
Questions 14 and 19, Group A

 

Pre- Post Mean
Variable Mean Mean Diff . s .d . t-stat p.(. 05
Job Security 3.23 3.08 .15 1.28 - .43 .6727
Fellow Officers 4.15 3.77 - .38 .96 -1.44 .1745
Promotional System 3.38 2.69 - .69 1.44 -l.74 .1079
Academy Training 4.00 2.92 -1.08 1.73 -2.17 .0528
Overtime Pay 4.54 3.54 ~1.00 2.08 -1.73 .1089
Excitement 4.54 4.23 - .31 1.80 - .61 .5486
Salary 4.00 4.15 .15 .69 .81 .4363
Equip. Maintenance 3.61 3.46 - .15 1.41 - .39 .6999
Top Administration 3.31 3.46 .15 1.14 .49 .6364
Immediate Supervisor 4.92 4.31 - .62 1.50 -1.48 .1654
Disciplinary System 3.00 3.54 .54 1.05 11.85 .0892
Middle Management 3.31 3.46 .15 1.41 .39 .6999
In-Service Training 3.08 2.92 - .15‘ .90 - .62 .5486
Amount Overtime 3.62 3.23 - .38 1.26 -1.10 '.2930
Syst. Det. Wk.Schd. 3.85 3.85 .00 1.00 .00 1.0000
Personal App. Code 4.31 4.23 - .08 .49 - .56 .5845
Meth. Det. Days Off 3.92 4.30 .38 2.06 .67 .5142
Performance Eval. 2.92 2.67 - .25 .97 - .90 .3889
Freedom to Make Dec. 4.62 4.08 - .54 1.13 -1.72 .1105
Meth. Det. Assignmts 4.08 4.15 .07 1.26 .22 .8289
Recog. from Superv. 3.08 3.46 .38 .87 1.59 .1368
Successful/Not Succ. 1.92 1.75 - .17 1.03 - .56 .5863
Sad/Happy 5.00 4.64 - .36 2.38 - .51 .6230
Not Important/Imp. 5.45 5.00 - .45 1.86 - .81 .4374
Doing Best/Not Doing 3. 1.82 2.00 .18 .75 .80 .4405

 

**N varies from 11-13 because of missing data.

 

 

69

 

 

TATHHS X

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample Means**
Questions 14 and 19, Group B

 

Pre- Post- Mean
Variable Mean Mean Diff. s.d. t-stat. p<,05*
Job Security 2.07 3.43 1.36 1.45 3.51 .0038*
Fellow Officers 3.64 4.43 .79 1.53 1.92 .0765
Promotional System 3.21 3.07 - .14 1.96 - .27 .7889
Academy Training 2.93 2.71 - .21 1.72 - .47 .6484
Overtime Pay 4.14 3.71 - .43 1.79 - .90 .3854
Excitement 4.86 4.43 - .43 .85 ~1.88 .0823
Salary 4.21 4.57 .36 1.39 .96 .3548
Equip. Maintenance 4.00 4.00 .00 1.18 .00 1.0000
Top Administration 3.79 4.00 .21 1.19 -67 .5117
Immediate Supervisor 4.07 4.36 .29 2.13 .50 .6238
Disciplinary System 3.07 2.86 - .21 1.19 — .67 .5117
Middle Management 3.57 3.71 .14 1.46 .37 .7202
In-Service Training 3.50 3.86 .36 2.02 .66 .5205
Amount Overtime 3.21 3.29 .07 2.40 .11 .9131
Syst. Det. Wk. Schd. 3.36 3.14 .21 1.12 — .71 .4874
Personal App. Code 4.43 -4.00 - .43 1.16 —l.38 .1894
Meth. Det. Days Off 3.57 3.86 .29 1.07 1.00 .3356
Performance Eval. 3.07 3.21 .14 1.66 .32 .7522
Freedom to Make Dec. 4.21 4.43 .21 1.48 .54 .5964
Meth. Det. Assignmts. 3.36 3.57 .21 1.53 .52 .6086
Recog. from Super. 3.07 3.36 .29 1.20 .89 .3909
Successful/Not Succ. 2.38 2.85 .46 1.05 1.58 .1390
Sad/Happy 5.43 5.00 - .43 2.03 - .79 .4431
Not Important/Imp. 4.93 4.36 - .57 2.06 -1.04 .3193
Doing Best/Not Doinng, 1.71 3.21 1.50 2.14 2.62 .0210‘*

 

**°N varies from 13-14 because of missing data.

 

 

70

 

 

THUELE )CI

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample Means**
Questions 14 and 19, Group C

 

Pre- Post- Mean .
Variable Mean Mean Diff. s.d. t-stat.4p<.05*
Job Security 3.38 3.15 - .23 1.92 - .43 .6727
-Fellow Officers 4.75 4.75 .00 1.21 .00 1.0000
Promotional System 3.00 2.15 - .85 1.99 -1.53 .1519
Academy Training 3.92 3.92 .00 1.15 .00 1.0000
Overtime Pay 5.08 4.62 - .46 .88 -1.90 ‘.0821
Excitement 5.15 4.62 - .54 1.13 -1.72 .1105
Salary 4.77 4.54 - .23 .83 -1.00 .3370
Equip. Maintenance 3.85 4.31 .46 1.51 1.10 .2910
Top Administration 4.00 3.08 - .92 1.71 -1.95 .0748
Immediate Supervisor 5.08 4.85 - .23 1.30 - .64 .5345
Disciplinary System 3.42 2.75 - .67 1.83 -1.26 .2320
Middle Management 3.85 3.85 .00 1.08 .00 1.0000
In-Service Training 3.69 3.08 - .62 1.61 -1.38 .1931
Amount Overtime 4.77 4.23 - .54 .88 -2.21 .0470*
Syst. Det. Wk. Schd. 4.30 4.30 .00 1.29 .00 1.0000
Personal App. Code 4.08 4.38 .31 1.38 .81 .4363
Meth. Det. Days Off 4.38 4.31 .08 1.61 - .17 .8657
Performance Eval. 3.33 3.50 .17 .72 .80 .4382
Freedom to Make Dec. 5.08 4.62 - .46 .66 -2.52 .0269*
Meth. Det. Assignmts. 4.00 4.46 .46 1.27 1.31 .2132
Recog. from Super. 3.92 4.15 .23 1.74 .48 .6410
Successful/Not Succ. 1.67 1.67 .00 .74 .00 1.0000
Sad/Happy 5.75 5.58 - .17 .72 - .80 .4382
Not Important/Imp. 5.25 4.75 — .50 1.73 -1.00 .3388
Doing Best/Not Doing B. 2.33 3.08 .75 1.82 1.43 .1802

 

**N varies from 12-13 because of missing data.

 

 

71

 

 

TPHILE

XIII

T-Test on Pre- and Post-Test Sample Means**
Questions 14 and 19, Group D

 

Pre- Post- Mean
Variable Mean Mean Diff. s.d. t-stata p(.05
Job Security 3.33 4.00 .67 2.19 1.06 .3139
Fellow Officers 4.42 4.33 -.08 1.14 - .20 .8451
Promotional System 2.50 2.75 .25 1.76 .49 .6332
Academy Training 3.67 3.83 .17 .94 .62 .5505
Overtime Pay 4.17 4.33 .17 1.19 .48 .6380
Excitement 4.50 4.83 .33 1.23 .94 .3683
Salary 4.42 4.42 .00 1.35 .00 1.0000
Equip. Maintenance 3.92 3.75 -.17 1.90 - .30 .7668
Top Administration 3.58 2.92 -.67 1.72 -1.34 .2072
Immediate Supervisor 4.75 4.76 .00 .85 .00 1.0000
Disciplinary system 2.67 2.67 .00 1.71 .00 1.0000
Middle Management 3.92 3.42 -.50 1.51 -1.14 .2750
In-Service Training 3.42 2.92 -.50 1.98 - .88 .3997
Amount Overtime 3.58 3.25 -.33 .89 -l.30 .2199
Syst. Det. Wk. Schd. 4.17 4.08 -.08 1.16 - .25 .8088
Personal App, Code 4.08 4.83 .75 1.42 1.83 .0950
Meth. net, Days Off 4.33 4.25 -.08 .79 - .36 .7227
Performance Eval. 3-60 2.80 ;.80 1.32 -1.92 .0868
Freedom to Make Dec. 4.17 4.25 -.08 1.44 .20 .8451
Meth. Det. Assignmts. 3.67 3.42 -.25 1.29 - .67 .5152
Recog. from Super. 3.50 3.08 -.42 1.83 - .79 .4474
Successful/Not Succ. 1.83 1.83 .00 .85 .00 1.0000
Sad/Happy 5.00 5.33 .33 1.61 .72 .4893
Not Important/1mg, 4.58 5.50 .92 2.68 1.19 .2608
Doing Best/Not Doing 8. 1.83 2.00 .17 2.25 .26 .8022

 

**N - 12

 

72

The pre- and post-test means are also included in
these tables. In order to fully understand the table, the
mathematical compuations of the means and mean differences
should be clarified. The mean for the pre-test group was
computed by dividing the sum of the pre-test scores by the
number of subjects for each group; the same was done for
post-test means using post-test scores. If the pre-test
mean is subtracted from the post-test mean, the result is
.223 the mean difference shown in the tables. This is
because the mean differences were computed for the t-tests
by l) subtracting each subject's pre-test score from the
post-test score, 2) summing these difference scores, and
3) dividing by the number of subjects in the group.

The results of these t-tests indicate that there were
no significant differences within Group A from pre- to
post-testing for any of the twenty-five variables. The
same holds true for Group D. Significant differences were
found in Group B on two variables. There was an increase
in Job Security satisfaction during the intervention period,
and a decrease in the extent to which the subjects felt
they were doing their best. Two significant differences
were also found within Group C. There were decreases in
satisfaction with both the System of Determining Work
Schedules, and the Method of Determining Assignments.

The null hypothesis, therefore, was not rejected for

twenty-one of the variables, was rejected in the expected

73

direction for one of the variables, and was rejected for
three variables in the opposite expected direction.

The hypothesis that the implementation of a stress reduc-
tion program would result in significant increases in
satisfaction within the separate groups was generally

not supported.

Between Group Differences

 

While there were some significant differences
within each group, in order to determine whether one
group significantly increased or decreased its satis-
faction level in comparison to anothen,an analysis
of variance was computed on each variable. The research
hypothesis proposed that "there will be significant dif-
ferences between the four intervention groups in increases
of self-reported job satisfaction." The null hypothesis
tested by the analysis of variance was that 2A2 - 2A1 =
The results

xB2 - xBl '= xC2 - Xcl x02 - ibl.
of the analysis of variance are summarized in Table XIII.
(Tables of the complete individual ANOVA computations for
each of the twenty-five variables are compiled in App-

endix F.)

In Table XIII, the headings for the columns refer to
the degrees of freedom,the sum of the squares, and the mean

square within and between the intervention groups.

 

 

TABLE XIII

Analysis of Variance of Mean Differences,

Pre- and Post—Test Group Means,

Questions 14,19

 

Within Between

Variable df. s.s. m.s. d.f. 5.5. 111.8. 17* p.

Job Security 48 143.88 3.00 3 22.81 7.60 2.54 .0677
Fellow Officers 47 80.35 1.71 3 10.16 3.39 1.98 .1297
Promotional Syst. 48 156.43 3.26 3 9.63 3.21 .99 .4077
Academy Training 47 96.94 2.06 3 11.22 3.74 1.81 .1578
Overtime Pay 48 118.33 2.47 3 8.50 2(83 1.15 .3388
Excitement 48 80.10 1.66 3 5.65 1.88 1.13 .3465
Salary 48 59.21 1.23 3 2.48 .83 .67 .5749
Equip. Maint. 48 108.59 2.26 3 3.33 1.11 .49 .6901
Top Admin. 48 101.64 2.12 3 13.03 4.34 2.05 .1191
Immed. Supervisor 48 114.24 2.38 3 5.82 1.94 .81 .4922
Disc. System 47 100.25 9.43 3 9.43 3.14 1.47 .2337
Mid. Management 48 90.41 1.88 3 3.52 1.17 .62 .6040
In-Serv. Training 48 136.98 2.85 3 7.69 2.56 .90 .4490
Amt. Overtime 48 111.90 2.33 3 2.77 .92 .40 .7564
Syst. Det. uma Sch. 48 63.27 1.32 3 .42 .14 .11 .9563
Pers. App. Code 48 65.37 1.36 3 9.94 3.31 2.43 .0764
Meth. Det. D/Off 48 103.77 2.16 3 2.28 .76 .35 .7878
Perf. Eval. Syst. 44 67.23 1.53 3 6.75 2.25 1.47 .2352
Free. Make Dec. 48 71.74 1.49 3 5.71 1.90 1.27 .2943
Meth. Det. Assgt. 48 86.76 1.81 3 3.30 1.10 .61 .6131
Recog. in Super. 48 101.16 2.11 3 4.90 1.63 .77 .5138
Successful/not 45 38.90 .86 3 2.78 .93 1.07 .3711
Sad/Happy 45 144.31 3.21 3 4.39 1.46 .46 .7144
Important/Not 45 202.07 4.49 3 18.62 6.21 1.38 .2604
Doing Best/Not 45 157.05 3.49 3 15.35 5.12 1.47 .2363

 

 

 

 

*F significant at .05 level for 3 degrees freedom between, and 45-48
degrees freedom within, when 2.84 or greater.

 

 

74

75

It is revealed by the analysis of variance that the
null hypothesis was not rejected for each of the twenty
five job satisfaction variables. It may be concluded,
therefore, that there were no significant differences
between the four intervention groups for changes occurring

during the intervention period.

M

An analysis of the pre- and post-test results indicates
that the general levels of satisfaction for the sample re-
mained fairly constant over the ten-month intervention
period. Findings of the hypotheses testings confirmed
this constancy. The hypothesis that the Stress Reduction
Program would result in overall increases in sample satis-
faction was t-tested on pre- and post-test means for all
subjects, and was generally not supported. The null was
rejected in the opposite expected direction in two of the
twenty five variables: there were decreases in satisfac-
tion with Overtime Pay, and decreases in subject reports
that they were Doing Their Best. The null was not rejec-
ted in the expected direction for any of the variables.

The t-test analysis of independent within group
change tested the hypothesis that the Stress Reduction
Program would result in significant increases of satis-
faction in the four intervention groups. This hypothesis

was also generally not supported. No significant differ-

76

ences were found in Groups A and D. Two significant differ-
ences were found in Group B, one null being rejected in the
expected direction, and one null being rejected in the oppo-
site expected direction. There was a significant increase
in Job Security, and a decrease in the extent to which
subjects felt they were Doing Their Best. Two significant
differences were also found in Group C, with the null being
rejected in the opposite expected direction in both cases.
Decreases in satisfaction were found for the System of
Determining Work Schedules, and the Method of Determining
Assignments. Thus, overall four groups the null was
rejected only once in the expected direction and three

times in the opposite expected direction. It is concluded,
therefore, that the hypothesis was not supported.

An analysis of variance was computed to determine
whether there were significant differences between the four
groups as a result of the Stress Reduction Program inter-
ventions. The null hypothesis was not rejected for any
of the twenty-five variables. It is concluded that the

hypothesis was not supported.

CHAPTER VI

INTERPRETATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

The purpose of this chapter is twofold, first to
present additional information on the characteristics
of the subjects by relating their reported levels of
satisfaction to variables of race, sex, division, age
and seniority, and second to compare the pre-test satis-
faction levels of those subjects who dropped out of the
Stress Reduction Program with those who remained in the

program.

Demographic Variables Analysis

 

In that the three major research hypotheses were
not supported in this thesis, it may be useful to analyze
additional data to determine whether there were any sig-
nificant differences between satisfaction levels when
compared by various stratifications. Questions which
arise concern whether blacks were more affected by the
program than whites, women more than men, corrections
officers more than law enforcement officers, older sub-
jects more than younger subjects, and senior subjects
more than junior subjects.

Rage. The question of whether the variable of race

has any significance in self-reported job satisfaction

77

78

was tested by two-sample t-tests (Student's), run on all
twenty-five of the PJSI variables. The mean difference
scores between the pre- and post-tests were computed for
each subject, then stratified into a Black group and a
White group, and compared by the t-tests. The resulting
statistics indicate the extent to which blacks signifi-
cantly increased or decreased their satisfaction during
the intervention in comparison to the extent to which
Whites did. Results of the tests are summarized in
Table XI.

General changes in satisfaction during the program-
may be ascertained for each strata by determining the
numbers and percentages of increases and decreases for
all twenty-five variables. Blacks increased in satisfac-
tion on eight of the variables, decreased on fourteen,
and showed no changeon three. Whites increased satis-
faction on eleven of the variables, decreased on twelve,
and stayed the same on two. In comparing the percentages
of increases for the two groups, forty-four percent of
the change scores were in an increasing direction for
whites, and thirty-two percent were in an increasing
direction for blacks. Thus, it may be concluded that
‘white subjects increased their satisfaction levels more
often than did blacks. Conversely, it may be also stated

that blacks decreased their satisfaction more often than

 

 

TAHILE )CI

T-Tests of Black vs.
Pre- and Post-Tests,

Questions 14 and 19,

White Mean Differences on

 

Mean** Mean***
Variable Black White t p.(. 05*
Job Security .29 .44 - .21 .8314
Fellow Officers - .17 .13 — .51 .6129
Promotional System - .57 - .33 - .32 .7489
Academy Training - .83 - .20 - .99 .3267
Overtime Pay - 2.14 - .17 -3.36 .0015*
Excitement — 1.71 - .22 -3.56 .0008*
Salary .00“ .89 - .20 .8446
Equipment Maintenance .29 .00 .47 .6396
Top Administration - .14 - .31 .27 .7855
Immediate Supervisor - .71 - .44 -1.08 .2870
Disciplinary System - .43 - .23 — .67 .5062
Middle Management - .43 .22 — .81 .4190
In-Service Training .00 - .24 .35 .7247
Amount Overtime — 1.14 - .16 ~1.65 .1057
Syst. Deter. Wk. Schd. - .86 .44 -2.05 .0460*
Personal App. Code - - .29 .18 - .94 .3529
Meth. Deter. Days Off .14 .13 .02 .9872
Perf. Evaluation System .14 - .20 .65 .5159
Freedom to Make Decis. - .57 - .11 - .92 .3630
Meth. Deter. Assignmts. .43 .89 .63 .5346
Recog. from Supervisors .00 .16 - .26 .7936
Successful/Not Success. .57 .00 1.52 .1345
Sad/Happy - 1.50 .23 -2.05 .0458*
Important/Not Important .33 - .14 - .21 .8382
Doing Best/Not Doing Best .33 .74 - .49 .6240

 

**N varies from 6-7 because of missing data.
***N varies from 41-45 because of missing data.

 

79

80

whites.

Significant differences in the change statistics were
found for four variables. Black satisfaction decreased
significantly more than Whites on variables of Overtime
Pay, Excitement, and System of Determining Work Schedules.
Blacks also had significantly decreased feelings of happi-

ness while at work.

Sex. The extent to which female satisfaction changed
in comparison to male satisfaction was tested by the same
procedures as those used for race. Mean differences were
determined, and t-tests were computed on the stratified
groups for all twenty-five PJSI variables. A summary
of the results is presented in Table XIII.

Female satisfaction increased during the interven-
tion period for twelve of the variables, and decreased
for thirteen. Male satisfaction increased on ten of the
variables, and decreased on fifteen. In comparing the
two, female satisfaction increased by higher percentages
than males: forty-eight percent of the mean differences
were in the increasing direction for women, and forty
percent in the increasing direction for men. It may be
concluded that females increased their satisfaction on
the twenty-five variables more often than did men; men

increased their dissatisfaction more often than women.

 

 

TABLE XII

T-Tests of Male vs. Female Mean Differences on
Pre- and Post-Tests, Questions 14 and 19

Mean** Mean***

 

Variable Male Female t p .05*
Job Security .24 1.83 - 2.10 .0410*
Fellow Officers .02 .67 - 1.10 .2748
Promotional Systems - .50 .67 - 1.51 .1378
Academy Training - .33 .17 - .78 .4396
Overtime Pay - .48 - .17 - .45 .6535
Excitement - .33 .33 - 1.18 .2452
Salary .20 - .83 2.24 .0297*
Equipment Maintenance .20 - 1.17 2.20 .0327*
Top Administration - .37 .33 - 1.08 .2846
Immediate Supervisor - .09 - .50 .62 .5404
Disciplinary System - .18 .67 - 1.32 .1924
Middle Management - .11 .50 - 1.03 .3061
In-Service Training - .15 - .67 .70 .4870
Amount Overtime - .30 - .17 - .21 .8349
Syst. Deter. Wk. Schd. - .04 - .33 .59 .5554
Personal App. Code .20 - .50 1.33 .1900
Meth. Deter. Days Off .07 .67 - .96 .3416
Perf. Evaluation System - .09 — .60 .85 .3982
Freedom to Make Decis. - .17 - .17 - .01 .9894
Meth. Deter. Assignmts. .22 - .50 1.25 .2169
Recog. from Supervisors " .24 - .67 1.46 .1497
Successful/Not Success. .05 .33 - .70 .4858
Sad/Happy - .11 - .50 .50 .6220
Important/Not Important - .26 .50 - .81 .4244
Doing Best/Not Doing Best .70 .67 - .04 .9705

 

**N varies from 43-46 because of missing data.
*** N=6

 

 

82

There were significant differences in these change
scores on three variables. Female satisfaction increased
significantly over male satisfaction for Job Security.
Female satisfaction significantly decreased over males

for Salary and Equipment Maintenance.

Division. Changes in satisfaction for division units
were computed using the same techniques as those used for
race and sex. Division was stratified into corrections
personnel and law enforcement personnel. Included in
the law enforcement category were road patrol officers
and detectives. Results of these tests are summarized
in Table XIII.

Corrections officers decreased their satisfaction
during the intervention period much more frequently
than they increased it: eighteen decreases and seven
increases. Law enforcement officers increased their
satisfaction much more often than they decreased it:
fourteen increases, eight decreases, and three variables
which showed no mean difference. In comparison, correc-
tions officers had increased levels of satisfaction in
twenty eight percent of the variables; and law enforcement
officers had increased levels of satisfaction in fifty-six
percent. It may be concluded that law enforcement officers

increased their satisfaction on the variables much more

 

 

TABLE XIII

T-Tests of Corrections vs. Law Enforcement Officers
Mean Differences on Pre- and Post Tests, Questions 14 and 19

Mean** Mean***

 

Variable L.E. Corr. t g!(.05
Job Security .57 1.18 - 2.17 .0349*’
Fellow Officers .00 .29 - .73 .4673
Promotional Systems - .43 - .24 - .36 .7209
Academy Training .06 - 1.00 2.50 .0157*
Overtime Pay - .09 - 1.18 2.45 .0177*
Excitement - .06 - .65 1.56 .1250
Salary - .09 .41 - 1.55 .1272
Equipment Maintenance .17 - .24 .93 .3582
Top Administration - .34 - .18 — .37 .7113
Immediate Supervisor .00 - .41 .91 .3692
Disciplinary System .06 - .35 .93 .3545
Middle Management .17 - .47 1.63 .1103
In-Service Training .00 - .65 1.31 .1967
Amount Overtime - .20 - .47 .61 .5469
Syst. Deter. Wk. Schd. .09 - .41 1.53 .1335
Personal App. Code .20 - .06 .72 .4767
Meth. Deter. Days Off .17 .06 .26 .7946
Perf. Evaluation System .06 - .53 1.59 .1178
Freedom to Make Decis. - .09 — .35 .73 .4687
Meth. Deter. Assignmts. .23 - .06 .73 .4699
Recog. from Supervisors .34 - .29 1.51 .1366
Successful/Not Success. .03 .19 — .55 .5851
Sad/Happy .00 - .47 .89 .3786
Important/Not Important - .31 .18 - .66 .5096
Doing Best/Not Doing Best .59 .88 - .50 .6170

 

**Blvaries from 32 to 35 because of missing data.

***livaries from 16 to 17 because of missing data.

 

 

84

often than did corrections officers; and, corrections
officers decreased their satisfaction much more often than
law enforcement officers.

There were significant differences between the two
groups for three variables. In comparison to law enforce-
ment officers, corrections officers significantly increased
their satisfaction with Job Security. However, they
significantly decreased satisfaction with Academy Training

and Overtime Pay.

Age. The extent to which older officers compared to

younger officers for changes in satisfaction during the
intervention period was analyzed by a slightly different
procedure than that used for race, sex, and division.
For each PJSI variable the subjects were stratified into
1) those who increased or did not change their satisfac-
tion from pre- to post-testing, and 2) those who decreased
their satisfaction. (Decreases and increases were, again,
determined by differences between the pre- and post-test
responses.) The mean ages of subjects in the two groups
were compared with the twenty-five dichotomized variables
by two-sample t-tests. A summary of the results is pre-
sented in Table XIV.

Numbers in the columns labeled Mean Age Decrease

and Mean Age Increase represent the mean ages of all

 

 

TAJILE )CIV

T-Tests of Older vs. Younger Officers on
Increased and Decreased Satisfaction, Questions 14 and 19

 

 

 

Mean Age
Decreased Increased
Variable N Scores N Scores t p<<.05*
Job Security 12 32.67 40 32.10 - .21 .8328
Fellow Officers 18 30.17 33 33.61 1.48 .1455
Promotional Systems 23 33.70 29 31.07 - 1.18 .2455
Academy Training 15 33.60 36 31.89 - .69 .4936
Overtime Pay 22 29.32 30 34.37 2.33 .0237*
Excitement 19 30.79 33 33.06. .98 .3313
Salary 12 32.67 40 32.10 - ‘.21 .8328
Equipment Maintenance 13 32.93 39 32.00 - .36 .7236
Top Administration 20 32.45 32 32.09 - .15 .8782
Immediate Supervisor 17 30.00 35 33.31 1.41 .1652
Disciplinary System 17 30.29 34 33.00 1.13 .2624
Middle Management 20 28.45 32 34.59 2.87 .0061*
In-Service Training 24 30.46 28 33.75 1.49 .1425
Amount Overtime 24 29.92 28 34.23 1.98 .0536
Syst. Det. Wk. Schd. 13 32.15 39 32.25 .04 .9687
Personal App. Code 13 31.31 39 32.54 .47 .6371
Meth. Det. Days Off 13 31.61 39 32.44 .32 .7533
Perf. Eval. System 18 30.17 30 33.50 1.35 .1838
Free. to Make Dec. 17 29.23 35 33.69 1.92 .0603
Meth. Deter. Assignmts. 14 33.00 38 31.95 - .42 .6795
Recog. from Supervisors 16 30.19 36 33.14 1.23 .2250
Successful/Not Success. 38 31.60 11 35.46 - 1.38 .1728
Sad/Happy 33 33.12 16 29.06 1.85 .0702
Not Important/Important 21 32.05 28 31.61 - .20 .8385

Doing Best/Not Doing Best 41 30.61 8 37.61 - 2.71 .0093*

 

 

86

subjects who decreased and increased their satisfaction,
respectively. The Table may be read as in the following
example: all subjects who decreased their satisfaction
with fellow officers were generally younger, being 30.17
years of age; those subjects who increased their satis-
faction were generally older, being 33.61 years of age.
The difference between these ages was not, however,
significant as evidenced by the .1455 level of probability.
Those subjects who increased their satisfaction with
the variables were older in sixteen out of twenty-five
-variables (66%); conversely, those who decreased their
satisfaction were younger in sixteen out of twenty-five
variables (66%). It may be concluded that older officers
increased in satisfaction during the intervention period
much more frequently than did younger officers.
Significant age differences were found for three of
the variables. Those subjects who reported decreased
satisfaction with Overtime Pay were younger (29.32 years)
than those who reported increased satisfaction (34.37
years). Subjects who decreased satisfaction with Middle
Management were also significantly younger (28.45 years)
than those who increased satisfaction (34.59 years).
Finally, those who increased their perceptions that they
were net doing their best were significantly younger
(30.61 years) than those who increased in perceptions

that they were doing their best (37.86 years).

Seniority. The extent to which senior officers com-

 

pared with junior officers for changes during the inter-
vention period was analyzed by the same methods as those
used for age. A summary of the t-test results is pre-
sented in Table XV.

The number of times in which more experienced officers
increased their levels of satisfaction was approximate to
the number of times in which less experienced officers
increased satisfaction. Subjects with more years of
experience in the department increased their levels of
satisfaction thirteen times (52%); subjects with less
experience in the department increased their levels of
satisfaction on twelve of the variables (48%).

Significant differences between the senior and
junior officers was found in two of the variables. Sub-
jects who decreased satisfaction with their Immediate
Supervisor had spent significantly fewer years employed
in the department (4.59 years), than those who had in-
creased their satisfaction (6.86). The same relationship
holds true for Middle Management, wherein subjects with
decreased satisfaction were employed for an average of
6.65 years, and those with increased satisfaction were

employed 7.03 years.

87

 

 

 

TAEHHE XV'

T-Tests of Senior vs. Junior Officers (Mean Years Service)
and Increased and Decreased Satisfaction, Questions 14, 19

Mean Years of Service

 

 

Decreased Decreased
Variable N Scores N Scores t p < .05*
Job Security 12 6.75 40 5.92 - .73 .4679
Fellow Officers 18 5.22 33 6.64 1.42 .1629
Promotional Systems 23 6.83 29 5.55 - 1.35 .1835
Academy Training 15 7.53 36 5.64 - 1.86 .0688
Overtime Pay 22 5.73 30 6.40 .70 .4877
Excitement 19 5.74 33 6.33 .60 .5489
Salary 12 6.17 40 6.10 - .06 .9533
Equip. Maintenance 13 6.46 39 6.00 - .42 .6769
Top Administration 20 6.65 32 5.78 - .89 .3768
Immediate Superv. 17 4.59 35 6.86 2.35 .0229*
Disc. System 17 5.47 34 6.24 .77 .4411
Mid. Management_ 20 6.65 32 7.03 2.58 .0128*
In-Service Train. 24 5.33 . 28 6.79 1.55 .1270
Amount Overtime 24 5.62 28 6.54 .96 .3421
Syst. Det. Wk. Schd. 13 6.31 39 6.05 - .23 .8171
Personal App. Code 13 6.15 39 6.10 .05 .9631
Meth. Det. Days Off 13 6.31 39 6.05 - .23 .8171
Perf. Eval. System 18 5.39 30 6.43 .99 .3255
Free. to Make Dec. 17 5.23 35 6.54 1.31 .1976
Method Deter. Assgts. 14 5.75 38 6.03 — .31 .7598
Recog. from Superv. 16 6.91 36 6.28 .51 .6114
Successful/Not Suc. 38 6.08 11 6.91 - .70 .4858
Sad/Happy 33 6.58 16 4.81 1.83 .0737
Not Important/Imp. 21 6.48 28 5.64 - .89 .3786
5

Doing Best/Not D.B. 41 .66 8 7.75 - 1.70 .0952

 

 

89

Analysis of Subject Terminations From the Program

 

The concern addressed in this section involves
whether there were major satisfaction differences be-
tween those who chose to drop-out of the Stress Reduc-
tion Program, and those who did not. Determining this
may provide some insight as to why participants dis-
continued their involvement.

General characteristics of the drop-out group are
as follows: twenty four were white, and three black;
twenty four were male, and three female; sixteen were
law enforcement officers and eleven were corrections
officers. The mean age of those who dropped out was
32.07 years, and the mean age of those who did not
drop out was 31.93 years. The mean number of years
employed with the department was 5.6 for those who
dropped out, and 5.96 for those who did not.

To answer the question of whether there were
differences in initial satisfaction levels between
the two groups, all subjects were stratified into
two categories: those who dropped out, and those who
did not. The mean levels of satisfaction on each pre-
test PJSI variable was computed for the two groups,
and was compared using two-sample t-tests. The results

of these tests are summarized in Table XVI.

 

 

TEABI£1)UVI

T-Tests of Drop-Outs vs. Non-Drop-Outs
on Pre-Test Questions 14 and 19

Mean Scores

 

 

Variable N Drop-Outs N Non-Drop-Outs t p. ( .05*
Job Security 26 3.19 53 2.98 .61 .5437
Fellow Officers 26 4.50 52 4.23 .97 .3357
Promotional System 26 2.62 53 3.04 1.23 .2220
Academy Training 24 3.63 52 3.56 .18 .8611
Overtime Pay 26 3.88 53 4.49 1.98 .0514
Excitement 26 4.27 53 4.79 2.05 .0442*
Salary 7 26 3.85 53 4.43 1.45 .1507
Equip. Maintenance 26 3.67 53 3.81 1.63 .1080
Top Administration 26 3.27 53 3.70 1.20 .2321
Immediate Superv. 26 4.12 53 4.68 1.76 .0828
Disc. System 26 2.65 53 3.08 1.31 .1948
Mid. Management 26 3.50 53 3.66 .60 .5511
In-Service Train. 26 2.65 53 3.42 2.16 .0338*
Amount Overtime 26. 4.08 53 3.79 —1.00 .3202
Syst. Det. Wk. Schd. 26 3.65 53 3.91 .73 .4684
Personal App. Code 26 4.00 53 4.25 .74 .4619
Meth. Det. Days Off 26 3.77 50 4.04 .71 .4826
Perf. Eval. System 26 2.77 50 3.18 1.22 .2271
Free. to Make Dec. 26 3.81 53 4.49 2.20 .0307*
Meth. Deter. Assgts. 26 3.50 53 3.75 .75 .4547
Recog. fm. Superv. 26 2.81 53 3.36 1.50 .1389
Successful/Not Suc. 26 2.35 51 1.98 —l.35 .1812
Sad/Happy 26 4.96 49 5.31 .93 .3542
Not Important/Imp. 26 4.96 49 5.04 .21 .8370
Doing Best/Not D.B. 26 1.92 50 1.90 .07 .9410

 

 

91

Mean satisfaction scores for those who dropped out
were lower than for those who did not on nineteen out of
twenty-five variables (76%); mean satisfaction scores for
the drop-outs were higher than for the non-drop-outs on
twenty-four of the variables (24%). It may be concluded
that the drop-outs were generally less satisfied at the
time of pre-testing than those subjects who continued to
participate in the program.

Significant differences between the two groups were
found on three of the variables. Drop-outs were significant-
ly less satisfied with Excitement, In-Service Training, and
Freedom to Make Decisions. Of particular note is the
higher level of dissatisfaction with In-Service Training.
In that the Stress Reduction Program may have been viewed
as a form of in-service training, the low satisfaction with
this variable may have been an important factor in the

subjects' dropping-out.

92

Summary

Analysis of Demographic Variables. Based on a
stratified analysis of increases and decreases in satis-
faction with the twenty-five PJSI variables during the
intervention period, some generalizations may be made.

It is emphasized that these generalizations are primarily
for descriptive purposes. A summary of the number of
times, and the percentages, that each strata increased,
decreased or did not change levels of satisfaction on

the PJSI variables is presented in Table XVII.

 

 

THUILE )GVII

Pre- and Post-Test Satisfaction Differences By Strata

 

 

 

 

 

% of % of . % of ,
Strata N Decreases N Decreases N No Change
Black 14 56% 8 32% 3 12%
White 12 48% ll ' 44% 2 8%
Female 13 52% 12 48% _0
Male 15 60% 10 40% 0
Law Enforce. 8 32% 14 56% 3 12
Corrections 18 72% 7 28% 0 0
Older 9 36% 16 64% — -
Younger 16 64% 9 36% - -
Senior 12 48% 13 52% - -

Junior 13 52% 12 48% — -

 

 

93

The following observations may be made for the changes
in the strata during the intervention period: 1) white
satisfaction increased more often than black satisfaction;
2) female satisfaction increased more often than male satis-
faction; 3) satisfaction in law enforcement officers
increased much more often than in corrections officers;

4) satisfaction in older officers increased much more often
than in younger officers; and 5) senior and junior officers
increased satisfaction at approximately the same frequency.
Of course, the converse of these observations may also be
stated: black dissatisfaction increased more than white;
male dissatisfaction increased more than female; corrections
officer dissatisfaction increased more often than for law
enforcement officers; younger persons increased dissatisfac-
tion more often than older persons; and senior and junior
dissatisfaction increased at approximately the same fre-
quency.

The extent to which the changes on each of the PJSI
variables by strata were significant was determined by
using two-sample t-tests. Significant differences were
found in all of the stratifications. Black satisfaction
significantly decreased more than white satisfaction
on variables of Overtime Pay, Excitement, System of
Determining Work Schedules, and in perceptions of
Happiness at work. Female satisfaction significantly

increased over male satisfaction in Job Security, but

94

significantly decreased for Salary and Equipment Maintenance.
Correction Officer satisfaction significantly increased over
Law Enforcement on the variable of Job Security, but sig-
nificantly decreased for Academy Training and Overtime Pay.
Younger officer satisfaction significantly decreased over
older officer satisfaction with Overtime Pay, Mid-Management
and Perceptions of Doing Their Best. Junior Officers
significantly decreased satisfaction over more senior
officers for variables of Immediate Supervisor and Mid-

Management.

Analysis of‘Terminations From the Program. A

 

comparison of the pre-test mean satisfaction scores for
those subjects who dropped-out with those who did not
reveals that drop-outs were generally less satisfied

on the twenty-five PJSI variables. Significant differences
between the two groups were found on three variables.
Drop-outs were significantly less satisfied with variables
of Excitement, In—Service Training, and Freedom to Make

Decisions.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter a summary of the purpose, methods and
results of hypothesis testings are presented. Conclusions
and discussions of the results of the hypothesis testings
and interpretative data analysis are also included.

Recommendations for future research are suggested.

Pur se

Research into the problem of stress experienced by
law enforcement and corrections officers is still in the
early stages of development. There is a need to develop
an expanded empirical understanding of this stress, and
of the effectiveness of different ameliorative techniques.
The exploratory research conducted in this thesis investir
gated the effects of a Stress Reduction Program on the
self-reports of job satisfaction in law enforcement and

corrections personnel in a medium-sized sheriff's department.
Method

The experimental design of this study consisted of

pre- and post-testing of eighty-eight randomly selected

95

96

subjects from both law enforcement and corrections divisions
to determine the effects of a ten-month Stress Reduction
Program on twenty-five self-reported job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction variables. The program had four

stress reduction intervention modes: physiological
training, psychological training, a combination of
physiological and psychological training, and professional
training. .

Three hypotheses were developed which posited that
l) the Stress Reduction Program would result in an overall
increase of self-reported job satisfaction on the part of
all subjects in the program, 2) the stress reduction
program would result in within group increases of self-
reported job satisfaction, and 3) there would be signifi-
cant differences between the four intervention modes in
increases of job satisfaction.

To test the first two hypotheses, t-tests of signifi-
cance were conducted on pre- and post-test measures. To
test the third hypothesis, an analysis of variance was
computed on the mean differences in satisfaction from
pre- to post-testing for the four intervention groups.

Additional interpretative analyses were conducted
to determine whether there were any significant differ-
ences in satisfaction changes between subjects by race,

sex, division, age, and seniority. Finally, the dif-

97

ferences in satisfaction on the pre-test instrument between
subjects who dropped out of the program, and subjects who

remained in the program were analyzed.

Results

The hypotheses were generally not supported. Null
tests for within sample changes on the twenty-five
variables were rejected only twice, and not in the expec-
ted direction. Participants reported significantly decreased
satisfaction with Overtime Pay, and in their perceptions that
they were Doing Their Best while at work. Null tests for
within group changes were rejected on four variables,
one in the expected direction, and three not in the expec-
ted direction. Subjects in the Physiological Group
reported significant increases in Job Security, but
significant decreases in perceptions of Doing Their Best.
Participants in the Psychological Group reported decreased
satisfaction with the System of Determining Work Schedules,
and with the Method of Determining Assignments. Null tests
for between group differences were not rejected for any
of the variables.

Interpretative data analysis computed on variables of
race, sex, division, age and seniority by two-sample t-tests
on pre- and post-test mean differences revealed that

l) blacks significantly decreased their satisfaction in

98

comparison to whites on variables of Overtime Pay, Excite-
ment, System of Determining Work Schedules, and Happiness

at Work; 2) females significantly increased in satisfac-
tion in comparison to males for Job Security, but signi-
ficantly decreased for Salary and Equipment Maintenance:

3) corrections officers significantly increased satisfaction
in comparison to law enforcement officers for Job Security,
but significantly decreased for Academy Training and
Overtime Pay; 4) younger officer satisfaction significantly
decreased over older officer satisfaction with Overtime Pay,
Mid-Management and Perceptions of Doing Their Best; and 5)
junior officers significantly decreased satisfaction over
more senior officers for variables of Immediate Supervisor

and Mid-Management.

Conclusions

 

In that the research hypotheses were not supported,it
is concluded that implementation of the Stress Reduction
Program did not generally affect job satisfaction of the
participants. It is also concluded that no one form of
intervention was more powerful in affecting job satisfac-
tion than another. Where significant changes were found
for the three hypotheses, only one was in the expected
direction of increasing satisfaction, and five were in the

direction of decreased satisfaction.

99

The analysis of interpretative data suggests that
participation in a Stress Reduction Program.may have
differently affected satisfaction levels on a number of
variables for blacks in comparison to whites, women in
comparison to men, corrections officers in comparison
to law enforcement officers, younger in comparison to
older officers, and senior in comparison to junior

officers.

Discussion of the Results

 

Lack of Significance. In light of the above conclu-

 

sions, several questions must be raised and addressed.
7First, why were there so few significant changes during
the intervention period? And second, where significant
differences were found, why were they in the unexpected
direction of decreased satisfaction?

The Stress Reduction Program was a comprehensive,
carefully planned experiment. Methods to reduce stress
on the two major levels in which an individual may ex-
perience it -- physically and psychically -- were utilized.
An extended period of time was allowed in order for the
interventions to have a maximum impact upon participants.
Subjects were carefully monitored prior to, during, and
upon completion of the program. The interventions were

carefully monitored throughout the experimental period

100

to ensure optimal consistency in the quality of the various
-modes.

There were, however, several limitations which may have
been important factors in the apparent lack of impact
upon participants. The first limitation involves the
voluntary nature of the program. Success of a voluntary
experiment necessarily depends upon strong internal motiva-
tion on the part of subjects. The extent to which subjects
participated in this experiment was left to the discretion
of the individual. Attending the psychological or pro-
fessional group meetings, or exercising the prescribed
number of hours was ultimately within the control of the
subject. It may be that there were subjects who did not
formally drop out, but who also did not adhere to the
prescribed interventions. These persons may have been
"in the program," without truly being participants. This
possibility is evidenced by the fact that attendance at the
various group meetings was somewhat low at times. The low
attendance was despite the fact that deputies and correc—
tions officers were allowed to attend the meetings during
their regular duty hours -- should they be on duty -- and
despite the fact that they were painstakingly reminded of
meetings both by memo and by phone. Perhaps subject
motivation to reduce stress was simply not strong enough

to result in changes during the intervention period.

101

In that the Stress Reduction Program was an experiment,
it was inappropriate to force participation upon individuals.
It is possible, however, that should such a program be
implemented as part of regular in-service training, and
not as an experiment, greater impact may be effected. This,
of course, is purely a matter of conjecture and speculation
at this point.

Another limitation of the program may have been the
time span in which it was conducted. The program was de-
signed to allow time to first, raise the consciousness
levels of the individuals in regards to stress, and
second, to provide ample training and opportunity to reduce
levels of recognized stress. The time period was also
planned to allow for accurate measurements of true physio-
logical and psychological changes. Maintaining interest
and motivation in an experiment over a ten-month time‘
period is a difficult task. Perhaps a shorter and more
intensive design would have had a greater impact upon
the participants.

Aside from limitations in the design of the experiment,
there are other possible reasons as to why the subjects
were generally not affected by the program. One of these
relates to initial levels of satisfaction found in the

participants. Subjects were generally slightLy dissatis-

fied to moderately satisfied with the job variables measured.

102

If job satisfaction is a true index of stress, then it
may be concluded that participants were not under extreme
stress, but were only slightly stressed. To anticipate a
major shift in satisfaction, or a major reduction of stress,
in individuals who are only slightly dissatisfied or
stressed may be an unrealistic expectation. Had the
participants been under a great deal of stress, more
significant changes may have resulted.

Another possible reason why the experiment may not
have had much of an effect upon job satisfaction relates
to the focus of the program. There is a major problem
inherent in programs which attempt to reduce stress by
manipulating the person under stress, rather than the
stressor. A‘focus on the individual may be most appro-
priate when the stressors are perceived as uncontrollable,
and least appropriate when they are viewed as controllable.
The majority of job satisfaction variables analyzed in
this thesis related specifically to controllable, inter-
organizational, operational conditions of the job. If
officers are dissatisfied or feeling stressed by these
conditions, then a stress reduction program may help
them cope with their responses to their dissatisfaction.
It will probably not, however, change actual dissatisfaction

with the actual conditions. For example, if officers are

103

generally dissatisfied with a system of determining work
schedules, then perhaps the more appropriate focus is

to change the system rather than the individual. It may
be that the ultimate Stress Reduction Program is that
which concentrates not upon the individual officers,

but upon the controllable variables inducing stress.

While somewhat speculative, there is another possible
explanation for the apparent lack of significance in the
program. Many of the instruments developed to research
stress have involved the measurement of subject responses
to changes in life events.1 It has been hypothesized that
change is, in and of itself, a stressor.2 Should this
indeed be the case, then it would be expected that organi-
zational changes would have an effect upon stress, and
therefore upon job.satisfaction as an index of stress.

The Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department is currently
operated by a dynamic, future-oriented administration
which has implemented a number of innovative programs
within the department. In the last several years,
major changes have either been made, or culminated

in implementation and effectiveness. Some of these changes

 

1Catherine E. Ross, and John Mirowsky II. "A Compari-
son of Life—Event-Weighting Schemes: Change, Undesirabil-
ity, and Effect-Proportional Indices." Journal of Health
"ahd’SOcial Behavior 20 (June 1979), p. 166.

 

 

21bid., p. 167.

104

include the development of an Assessment Center which
recruits new officers in a more objective, standardized
fashion. A new Pranotional System was designed and im-
plemented to ensure fairer, more objective and stan-
dardized procedures for prcmotion within the department.
A permanent Personnel Development Committee, designed and
coordinated by deputies, corrections officers, and
administrators was established within the department

to continuously upgrade the quality and operational
efficiency of the officers. Included in this was the
implementation of a standardized program of selecting
Field Training Instructors, and training new recruits.
A Special Operations Team was established to deal with
volatile crisis situations in Washtenaw County, and
entailed extensive internal and external training of
members of the team.

The Social Justice Team Project also began operating
in the department. The major purposes of the project
were to effect both role changes and operational changes.
One of the major changes was the implementation of a
policy designed to train and sensitize the officers to
the needs of mentally ill subjects with whom they inter-
act, and also to improve the interagency cooperation with
mental health services. Similar changes are also being
reviewed for the handling of domestic disturbances. And

of course, the Stress Reduction Program was in and of

105

itself a major innovation within the department.

One more aspect of change within the department stems
from the fact that the period of experimental interventions
spanned the year before an election. Any election implies
the potential for change. While high standards are normal—
ly expected of officers in non-election years, it is a
well-known phenomenon that as an election approaches, an
especially high quality of performance is expected from
officers.

The point of this discussion is that if change is
indeed a stressor, then one may conjecture that the
officers within the Sheriff's_Department have been exposed
to a number of potentially stress inducing conditions.

The changes have resulted in an increase of productivity
on the part of officers. It is possible that the combi-
nation of changes and increased productivity would have
resulted in a greater decrease of satisfaction were it
not for the Stress Reduction Program. The program may
have maintained a level of satisfaction which would have

otherwise decreased.

Unexpected Direction of Significance. Possible
explanations for the unexpected significant decreases in
satisfaction during the intervention period relate to the

previous discussion of focus of the program. It is not

106

concluded that the Stress Reduction Program generally induced
decreases in satisfaction with the variables. It is more
likely that dissatisfaction with Overtime Pay, Systems of
Determining Work Schedules and Assignments, and perceptions
of how much effort officers were putting into their job
was related to operational conditions within the department.

In regards to overtime pay, there were some policy
changes within the department and this may have been the
precipitating factor. There is, however, one possibility
directly related to the Stress Reduction Program. If officers
were on duty when the various group meetings were held, then
they were allowed time off from their regular responsibili-
ties to attend the meetings. However, if they were not on
duty, then officers were expected to attend meetings on
their own time without reimbursement. Subjects may have
perceived the attendance at the meetings to be a form of
overtime work, without pay, and perhaps this accounts for
the decreased satisfaction.

In regards to work schedules and assignments, new
schedules are arranged once every three months. It is
most likely that officers who reported increased
dissatisfaction may have been unhappy with their new

schedules and assignments during the intervention period.

107

Interpretative Data. Some conclusions might be made

 

as to which subjects were more positively or negatively
affected during the course of the program. The most
notable comparisons involve the high decreasesin satis-
faction for corrections officers when compared to law
enforcement officers, and the high decreases in satisfac-
tion for younger officers when compared to older officers.
During the course of the program, overall satisfaction
for corrections officers decreased on 72% of the variables,
and increased for law enforcement officers on 56% of the
variables. It may be that law enforcement officers
benefit more from involvement in a stress reduction program
than corrections officers, and corrections officers may be
negatively affected by involvement in the program. Younger
persons also decreased satisfaction in 64% of the variables
compared to an increase in satisfaction by older officers.
The same conclusions could be drawn that older officers are
more likely to be positively affected by involvement in the
program, and younger officers more negatively affected.
While not as dramatic in terms of differences, blacks
appear to have been more negatively affected during the
course of the program than whites, and men more than women.
The implications of these findings are important
primarily as they would relate to future development of

Stress Reduction Programs. It is possible that such

108

programs are inappropriate for corrections officers, despite
the fact that they share many of the same stressors as law
enforcement officers. Similarly, it is possible that
younger officers are less receptive to stress training

than older officers, and attempts to alleviate stress may
have a paradoxical effect upon them.

Of course, there is a dilemma. One would assume that
persons who are most dissatisfied would be the ones who
would most need, and would most benefit, from a Stress
Reduction Program. This brings us, again, to the problem
of determining the relationship of external variables to
the effects of the Stress Reduction Program. One can only
speculate that the Stress Reduction Program may have
paradoxically affected the participants. The decreased

satisfaction may have been due to external circumstances.

Drop-Outs vs. Non-Drop-Outs. It is possible that

 

persons who are less satisfied, and under more stress are
the least amenable to stress reduction interventions.

This is somewhat evidenced by the fact that those subjects
who dropped-out were generally less satisfied on the PJSI
variables than those subjects who remained in the program.
Perhaps they are hesitant to consciously examine their
feelings of dissatisfaction; initial recognition may serve

to amplify the feelings rather than mitigate them.

109

Drop-outs were significantly less satisfied than non-
drop-outs on variables of In-Service Training, and Freedom
to Make Decisions. It is possible that the Stress Reduc-
tion Program was viewed as a type of In-Service Training,
and this was a motivating factor in the subject's dropping-
out of the program. Further, by dropping-out, it was one
way in which officers could exercise their freedom to make

decisions, and this too may have been a factor.

Recommendations

 

In some respects, the result of this research raises
more questions than it answers. A.major assumption
behind the research is that officers are under stress, that
the stress negatively affects them, and that directly
addressing the problems through training mitigates the
responses to stressors. Results of this research leads
towards a reexamination of these assumptions.

The receptiveness to Stress Reduction Programs on
the part of law enforcement and corrections officers
Should be examined. It may well be that they are not
interested in programs to reduce their stress, but would
rather deal with it on a personal, private level and
not on an operational level.

A great deal of research needs to be done to determine

110

if corrections officers are also under stress. Even though
they share many of the same occupational stressors as law
enforcement officers, it may be that they do not perceive
their work to be particularly stressful.

A better understanding needs to be reached of the
relationship between job satisfaction and stress, between
job satisfaction and stress reduction techniques, and
between stress and stress reduction techniques. It is
possible that an officer's stress level is reduced
through various techniques, but the satisfaction level
remains the same regardless. Research might be conducted
which concentrates specifically on manipulation of
organizational stressors, and the measurement of subsequent
changes in levels of satisfaction.

Research should also be conducted to compare the
effectiveness of short-term, intensive stress reduction
programs to long-term, less intensive programs. One may
prove to be more effective than the other.

Hans Selye notes that "life is largely a process of
adaptation to the circumstances in which we exist."3
Stress is a natural by-product of existence, and it is
"not even necessarily bad" but also the "spice of life."4

Hopefully, additional research will assist law enforcement

and corrections officers to better adapt to those

 

3Selye, QB: cit., 1978, p. xv.

41bid.

lll

occupational stressors which induce distress, as well as
to maximize the benefits from those experiences which pro-

mote personal and professional growth.

APPENDICES

113

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Washtenaw County Sheriff's Project

Informed Consent Form

Explanation of Project

 

The Washtenaw County Sheriff's stress conditioning project is an
experimental program designed to reduce occupational stressors and
improve officers' ability to resist the stresses that arise in police
work. The project will entail (a) pre-testing participants on a
battery of physical and psychological assessment procedures, (b)
involvement in one of four ten-month training programs, and (c) post-
testing of subjects on the same schedule of instruments.

The program is experimental in the sense that it seeks to es—
tablish the effectiveness of the four training programs. None
has yet been proven to be valid, although all four are believed to
be useful.

The pre- and post-tests will include (1) a stress test involving
running on a treadmill under the appropriate supervision of a cardiol-
ogist, (2) a body composition evaluation which includes underwater
. weighing and body circumference measurements for the purpose of
determining percent body fat, (3) a muscle strength test which
includes strength measures for the upper body region, (4) a blood
analysis which will be taken by a medical technologist for the
purpose of assessing blood constituents and especially those related
to cardiovascular risk factors, (5) a health hazard appraisal test
which will be given by an M.D., and (6) four standardized, paper-and-
pencil questionnaires that will test attitudes and outlook towards
police stress. All data that we obtain from these tests will be
coded, and the results will be discussed only in terms of coded
data and group scores.

During the training portion of the program, you will be assigned
to one of four different training methods, in which you will receive
instruction and practice techniques of combatting stress. You will
not be asked to do anything that is harmful or dangerous.

It is also important that you understand that we do not think
there is anything wrong with you. This program is intended to be pre-
sented to normal police and correctional officers, to help them cope

with the normal pressures of their job. If you participate and the
program is successful, you will then be in a better condition to
practice your profession than most other officers in the country.

If you elect to participate in the program, all information we
gather--from both the pre-test and the post-test--will be kept con-
fidential. All data will be coded, including your identity. Results
will be discussed and presented in terms of coded data and group scores.

If you choose not to participate, that fact too will be kept
confidential. There will be absolutely no penalty for refusing this
invitation.

The risks of participation will be minimal, as all the techniques
that will be employed are standard procedures from other spheres of
training and research. Possible immediate hazards could be slight
skin abrasions resulting from electrode placement, small hematomas
resulting from.blood collection procedures, and local muscle soreness
following routine exertion. No long range risks are foreseen.

Benefits to subjects who participate will be increased knowledge
about themselves, increased ability for professional performance
(assuming the program proves to be effective), and (depending on the
training group) increased physical fitness or mental conditioning.

Participants Consent

 

I understand the nature of the stress conditioning program, as it
was explained above.
I understand the risks of the program, as they were explained above.
. I understand that I am free to refuse to participate and to with-
draw from the experiment at any time, and that such refusal or with-
drawal will not adversely affect any future considerations.

I would like to participate.

 

 

Date Signature

 

Witness

115

APPENDIX B

CENTER FOR FITNESS AND SPORTS RESEARCH
EVALUATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

COMPREHENSIVE TESTING PACKAGE

 

*Includes 2,3,5, and 8
EXERCISE PERFORMANCE TEST (test time: about 2 hours)

 

 

 

* Resting 12-Lead ECG * Attending Cardiologist

* Blood Pressure * Computerized Data Output

* Oxygen Utilization Data * Exercise Presciption, Counseling
BODY COMPOSITION ANALYSIS (test time: about 1 hour)

* Percent Body Fat * Computerized Data Output

* Lean Body Weight * Residual Lung Volume

* Ideal Body Weight * Body Composition Counseling
DIETARY AND NUTRITIONAL COUNSELING (test time: about 1 hour)

* 5-Day Diet Inventory * Saturated Fat Intake

* Average Daily Caloric Intake * Refined Sugar: Starch Intake
* Cholesterol Intake * Dietary Counseling Session

BLOOD PROFILE ANALYSIS (test time: 15 minutes)

 

* Standard Blood Chemicals * Serum Triglycerides
* Serum Cholesterol * Fasted Glucose Levels

BLOOD CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE RISK ANALYSIS (test time: 15 min.)

 

 

* Above Blood Profile * High and Low Density

* CV Risk Counseling * Lipoprotein Analysis
MUSCLE STRENGTH TEST (test time: about 1 hour)

* Single Joint Tests *Explosive Power

* Muscle Strength * Opposing Muscle Imbalance
* Fatigue Rate * Muscle Strength Counseling

PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS (test time: about 30 minutes)

 

* Peak Flow Rate * Residual Volume
* Total Lung Capacity * Maximum Minute Ventilation
* Timed Vital Capacity * Pulmonary Function Counseling

SUPERVISED PHYSICAL TRAINING PROGRAMS

 

* 16 Week Training Sessions * Qualified Exercise Leaders
* 3 Hours per Week * Exercise and Nutrition
Seminars

Basic Training Package (includes 2, 3, 5, and 9)
Total Training Package (includes 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 8, and 9)
Continuation Plan (includes 9)

116

APPENDIX C

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Department of Physical Education

INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Washtenaw County Sheriff's Project

Subjects participating in this project will be (1) pre-
tested in the Center for Fitness and Sports Research, (2) in-
volved in a 10 month training program, and (3) post-tested in
the Center.

The pre-tests will include (1) a stress test which involves
running on a treadmill under the appropriate supervision of

a cardiologist, (2) a body composition evaluation which in-
cludes underwater weighing and body circumference measurements
for the purpose of determining percent body fat, (3) a muscle
strength test which includes strength measures for the upper
body region, (4) a blood analysis which will be taken by a
medical technologist for the purpose of assessing blood
constituents and especially those related to cardiovascular
risk factors, and (5) a health hazard appraisal test which
will be given by an M.D. in the Department of Preventive
Medicine. All subject's data will be coded and the results
will be discussed in terms of coded data and group means.

During the training portion of the experimental protocol either
one of the investigators or a qualified technician will be
available for consultation with the subjects regarding their
individualized fitness program. Standard exercise routines
such as jogging, swimming, calisthenics, raquet sports, team
sports and others will be utilized on an individual selected
basis. Individual participation in the fitness training will
be kept confidential. The post-testing portion of the study
(December, 1979) will be an administration of those tests
that were conducted during the pretest. All subject's data
will be coded and the results will be discussed in terms of
coded data and group means.

The risks to the subjects will be minimal as all the tech-
niques to be employed in this study are standard techniques
in the area of exercise research. Possible immediate risk
to the subject could be a slight skin abrasion from the

117

electrode placements, small hematomas resulting from the blood
collection procedures, and local muscle soreness following

the exercising portions of the study. No long range

risks are expected to result from the procedures utilized

in this study. The benefits to the subjects will be a
knowledge of their cardiovascular system, and an increase in
their physical exercising capacity due to the 10 month
training program.

I understand the nature of the fatiguing and non-fatiguing
exercise and training programs, the placement of the elec-
trodes, and the procedures for the drawing of blood.

I understand the risks involved in the exercise (local muscle
soreness), the placement of the electrode (skin abrasions)
and the blood collection procedure (hematoma).

I understand that I am free to refuse to participate and to
withdraw from the experiment at any time and that such
refusal will not adversely influence future considerations.

 

 

Date Signature

 

-Witness

k)

118

APPENDIX D
POLICE JOB STRESS INVENTORY

-ng
ls.)

Code Number

How long have you worked for the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department?

Years __ Months

7 J
Have you ever worked as a police officer in any other departmentCs)?

1. Yes 2. No .7

If yes, for how long?

_ Years _ Months

"- let

a. How long have you been on your present assignment?

Years
I.', '3'

_ Months

b. In an average week, how many hours do you usually work on the
following types of assignments:

 

1. In a marked police car fir_ ___ Hours
2. In an unmarked police car ___ Hours
3. On a motorcycle :‘ ____Bours
4. In a police station or office :_:__ _ Hours

c. In an average week, how many hours do you usually work:

 

1. Alone Hours
r—

2. With an assigned partner Hours
Jo

3. With more than one person Hours

 

32
In your job, do you usually have direct supervisory responsibility
over other officers or civilian employees?

1. Yes 2. No

a. If yes, how many people do you usually supervise?
(FILL IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE)

People

1 z“

119

As a police officer, how often do you have weekends off? (CHECK ONE)

1. Rarely 4. Fairly often

2. Occasionally 5. Very often

3. Sometimes

As a police officer, do you usually:

1. Work the same hours each day

\‘
an

2. Work on a rotating/alternating shift (that is, you work one
schedule of hours for a number of days and then change to
another schedule). (SKIP TO QUESTION 6b)

a. If you work the same hours each workday, what are those hours?
(USE MILITARY TIME)

Work begins at hours
35

Work ends at hours (SKIP TO QUESTION 7)

’3

b. If you work on a rotating/alternating shift, what are the work hours
on your current shift? (USE MILITARY TIME)

Work begins at hours

Work ends at hours

4’:

c. How long do you normally work this shift? (IN DAYS 95 MONTHS)

Days ___ Months
3: t»

d. What will your work hours be on your next shift change? (USE MILITARY TIME)

Work begins at hours

Work ends at hours
Cf"""""""

Uh

e. How long will you work on that shift (IN DAYS 93 MONTHS)

Don't know

Days Months Don't know
4' 69 (c.

 

7.

120

-3-

In the last month approximately how many hours of overtime did you work
per week?

Hours per week

_-
q
,l

a. Of those overtime hours, about how many hours per week did you want
to work?

Hours per week

.—
2'1
V

b. How many hours of overtime would you like to work per week?

_ Hours per week

 

7(-

U

In addition to your job with the police department do you now:
8. Attend school/university 1. Yes 2. N0 ._

If Yes, how many hours per week? ___ Hours per week

i

b. Hold an off-duty police/security job? 1. Yes 2. To __

If Yes. how many hours per week? Hours per week

c. Hold another (non-police) off-duty job (including self-employed)?
1. Yes 2. No

9
If Yes, how many hours per week. Hours per week

10.

121

-4-
From a professional gtandpoint, how much do you like or dislike handling
the following dispatches, situations, or duties? Use the following code:

4 - Like slightly
5 - Like moderately
6 I Like very much

1 - Dislike very much
2 - Dislike moderately
3 - Dislike slightly

For example, if you "dislike moderately" a certain situation, place a "2"
in the blank to the left of it. If you "like very much" a situation.

place a "6" in the blank.

Domestic disturbance
Person with gun
Auto accidents
Prowler

Shooting

Routine patrol
Car check
Pedestrian check

Delivering death message
Silent burglar alarms
Possible homicide

Child beating

Robbery in progress
Taking rape reports
Sudden death/D.O.A.

Burglary in progress

a
C

Offense incident reports

Routine department paperwork

Another officer needs assistance

Unknown nature of call

ho
MI | | | I

High speed auto chase

 

Mentally disturbed person

Staying alert to the police
’ radio

\I I

t.

From a personal standpoint, how much do you like or dislike handling

the following dispatches, situations. or duties? Use the following code:

1 - Dislike very much
2 - Dislike moderately
3 - Dislike slightly

4 - Like slightly
5 - Like moderately
6 - Like very much

For example, if you ”dislike moderately" a certain situation. place a "2"

in the blank to the left of it.

place a "6" in the blank.

Domestic disturbance

In}

Person with gun
Auto accidents
Prowler

Shooting

Routine patrol

Car check

 

I
4.

Pedestrian check

 

Delivering death message
Silent burglar alarms

Possible homicide
Child beating

r
I
o

t
u

If you "like very much" a situation,

Robbery in progress
Taking rape reports
Sudden death/D.O.A.

Burglary in progress

'. '0

Offense incident reports

I
l

Routine department paperwork

Another officer needs assistance

Unknown nature of call

High speed auto chase

 

Mentally disturbed person

I‘
0'

Staying alert to the police
radio

 

11.

].212

How tense or relaxed do you feel in handling the following situations or
duties? Use the following code:

1 - Very tense

2 - Moderately tense

3 . Slightly tense
Domestic disturbance
Person with gun

Auto accidents

Prowler

Shooting

Routine patrol

Car check

Pedestrian check
Delivering death messages

Silent burglar alarms

Possible homicide

Child beating

Robbery in progress

Taking rape reports

Sudden death/D.O.A.

Burglary in progress

Offense incident reports

Routine department paperwork
Another officer needs assistance
Unknown nature of call

High speed auto chase

Mentally disturbed person

Staying alert to the police radio

6 - Slightly relaxed
5 - Moderately relaxed
6 - Very relaxed

13-

123

-6-

In the next set of questions, assume you had the job you would most like
to have. Use the following code:

1 - Rarely 4 - Fairly often
2 - Occasionally S - Very often
3 I Sometimes

How often would you like to:

Be able to predict what others expect of you on your job
Experience a marked increase in how fast you have to think
Have a chance to develop new talents

Remain seated
Experience a sharp increase in work load

to
l I I 0l

 

Have the Opportunity to be creative
Be certain about what your job responsibilities were
Do different things each day

 

II
t‘

 

Work in the same location
Know how well you did at the end of the day

Be certain about what others expect of you on the job

 

Experience a marked increase in the amount of concentration required
on your job

Repeat the same activities over and over

Q
I l l e

See the results of your work

In the following question, use this code:
1 - Very little A 8 Much
2 - Little 5 - Very much
3 = A moderate amount

If you could have thegjob you wouldgmost like to have, how much:

Would you like to decide with others what part of a task yOu will do

Responsibility would you like to have for the morale of other officers

 

I
(a

Time would you like to have to do all your work

 

Responsibility would you like to have for the well-being of other officers

Time would you like to have to think and contemplate
Would you like to participate with others in making decisions that affect you

Free time between heavy work load periods would you like to have

Would you like to participate with others in determining the way things
are done on your job

h
I l u‘ l I |

Freedom would you like to have in setting your own work hours and days off

143.

'4
\n
I

124

-7-

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following elements of your
job as a police officer? Use the following code:

1 I Very dissatisfied 4 I Slightly satisfied
2 I Moderately dissatisfied 5 I Moderately satisfied
3 I Slightly dissatisfied 6 I Very satisfied

Job security 1 Middle management ’7—

 

n
I

Fellow officersz. In-service training I3

Promotion system? Amount of overtime H

(a
"\

 

Method of determining days off ’7

______Academy training‘l System of determining work schedules‘5
_ Overtime pays Personal appearance code ’9
Excitement 0

Salary '7
Equipment maintenance 7

Performance evaluation system ,3
Freedom to make decisions [9

Top administration 4 Method of determining assignments a0

-l
l l | "I I l

Immediate supervisor IO Recognition from supervisors 5;;

Disciplinary system 40

Below are some questions about the future of your job as a police officer.
Use the following code:

1 I Very uncertain 4 I Slightly certain
2 I Moderately uncertain S I Moderately certain
3 I Slightly uncertain 6 I Very certain

How certain are you about:
What your future career picture looks like

The opportunities for promotion and advancement which will exist
in the next few years

Whether your job skills will be of use and value five years from now

What your responsibilities will be six months from now
$7

16.

125

'8'- : ‘1’ c

Now think about your present job as a police officer. Use the following
code to describe your job:

1 I Rarely 4 - Fairly often
2 I Occasionally 5 I Very often
3 I Sometimes

How often do you feel that you:

 

 

G

 

.J
.

 

1

f

 

 

 

V

 

 

 

Q
n

 

Are able to use your skills from your previous experience and training
Are certain about what others expect of you on the job

Are certain about what your job responsibilities are

Can predict what others will expect of you on your job in the future
Are able to use your skills and knowledge

Are given a chance to do the things you do best

Get conflicting orders from superiors,

See the results of your work

Have feelings of pressure from having to please too many bosses

Have superiors giving you things to do which conflict with other things
you have to do

Experience a sharp increase in work load

Notice a marked increase in amount of concentration required on your job
Have a marked increase in how fast you have to think

Have too little authority to carry out the responsibilities assigned to you
Know what opportunities for advancement or promotion exist for you

Have too heavy a work load

Are able to satisfy the conflicting demands of various people over you
Are fully qualified to handle your job

Don't know how your supervisor evaluates your performance

Have the information necessary to do your job

Have too much influence over the lives of other people

Are able to influence the decisions of your immediate supervisor which
affect you
Have so much work that you can't do as good a job as you would like

Have to do things on the job that are against your better judgment
Repeat the same activities over and over

Have a chance to develop new talents

Remain seated

Have the opportunity to be creative

Do different things each day

Work in the same location

Know how well you did at the end of the day

17.

18.

19.

126

I Very little
I Little

On the next items, use this code: 1
2
3 I A moderate amount
4
5

I Much
I Very much
In your job as a police officer, how much:

Responsibility do you have for the morale of other officers

as
’

Do you participate with others in determining the way things
are done on your job

Freedom do you have in setting your own work hours and days off
Time do you have to do all your work
Responsibility do you have for the well-being of other officers

8
l I I .|

Do you decide with others what part of a task you will do

Free time do you have between heavy work load periods

 

Do you participate with others in making decisions that affect you
If s
Time do you have to think and contenplate

 

 

In answering each of the following questions, use this code:

1 I Very much less than I ought to get 4 I Slightly more than I ought to get
2 I Somewhat less than I ought to get 5 I Somewhat more than I ought to get
3 I Slightly less than I ought to get 6 I Very much more than I ought to get

Compared to other people where you work who do a job similar
” to yours, how fair is your pay?

’I

Compared to other people where you work who do a job different
from yours, how fair is your pay?

Compared to other people who do not work where you work but who
have skills similar to yours, how fair is your pay?

Compared to other people where you work who do a job different
3' from yours but who have an educational background similar to
yours, how fair is your pay?

Below are some phrases which indicate how you might see yourself in your work.
For example, if you think that you are very "successful" in your work. put a
circle around the number right next to the word "successful." If you think
that you are not at all successful in your work, circle the number next to the
words "not successful." If you think you are somewhere in between, circle the
appropriate number.

Successful l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not successful,
Sad at work 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 Happy at work

Not important at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important at work
Doing my best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not doing my bestc_

127

-10-

20. The following questions concern your relationships with other people.
Use this code:

1 I Rarely - b . Fairly often
2 I Occasionally 5 I Very often
3 I Sometimes

a. How often do the following people go out of their way to make your
job easier for you?

Your immediate supervisor Other people at work
8

Your spouse, or if not Other relatives
married, your closest
friend of the opposite sex Close friends

b. How often can you have meaningful talks with the following people

about your personal problems?

Your immediate supervisor Other people at work
60 L'.

Your spouse, or if not Other relatives
5' married, your closest

friend of the opposite sex -————— Close friends

I.

21. Please think now about the type of work you do. Use this code:

1 I Very unlikely A I Slightly likely
2 I Moderately unlikely 5 I Moderately likely
3 I Slightly unlikely 6 I Very likely

Knowing what you know now, how likely is it that you would

 

 

 

" again take a job as a police officer?
If a friend of yours expressed an interest in becoming a

59 police officer, how likely is it that you would advise against
it?

9..

fl - —'-a a..— '-

22. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements. Use this code:

1 I Strongly disagree 4 - Slightly agree
2 I Moderately disagree 5 I Moderately agree
3 I Slightly disagree 6 I Strongly agree

My work is interesting to do

I often have to "bend" department policies and procedures in order
to get my job done

My family takes pride in the work I do

There's pretty good sharing of information among the officers on all
'° three shifts

I like the amount of work I'm expected to do

 

;

 

ll lilllllllllll

 

\J

b

 

 

‘ lo

128

-11-
l I Strongly disagree 4 I Slightly agree
2 I Moderately disagree 5 I Moderately agree
3 I Slightly disagree 6 I Strongly agree

To be married to a police officer is often difficult
Most of the time there is not much tension between me and my children
I feel bored with the work I have to do

The officers who work the same shift with me often get a chance to discuss
common problems

Department policies are too strict to let me do my job properly

I am satisfied with the pace of my work

My family is often worried that something might happen to me while I'm at work
My children and I don't get along very well

The work on my job is dull

The department's job promotion policies are basically good

I am happy about my current work load

Other people give my children a hard time because I am a police officer

Some of the best qualified people can't get promoted under the current system
Many of the department's regulations are unrealistic

Families of police officers are expected by the community to behave better
than other families

Overall, my job has a negative effect on my home life
This department is a good one to work for
I don't receive enough praise for the work I do

My family is no more concerned about my safety than they would be if I
were not a police officer

My department is too much like a military organization

Nobody seems to notice when I do my job well

Most citizens have a great deal of respect for the police

My job requires me to do too much paperwork

I feel I am getting ahead in the department

My progress toward promotion is satisfactory

Citizens usually report the crimes they observe

My department does a poor job in maintaining communications equipment

Many citizens believe that investigations of police misconduct are usually
biased in favor of police

The public is generally eager to cooperate with the police

Police vehicles are kept in good mechanical condition

My department does a good job in providing the equipment I need

The relationship between citizens and police in this city is a good one

Many citizens believe that police officers are people who like power and
tend to abuse it

 

1||||""lllll'llllllllll'a

J

129

-13-

1 I Strongly disagree 4 I Slightly agree

2 I Moderately disagree 5 I Moderately agree
3 I Slightly disagree 6 I Strongly agree

I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget

I thrive on challenging situations

In comparison to most people I know, I'm very involved in my work

There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things

In general, I approach my work more seriously than most people I know
I sometimes get resentful when I do not get my way

The more challenges I have, the better

I have to spend too many hours in court

The courts are often too lenient with accused offenders

Court cases are usually scheduled at convenient times for me

I don't get enough compensation for my court appearance

I usually don't have to wait very long in court for a case to be called

I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me

Most lawyers try to make officers look foolish

Bail is usually set too high

I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble

Most judges treat officers with respect

Juries are often prejudiced against police officers

I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings
lea-bargaining should be eliminated .

There is a big difference between whether a person is really guilty and
what the court decides

I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable

My immediate supervisor keeps me well informed

The officers 1 work with don't get much chance to talk with each other

My immediate supervisor is willing to listen to suggestions

I don't feel there is enough communication among the officers on different shifts
Officers in this department are quickly informed about policy changes

No matter who I am talking to, I am always a good listener

My immediate supervisor will back me up when I need it

Department policies are communicated clearly to all members of the department

I don't feel totally comfortable talking to my immediate supervisor

2A.

130

-13- i

“G“... . c

In the past year, have you had any vehicular accidents while on police duty?

1. Yes 2. No I:
If Yes, a. How many accidents have you had on-duty? ___ ___ Accidents
1'
b. In how many accidents were you found to Accidents
be at fault by the department '°
c. How many accidents involved emergency __ Accidents
situations or high speed chases? ‘5

In the past year, have you had any vehicular accidents while off-duty?

 

If Yes, a. How many accidents have you had off duty? ___ Accidents

b. In how many accidents were you found to be __ Accidents
legally at fault?

‘ .
The following questions concern your appearances in court as a police officer.

a. On the average, how many regular duty hours per week do you spend in court?

Hours per week
w

b. 0n the average, how many hours per week do you spend in court during

——

which you are not normally on duty?

Hours per week
2 .

What kind of effect do your work hours have on each of the following aspects
of your life? Use this code:

 

1 I Very negative 4 I Slightly positive
2 I Moderately negative 5 I Moderately positive
3 I Slightly negative 6 I Very positive
Recreation Eating habits Friendships with other

‘3 police officers

Family life Ability to stay alert

Friendships with persons
who aren't police

General energy level officers
Ability to go to school Ability to deal with

Ability to hold a se- household chores
cond job Ability to perform
’” personal errands

Sleep Social life -—-——-

Holidays

w

Digestion
Sex life

4
l

a N

131

-14-

27. What kind of effect do the days of the week that you normally work have on
the following aspects of your life? Use this code:

 

 

 

 

 

 

l I Very negative 4 I Slightly positive
2 I Moderately negative 5 I Moderately positive
3 I Slightly negative 6 I Very positive
Sleep Ability to stay alert Friendships with other
3 5 ET—--
' Sex life General energy level police Officers
Digestion Recreation --—- Friendships With ,
--- persons who aren t
Holidays Ability to go to school police officers
Social life Eating habits Ability to deal with
Family life Ability to hold a se- household chores
"7” s1 cond job Ability to perform

 

‘“ personal errands

28. The following questions concern your health.

In an average week, how many hours do you spend in physical conditioning

a.
(jogging, weight lifting, exercises, etc.)?
Hours per week
b. In an average week, how many hours do you spend actively engaged in

sports activities (playing softball, tennis, golf, bowling, etc.)?

Hours per week

 

“
-.I

[J
\0

How much of the time do you have the following feelings while you are at work?
Use this code:

 

 

0 I Never 3 I A good part of the time

1 I A little of the time A I Most of the time

2 I Some of the time S I All of the time

I feel:
Nervous Good Blue
!T___' av 63 ‘

Sad Depressed Aggravated
Jittery Angry Cheerful
Calm Fidgety Irritated or annoyed
. ‘7 "
thappy

 

0

7

132

30. Think now about your health in general.

a. During the past six months would you say your health has been (CHECK ONE):

1. Very bad 4. Slightly good
2. Moderately bad. 5. Moderately good
3. Slightly bad 6. Very good

b. How does your health now compare with your health when you became
a police officer? (CHECK ONE)

col

1. Very much worse

Ul

Slightly better

0‘

2. Moderately worse Moderately better
3. Slightly worse 7. Very much better

A. The same

31. During the past month how often have you used each of the following?

0 I Never 2 I Twice
l I Once 3 I Three or more times
Antacids Medication to give you pep
6
Laxatives Cough or cold medicine
Tranquilizers Sleeping pills

Aspirin or headache Other medicine

'1 medicine

_—
I,
_—
_—
_—
I
U

32. On an average day, how many of each of the following do you usually drink:

a. Bottles of beer __ __ Bottles

b. Classes of wine __ __ Classes
6

c. Shots of liquor __ Shots

d. Cups of coffee __ Cups

-l6-

33. On an average day, how many of each of the following do you smoke?

 

a. Cigarettes Cigarettes
2:

b. Cigars Cigars

c. Pipesful of tobacco Pipesful

34. Of the five people on the department you work with most often, how many

have serious problems with the following:

(IN THE SPACE NEXT TO EACH

PROBLEM, PLEASE WRITE A NUMBER FROM 0 TO 5 T0 INDICATE HOW MANY OF THOSE
PEOPLE HAVE A SERIOUS PEOBLEM)

Alcohol _____ Finances
35

Marriage _____ Drugs

Children __ Neighbors

Health

35. How many officers on this department have you known who have attempted
or successfully committed suicide?

_ _ Officers

IS

36. How many officers on this department have you know who have had one or
more heart attacks?

_ _ Officers

II:

a. If you have known officers who have had heart attacks, how many of
these officers had attacks during regular, work hours?

___Officers
0‘.
37. When you joined the department, what was your marital status: (CHECK ONE) _.
1. Never married 5. Separated ”“
2. Married, never divorced or widowed 6. Divorced
3. Remarried after divorce 7. Widowed

Remarried after being widowed

133

38.

0‘

39 a.

134

Has your marital status changed since joining the department? (CHECK ONE)

1. Marital status has not changed (have not been married, separated

. Have been married for the first time
. Have been married after a divorce

. Have been married after being widowed

2
3
4
5. Have separated (but not divorced)
6. Have divorced

7

. Have been widowed

divorced, or widowed since joining the department)

If you have ever been divorced, are you now paying:

1. Alimony 2. Property Settlement 3. Child support
1. Yes 1, Yes 1. Yes
2 30 2. NO 2. NO

If you are now married, does your spouse currently hold a job? (CHECK ONE)

1. No

2. Yes, part time

5.!

3. Yes, full time

If Yes. how important is your spouse's income for
household? (CHECK ONE)

1. Very unimportant 4.
2. Moderately unimportant 5.

3. Slightly unimportant 6.

the maintenance of your

Slightly important
Moderately important

Very important

1‘!

Al.

42.

135

-13-

Before you joined the department, what was the highest level of formal
education you had completed? That is, when you became a police officer,
was your education: (CHECK ONE)

(01) Eighth grade or less

(02) Some high school, but not a graduate

(03) Graduate from high school or General Education Diploma (G.E.D.)
(04) Some technical school, but not a graduate

(05) Graduate from technical school

(06) Some college courses, but did not graduate

(07) Graduate from junior college

(08) Graduate from college

(09) Some graduate courses in college

(10) Graduate degree

Since joining the department, how much additional formal education have
"you had? That is, after you became a police officer, have you:(CHECK ONE)

_—
{I

(01) Had no additional formal education

(02) Taken some high school courses, but did not graduate
(03) Graduated from high school or General Education Diploma (G.E.D.)
(04) Taken some technical school courses, but have not graduated

(05) Taken some additional college courses, but have not graduated
(06) Graduated from technical school

(07) Graduated from junior college

(08) Graduated from college

(09) Taken some graduate college courses, but have not received a
graduate degree

(10) Obtained a graduate degree

How important do you think your department considers it that an officer go
to school in order to be promoted?

1. Very unimportant 4. Slightly important fr
2. Moderately unimportant S. Moderately important
3. Slightly unimportant 6. Very important

How many children do you now support? Children

 

Other than your spouse and children, how many people depend upon you as their
primary source of support?
People
33"” ““

This completes the questionnaire. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have
any comments about this questionnaire or its contents please write those comments

on the back of this page.

136

APPENDIX E
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRES

7; Instructions
for

Completing Questionnaires

We are asking you to complete these paper-and-pencil tests so that we
can obtain some background information on participants at the
beginning of the stress program. .This information will help us in
the direction of the training, as well as in its evaluation. After
the program has run its course, we will compare this data with later
information to determine which method of stress conditioning works
best.

As you fill out the questionnaires, please follow the instructions
on the face of each test, plus the following guidelines:

1. Use a pencil to answer the questions. If you make a mistake
or want to change your response, erase completely and indi-
cate the correct answer clearly. These questionnaires will
be computer coded by clerical personnel, and it will help
them substantially if you are clear.

2. You may ignore any small, handwritten numbers on the test
forms. These are directions for computer coding.

3. DO NOT PUR YOUR NAME ON THE TEST FORMS. We are making every
effort to protect your identity and privacy. You will be
given a three-digit code number. PLEASE PUT THIS CODE NUMBER
ON THE TOP OF THE FIRST PAGE OF EVERY TEST.

4. Thank you for your cooperation. We hope you enjoy the
testing process as much as possible, and we look forward
to working with you in the program.

APPENDIX F 13?
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES

 

 

TABLE F.l

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14.1
Job.Security

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group
Total Sample A B C D
i - .15 1.36 - .23 .67
s.d. 1.28 1.45 1.92 2.19
N 13 14 13 12
Source df. 3.3. m.s. F 9
Between Groups 3 22.81 7.60 2.54 .0677
Within Groups 48 143.88 2.99
Total 51 166.69
TABLE F.2

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Annlvsis of Vnrinnrv of Questinn 14.2,
Fellow Officers

 

 

 

C rm: p

Torn] Sump l v - A B (I I)

X - .38 .79 o -.08

S-d- , .96 1.53 1.21 1.44

N l3 14 12 12

M

Source df. 3.3. m.s. F 9
Between CV0UP3 3 10.16 3.39 1.98 .1297
Within Groups 47 80.35 1.71

Tutul 50 90.51

 

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE F.3
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14.3
Promotion
Group .
Total Sample A B C D
i" - .69 - .14 - .85 .5
s.d. 1.44 1.96 9.99 1.76
N 12 14 - 13 12
W
Source df. 3.3. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 9.63 3.21 ’.99 .4077
Within Groups 48 156.43 3.26

Total 51 166.06

 

 

 

 

TABLE F.4

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Varianvv of Question 14.4,
Academy Training

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B C n

E -1.08 - .21 o .17

s.d. 1.73 1.72 1.15 .94

N 12 14 13 12

W—

Source df. 3.x. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 11.22 3.74 1.81 .1578
Within Groups 48 96.94 2.06

Total 51 108.16

 

 

139

 

 

TABLE F . 5

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question L4.5
Overtime Pay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group
Total Sample A B C D
E" - 1.00 - .43 - .46 .17
s.d. 2.08 1.79 .88 1.19
N 13 14 13 12
m
Source df. s.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 8.50 2.83 1.15 .3383
Within Groups 48 118.33 2.47
Total 51 126.83
TABLE F.6
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Varianee of Question.l4.6,
Excitement
Group
Total Sample A ll (2 i)
f - .31 - .43 - .54 .33
s.d. 1.80 .85 1.13 1.23
N ‘13 14 13 12
M
Source (If. 8.9%. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 5.65 1.88 1.13 .3465
Within Groups 48 80.10 1.67

Total 51 85.75

 

 

140

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE F.7
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14.7,
Salary
Group
Total Sample A B C D
‘f .15 .36 -.23 O
s.d. .69 1.39 .83 1.35
N 13 14 13 12
m J
Source df. 3.5 m.s. F p
Between Crouvs 3 2.48 .83 .67 .5749
Within Groups 48 59.21 1.23
Total . 51 61.69

 

 

 

 

TABLE F,8

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Varianre of Question 14,8,

Equipment Maintenance

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B C D

X - .15 O .56 - 1.67

s.d. 1.41 1.18 1.51 1.90

N 13 l4 13 12

M I

Source' df. 3.3. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 3.33 1.11 .49 .6901
Within Groups 48 108.59 2.26

Total 51 111.92

 

 

141

 

 

TABLE F.9

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14,9
Top Administration

 

 

 

Group
Total Sample A B C D
x .15 .21 - .92 - .67
s-d- 1.14 1.19 1.71 1.72
N 13 14 13 12
W :—
Source df. 3.3. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 13.03 4.34 2.05 .1191
Within Groups 48 - 101.64 2.12

Total 51 114.67

 

 

 

 

TABLE p.10

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variauee of Question 14.10,
Immediate Supervisors '

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B C D

X - .62 .29 - .23 0

s.d. 1.50 2.13 1.30 .85

N 13 14 13 12

M

Source df. s.s. m.s. F JL,
Between Groups 3 5.82 1.94 .81 .4922
Within Groups 48 114.24 2.38

Total 51 120.06

 

 

142

 

 

TABLE F. 11

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14.11,
Disciplinary System

 

 

 

 

Group
Total Sample A B C D
'i .54 — .21 - .67 O
s.d. 1.05 1.19 1.83 1.71
N 13 14 ' 12 12
:===========================r~ __n-r~
Source df. 3.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 9.43 3.14 1.47 .2237
Within-Groups 47 100.25 2.13

Total 50_ 109.69

 

 

 

 

TABLE F. 12

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analvsis of Variance of Question 14,12
’Middle Management

Group
Total Sample A B G D

 

 

 

Source df. s.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 3.52 1.17 .62 .6040
Within Groups 43 90.41 1.88

Total 51 93.92

 

 

143

 

 

TABLE F . 13

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14.13,

In-Service Training

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B C D

‘Y ' - .15 .36 - .62 - .50

s.d. .90 2.02 1.61 1.98

N - l3 14 13 12

m

Source df. 3.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 7.69 2.56 .90 .4490
Within Groups 48 136.98 2.85
Total 51 144.67

 

 

 

 

TABLE F . 14

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analvsis of Variance of

(luvs-ii ion 14 . 14 ,
Amount Overtime

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B (; I)

i - .38 .71 - .54 - .33

s.d. 1.26 2.40 .88 .89

N 13 14 13 12

M

Source df. s.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 2-77 ~92 .40 .7554
Within Groups 43 111-90 2-33

Total 51 114.67

 

144

 

 

TABLE F.15

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14-15,
System Determining Work Schedules

 

 

 

Group
Total Sample A B C D
i’ 0 —.21 0 - .08
s.d. 1.00 1.12 1.29 1.16
N 13 14 13 12
m
Source df. 3.s. m.s. F J;
Between Groups 3 42 .14 .11 .9563
Within Groups 48 63.27 1.32

Total 51 63.69

 

 

 

 

TABLE F .15

Mean, Standard Deviation, anthnalvsis of Variance of Question 14.16,
Personal Appearance Code

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B G D

X - .08 .43 .31 .75

S-d- .49 1.16 1.38 1.42

N 13 14 13 12

M

Source df. 3.s. m.s. . F 9
Between Groups 3 9.94 3.31 2.43 .0764
Within Groups 48 65.37 1.36

T"t"l 51 75.31

 

 

.145

 

 

TABLE F.17

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Questionlfiwl7,
Method Determining Days Off

 

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B C D

i’ .38 .29 -.07 .08

s.d. 2.06 1.07 1.61 .79

N 13 14 13 12
Source df. 3.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 2.28 .76 .35 .7878
Within Groups 48 103.77 2.16

Total 51 106.06

 

 

 

 

TABLE F .18

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14.18,
Performance Evaluation

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B (I i)

X - .25 .14 .17 .80

S-d- .97 1.66 .72 1.32

N 12 14 12 10

M E

Source df. 3.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 6.75 2.25 1.47 .2352
Within Groups 44 67.23 1.53

Total 47 73.98

 

 

146

 

 

TABLE F.19

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14.19,
Freedom to Make Decisions

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B C D

i - .54 .21 - .46 .08

s.d. 1.13 1.48 .66 1.44

N 13 14 13 12
Source df. 3 s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 5.71 1.90 1.27 .2943
Within Groups 48 71.74 1.49 1
Total 51 77.44

 

 

 

 

TABLE F. 20

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 14-20:
Method Determining Assignments '

 

 

 

G rotlp

Total Sample A B ( l)

E .08 .21 .46 - .25

s.d. 1.26 1.53 1.27 1.29

N 13 14 13 12

M

Source df. s s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 3.30 1.10 .61 .6131
Within Groups 48 86.76 1.81

Total 51 90.06

 

 

 

147

 

 

TABLE F321

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question14.21,
Recognition from Supervisors

 

 

 

 

. Group
Total Sample A B C D
f’ .38 .39 .23 - .42
.87 1.20 1.74 1.83
s.d.
N 13 7 14 13 12
-— __—
Source df. 3.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 4.90 1.63 .77 .5138
Within Groups 48 101.16 2.12
Total - 51 106.06

 

 

 

 

mum: F.22

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 19.1
Successful/Not Successful

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B C D
X , - .17 .46 0 0

s.d. 1.03 1.05 .74 .85

N 12 13 12 12

M
Source df. 3.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 2.78 .93 1.07 .3711
Within Groups 45 38.90 .86

Total 48 41.67

 

 

 

 

 

148

 

 

TABLE F.23

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 19.2,
Sad at Work/Happy at Work

 

 

 

Group
Total Sample A B C D
i - .36 — .43 - .67 .33
s.d. 2.38 2.03 .72 1.61
N 11 14 12 12
m
Source df. 3.s. m.s. P p
Between Groups , 3 4.39 1.46 .46 .7144
Within Groups 45 144.31 3.21

Total 48 148.69

 

 

 

 

TABLE p.24

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 19.3,’
Not Important at WOrk/Important at Work

 

 

 

 

Group
Total Sample A B (I l)
x '- O45 - .57 - 050 092
s.d. 1.86 2.06 1.73 2.68
N 11 14 12 12
M
Source df. 3.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 18.62 6.21 1.38 .2604
Within Groups 45 202°07 4'49

Total 48 220.69

 

 

149

 

 

TABLE F.25

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Analysis of Variance of Question 19.4,
Doing Best/Not Doing Best

 

 

 

Group

Total Sample A B C D

Y .18 1.50 .75 -.17

s.d. .75 2.14 1.82 2.25

N 11 14 12 12

w L _

Sgprce df. 3.s. m.s. F p
Between Groups 3 15.35 5.12 1.47 .2363
Within Groups 45 157.05 3.49

Total 48 172.41

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, James. Effect of EMG Biofeedback and Relaxa-
tion Training on Police Personnel to Occgpation-
a1 Stress. Dissertation, California School of
Professional Psychology, 1975.

 

Blackmore, John. "Are Police Allowed to Have Problems
of Their Own?" Police Magazine 1 (July 1978)
(July 1978): 47-55.

 

Burgin, A. "The Management of Stress in Policing."
Police Chief 49 (April 1978): 53-54.

 

Cline, David W. "A Stress Value Scale for Officer
Candidates." Journal of Psychosomatic Research
17 (1973): 15-20.

Cochrane, Raymond; and Alex Robertson. "The Life Events
Inventory: A Measure of the Relative Severity
of Psycho-Social Stressors." Journal of Psycho-
Somatic Research 17 (1973): 135-139.

 

 

Cooper, Cary L.; and Judi Marshall. "Occupational Sources
of Stress: A Review of the Literature Relating
to Coronary Heart Disease and Mental Ill Health."
Journal of Occupational Psychology 49 (January
1967): 11-28.

Cooper, Cary L. and Roy Payne. Stress at WOrk.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.

 

Danish, Steven and Stanley Brodsky. "Training of Police-
men in Emotional Control and Awareness."
American Psychologist 25 (April 1970): 368-69.

Danto, Bruce L. "Police Suicide." Unpublished Paper,
Suicide Prevention and Drug Information Center,
Detroit Psychiatric Institute, Detroit, Michigan,
1976.

Dash, Jerry;and Martin Reiser. "Suicide Among Police in
Urban Law Enforcement Agencies." Journal of
Police Science and Administration GCTMarch 1978):
18-21 0

 

 

151

152

Dinyer, Tom; Robert Callender; and Dennis Thompson.
"The Policeman as Alienated Laborer." Journal
of Police Science and Administration 3 Septe er
1973): 251-259}

 

Eisenberg, Terry. "Labor Management Relations and Psycho—
logical Stress: View From the Bottom." Police
Chief 49 (April 1978): 12-15.

Ellison, Katherine and John Ginz. "The Police Officer as
Burnt Out Samaritan." FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin 47 (March 1978): 247.

 

Esbeck, Edward; and George Halverson. "Stress:and Tension:
Teambuilding for Professional Police Officer."
Journal of Police Science and Administration 1
(June 1973): 153-161.

 

Farmer, Richard E. "Cynicism: A Factor in Cbrrections
- Work." Journal of Criminal Justice 5 (Fall 1977):
237—246.

 

Friedman, Paul. "Suicide Among Police: A Study of
Ninety-Three Suicides Among New York City
Policemen, 1934-1940." In Edwin Schneidman,
Essays in Self-Destruction. New York: Science
House,’1967)

 

Gardner, Martin R. "Neuromuscular Relaxation as a
Methodological Approach to Stress Conditioning."
Police 15 (March/April 1971): 73-76.

Griffin, Gerald R.; Roger L. Dunbar; and Michael E.
McGi11. "Factors Associated With Job Satisfac-
tion Among Police Personnel." Journal of Police
Science and Administration 6 (l : - .

 

Hageman, Mary. "Occupational Stress and Marital Relation-
ships." Journal of Police Science and Administra-
tion 6 (December 1978): 402-412.

 

Heggy, Tom L.; and Fred Zausmer. "Bullets and/or Manage-
ment." Public Safety Labor Reporter (May 1976):
28-34.

 

Heiman, Michael. "Police Suicides Revisited." Suicide 5
(Spring 1975): 5-20.

153

Helgren, James and Paul Jacobs. "The Consulting Psychol-
ogist's Emerging Role in Law Enforcement."
Professional Psychology 7 (August 1976): 256-266.

 

Hillgren, James; Rebekah Bond; and Sue Jones. "Primary
Stressors in Police Administration and Law
Enforcement." Journal of Police Science and
Administration 4*(Decemberii976): 445-449.

 

 

Kroes, William H.; and Joseph J. Hurrell, Eds. J22
Stress and the Police Officer: Identifying
Stress Reduction Techniques. Cincinnati:
U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, 1975.

 

 

Lester, David; and John Genz. "Internal-External Locus
of Control, Experience as a Police Officer, and
Job Satisfaction in Police Officers." Journal
of Police Science and Administration 6 (1979):
479-481.

 

Miller, Robert B. "Simulated Stress in Police Recruit
Selection." Journal of Police Science and
Administration 4 (June 1976): 179-196.

 

 

Nelson, Zane; and Wilford Smith. "The Law Enforcement
Profession: An Incident of High Suicide."
Omega (November 1970): 293-299.

Reiser, Martin. "Some Organizational Stresses on
Policemen." Journal of Police Science and
Administration 2*73une 197—): 156-159.

 

 

Reiser, Martin. "Stress, Distress and Adaptation in
Police Work." Police Chief 47 (January 1976): 24-27.

 

Richey, Larry D. "The Question of Stress Training."
Police Chief 41 (May 1974): 63-67.

 

Ross, Catherine E.; and John Mirowsky II. "A Comparison
of Life-Event-Weighting Schemes: Change, Unde-
sirability, and Effect-Proportional Indices."
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 20 (June
I979):'166:177.

 

Rowlison, Dennis. "Management Considerations to Combat
Police Stress." Police Chief 49 (April 1978).

 

Selye, Hans. TheiStress of Life. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., 1978.

 

 

 

154

Selye, Hans. Stress Without Distress. New York: Signet
Books, 1975.

Simon, William and Veronica Wilde. "Psychological Needs
of Police Personnel." Psychological Reports 33
(August 1973): 313-314.

Singleton, Gary W. "Effects of Job-Related Stress on the
Physical and Psychological Adjustment of Police
Officers." Dissertation, Wayne State University,
1977.

Slovak, Jeffrey S. "Work Satisfaction and Municipal
Police Officers." Journal of Police Science
and Administration 6 (1978): 462-470.

Stratton, John. "Police Stress--An Overview, Parts I
and II." Police Chief 49 (April 1978): 58-62;
73-79.

Symonds, Martin. "Emotional Hazards of Police Work."
American Journal of Psychoanalysis 30 (April
1970): 155-166:

Symonds, Martin. "Policemen and Policework, a Psycho-
Dynamic Understanding." American Journal of
Psychoanalysis 32 (1972): 163-169.

Teten, Howard and John Minderman. "Practical Considera-
tions for Administrators." FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin 46 (January 1977): 1-8.

 

Zausmer, Fred. "Factors of Stress in the Oklahoma City
Police Department: A Consideration Thereof."
Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1976.

 

"‘7'111111111'1'71‘111111