TESTING THE INVARIANCE OF WARRIOR AND GUARDIAN ORIENTATIONS ON THE PRIORITIZATION OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE: DO OFFICER DEMOGRAPHICS MATTER? By Grace Henry A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Criminal Justice – Master of Science 2024 ABSTRACT The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) called for a shift from a warrior to a guardian mindset among police officers to help produce more procedurally-fair outcomes for the public. The current study sought to better understand the factors that contribute to whether officers value procedurally-fair interaction techniques and contribute to the limited research examining how the effects of warrior and guardian mentalities may vary based on individual officer characteristics. This allowed for an examination of the generality of the warrior and guardian orientations on perceptions of procedural justice across gender, race/ethnicity, military service, education, and experience. Analysis of survey data collected from patrol officers in two geographically different and ethnically diverse United States police departments indicated a largely invariant effect of the mentalities on officer attitudes toward procedural fairness, except for officers of color. In this sample, the guardian effect on prioritizing procedural justice was stronger for officers of color than for White officers. This study sheds light on our theoretical understanding of the warrior/guardian framework and offers practical implications for police leaders and policymakers in their effort to improve police-community relations. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 3 METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 14 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 19 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 22 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 37 iii INTRODUCTION Police reform efforts have ramped up over the past decade as the public, politicians, and police officers search for ways to avoid tragic incidents like Michael Brown in Ferguson and George Floyd in Minneapolis. A large portion of the public is calling for fairer—more procedurally just—policing in their communities in response to the pattern of excessive use of force encounters involving what some claim to be militarized, warrior-oriented officers. The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) urged American police departments to engage in several reforms to achieve more effective and fair policing. Among their recommendations was a cultural shift from a warrior mindset in policing, where heavily armed officers see themselves as crimefighters battling evildoers, toward a guardian mentality that values service through community partnership. The President’s Task Force also emphasized that procedural justice should be a guiding principle in all police activities, given its critical role in nurturing trust and legitimacy in the police. Unsurprisingly, emerging research suggests that these two issues are tied together (Rahr & Rice, 2015; Stoughton, 2015; 2016; President’s Task, 2015). While research reveals that officers can hold warrior and guardian orientations toward their job, existing on both continuums, favorable outcomes are more common among guardian- minded officers (Clifton et al., 2021; McLean et al., 2020a). Those with stronger warrior views are less supportive of the use of procedural justice, whereas guardian-oriented officers are more likely to prioritize treating people with procedural justice. In this way, the evidence thus far suggests that increasing guardian orientations among police officers may produce more positive outcomes for the citizens they interact with. The problem, however, lies in the absence of research examining how the effects of warrior and guardian mentalities may vary based on individual officer characteristics. While the 1 current conceptualization of warrior and guardian orientations would suggest that those with stronger warrior mentalities will demonstrate weaker support for procedural justice (and guardians stronger support), existing literature on the role of demographic differences points to possible variation. For example, we may anticipate a weaker impact of warrior orientations on views of procedural justice for female officers compared to their male counterparts because of the impact of socialization based on traditional gender roles (Rabe-Hemp, 2008b). Further, contrasting conclusions regarding officer race and outlook highlight the need for additional investigation into the extent to which the mindsets are associated with support for process-based policing. In understanding the potential need for the cultural shift prescribed by the President’s Task Force, it is important to explore the generality of warrior and guardian mentalities on perceptions of procedural justice. If warrior/guardian mentalities have an invariant effect on officer support for procedural justice, this suggests that the impact of the mentalities on perceptions of procedural justice may not vary by demographic characteristics. Alternatively, if a general effect is absent, there is support for the idea that differences across demographics exist. Regardless of the outcome, results from such an analysis will shed light on our theoretical understanding of warrior and guardian orientations and offer practical implications for police leaders as they look to recruit, train, and supervise current and future officers. The present study uses survey data collected from patrol officers in two geographically different United States police departments to explore how warrior and guardian mentalities are associated with officers’ prioritization of procedural justice across gender, race, military service, education, and experience. The overarching goal is to better understand the factors that contribute to officers valuing (or de-valuing) procedurally-fair interaction techniques. 2 Warrior/Guardian Policing LITERATURE REVIEW The current state of police militarization in the United States, where civilian police agencies incorporate elements of armed military forces not only in appearance but also into their culture, organization, and operation, may facilitate a warrior mindset among many officers (Balko, 2013; Kraska, 2007; McNeill, 1982; Paul & Birzer, 2009; Simon, 2021). From police combatting civil unrest in the 1960s to the introduction of no-knock raids, military information sharing, and joint task forces that advanced a paramilitary approach in the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush drug wars, decades of policies chipped away at the 1898 Posse Comitatus Act which barred military interference in law enforcement (Balko, 2013; Burkhardt & Baker, 2018; Dang, 2022; Lawson, 2018; Paul & Birzer, 2009). Marking the culmination of militarization, the 1033 program enabled the Department of Defense to sell military equipment to local law enforcement agencies (Balko, 2013; Burkhardt & Baker, 2018; Dang, 2022; Delehanty et al., 2017; Paul & Birzer, 2009). Evidenced today in the lack of accountability, trust, and legitimacy in police- community relations (Balko, 2013; Burkhardt & Baker, 2018; Lawson, 2018; Marquez, 2021; Paul & Birzer, 2009) characterized by extreme action (Leiblich & Shinar, 2018) taken against citizens viewed as enemy combatants (Dang, 2022; Marenin, 2016; McNeill, 1982; Nix et al., 2018), warrior officers embody the impact of police militarization. Drawing from the mentality of soldiers who regularly contend with life-threatening situations, police are often trained to remain hypervigilant (Simon, 2021; Stoughton, 2015). They perceive the potential for a fatal threat in every encounter, solidifying a warrior approach as their best chance of safely returning home each night (Simon, 2021; Stoughton, 2015). This mindset is characterized by a fixation on fear and danger, isolation from the community, and a prioritization 3 of the use of force to control subjects. Guardian-oriented officers are presented as a solution to rectify the shortcomings of the warrior approach, namely through building relationships with the community. However, warrior and guardian mentalities are not on opposite ends of the same continuum (McLean et al., 2020a). Rather, an individual can simultaneously possess qualities associated with both orientations (McLean et al., 2020a). Guardians extend and transform warrior traits, incorporating empathy, patience, and self-reflection to assess and improve their actions (Helfgott et al., 2018; Rahr & Rice, 2015; Stoughton, 2016). While some research suggests the situation rather than officer mindset impacts use of force outcomes (Paoline et al., 2021), other studies identify differences in use of force attitudes and practices based on officers’ orientations toward their job (Helfgott et al., 2018; McLean et al., 2020a; Stoughton, 2015; 2016). Officers with a warrior mentality are more likely to abuse their authority (Helfgott et al., 2018), justify misconduct like excessive use of force and perjury (Stoughton, 2016), and unnecessarily use force (McLean et al., 2020a). On the other hand, guardians consider force a last resort only to be used when other approaches are exhausted, valuing patience over physical control (Helfgott et al., 2018; McLean et al., 2023; Stoughton, 2015). Foundationally rooted in a “responsibility to protect civilians from unnecessary indignity and harm,” guardians emphasize communication in interactions with the public they serve (Rahr & Rice, 2015; Stoughton, 2015; 2016, p. 667). Guardian officers view each citizen encounter as an opportunity to build lasting relationships (Helfgott et al., 2018; McLean et al., 2020a; Stoughton, 2015; 2016). As a result, police improve trust and legitimacy, allowing officers to operate as part of the community (McLean et al., 2020a; President’s Task, 2015; Rahr & Rice, 2015; Stoughton, 2015; 2016). This creates a safer, more effective policing environment defined 4 by a cooperating public participating in crime-solving and reporting that approaches police encounters with less confrontation and suspicion (Stoughton, 2015; 2016). Conversely, warrior- oriented police opt to gain cooperation through coercion rather than voluntary compliance (Stoughton, 2015). Minimizing the importance of communication and de-escalation, warrior officers can become isolated from communities by eroding trust and legitimacy in police (Rahr & Rice, 2015; Stoughton, 2016; Strah et al., 2023). When at odds, interactions between the public and police are more dangerous for both parties who view each other warily, leading to unnecessary risk and violence that reinforces negative stereotypes (Stoughton, 2015; 2016). Emerging evidence suggests that warrior and guardian orientations are associated with another important outcome—procedural justice (McLean et al., 2020a). Procedural Justice Procedural justice refers to the fairness and equity of the decision-making process by authorities (Donner et al., 2015; Rahr & Rice, 2015; Schulhofer et al., 2011). In this context, it describes how the police exercise their power during interactions with the public. Concerned with means rather than ends, four elements influence how the public assesses police procedural fairness. First, citizen participation through receiving an opportunity to voice and have their perspective heard is essential (Donner et al., 2015; Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Lind & Early, 1992; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Myhill & Bradford, 2013; Schulhofer et al., 2011). Second, officers must demonstrate neutrality through transparency and consistency in their decision-making (Donner et al., 2015; Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Lind & Earley, 1992; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Myhill & Bradford, 2013; Schulhofer et al., 2011; Terrill et al., 2016). Third, police should afford individuals dignified, respectful treatment that recognizes their rights (Donner et al., 2015; Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Jonathan-Zamir et 5 al., 2015; Lind & Earley, 1992; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Schulhofer et al., 2011; Terrill et al., 2016). Finally, citizens must trust that police motives are genuinely concerned with their best interests (Donner et al., 2015; Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Mazerolle et al., 2013). Lind and Tyler’s (1988) group-value theory explains why procedural justice matters to people and why it is associated with positive outcomes. Those treated in a way that aligns with their values learn about their standing within a given group and understand they can take pride in its membership (Smith et al., 1998; Tyler et al., 1996). People value their membership in social groups because they desire self-validation, emotional support, and resulting material resources (Tyler, 1989). Beyond that, fair treatment produces individuals who are more likely to buy into and feel content with procedures, follow group guidelines, and comply with a sense of obligation to help, even at a cost to themselves (Lind & Early, 1992; Smith et al., 1998; Tyler et al., 1996). Uncertainty management theory further illuminates the importance of fairness, positing that fair treatment helps people cope with uncertainty because they trust the authority and feel confident in the decision-making process (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Wolfe et al., 2015). If a person perceives an authority as treating them fairly, they are more willing to accept subsequent outcomes of the interaction (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Tyler & Huo, 2002). However, if they feel they have not been treated fairly, they may reject decisions, react negatively, and be less likely to cooperate (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002). Trust and legitimacy in law enforcement are considered the primary outcomes of procedural justice-based policing (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). In this sense, trust is built on the observed actions of police and a belief that officers will act in the public's best interests (Murphy et al., 2014; Nix et al., 2014). Trust, “characterized by a 6 willingness to accept vulnerability,” is particularly relevant in the context of police-citizen interactions where officers have the capacity to cause harm (Hamm et al., 2017, p. 1203; 2019). When the public trusts law enforcement, they can accept their potential for harm and still develop positive relationships with the police (Hamm et al., 2017). Legitimacy refers to citizens’ belief in the rightful power held by police which is at least partially related to their personal identification or moral alignment with law enforcement on the appropriate exercising of that authority (Jackson et al., 2012; Nix et al., 2014). In turn, perceptions of trust and legitimacy are associated with citizen cooperation with police (Bolger & Walters, 2019; Schulhofer et al., 2011; Terrill et al., 2016; Van Damme et al., 2015; Tyler et al., 2013; White et al., 2015), voluntary compliance with the law (Jackson et al., 2012; Schulhofer et al., 2011; Terrill et al., 2016; Tyler et al., 2013; Walters, 2017), and empowerment of law enforcement (Moule et al., 2019; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990). Due to officer reliance on community cooperation through offense reporting, the ability of police to control crime can increase when they are viewed as legitimate and trustworthy (Bolger & Walters, 2019; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Schulhofer et al., 2011; Tyler, 2017). When people view the police as a legitimate and trustworthy authority, they are more likely to voluntarily comply with the law that officers represent because it is the right thing to do rather than out of fear of punishment (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002). This avoids the police having to rely on coercion or force to gain compliance (Jackson et al., 2012). Relatedly, the public is willing to empower the police to use discretion as they see fit when they exhibit genuine motives and honest intentions (Moule et al., 2019; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). 7 Warrior/Guardian Orientations and Procedural Justice Given that procedural justice leads to trust and legitimacy which results in positive outcomes for police-community relations, it is important to understand the predictors of officers’ support for using procedural justice. Organizational justice and self-legitimacy are two leading factors shown to be significantly linked with officers’ views of procedural justice-based policing. Organizationally-just law enforcement workplaces are associated with officers who more strongly identify with their agency, engage in less misconduct, have increased job satisfaction, and positive perceptions of the community (Bradford et al., 2013; Myhill & Bradford, 2013; Wolfe & Lawson, 2020; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Internal culture reflects external behavior, and organizational justice values are congruent with the principles of process-based policing (Myhill & Bradford, 2013; Rahr & Rice, 2015). Additionally, individuals with greater self-legitimacy— more confidence in their authority—are more likely to trust agency goals—like treating citizens in a fair manner—and, subsequently, more likely to use procedural justice during their interactions with community members (Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Chen et al., 2021; Tankebe, 2019; Wolfe & Nix, 2017). Similarly, and as discussed earlier, both warrior and guardian orientations predict procedural justice, where guardians more strongly support the use of procedural justice, and warrior officers less so (McLean et al., 2020a). The guardian mindset prioritizes the dignity and safety of members of the public through an emphasis on communication, empathy, patience, and self-reflection, where force is considered a last resort, ultimately resulting in strengthened trust and legitimacy between the community and law enforcement (McLean et al., 2020a; President’s Task, 2015; Rahr & Rice, 2015; Stoughton, 2015; 2016). Instead focusing on self-preservation, the warrior mindset perceives the public through a lens clouded by suspicion, turning to coercive 8 control tactics, and minimizing communication and de-escalation (Rahr & Rice, 2015; Stoughton, 2016; Strah et al., 2023). Given the role of warrior and guardian orientations as important predictors of procedural justice outcomes, it is worthwhile to better understand how the respective mentalities may apply differently to the various types of officers that comprise the existing heterogeneous police culture (Gau & Paoline, 2017; Paoline & Gau, 2017; 2022). Despite training largely modeled on military practices supporting a standardized warrior outlook, the composition of law enforcement officers continues to expand, including people with wide-ranging life experiences that fundamentally shape their perspectives. To effectively respond to the shift of cultural values advocated for by the President’s Task Force, we need to explore how individual demographic factors relate to perceptions of procedural justice. This will make it possible to tailor policies aimed at officers with warrior characteristics that preclude their ability to operate in a procedurally-just manner. The composition of local police officer gender across the U.S. has experienced a shift, with female officers increasing from 7.6% in 1987 (Reaves, 1996) to 14% as of 2020 (Goodison, 2022). Corresponding with the gradual increase in female police officers, the overwhelmingly male environment has been slow to move away from gendered role conceptualizations, as women are often ostracized from the bond—brotherhood—that defines the policing community (Dodge et al., 2010). Because of this isolation and harassment, there is pressure to conform to the existing standard, find niches that offer a better fit for stereotypically feminine roles, and work harder than male coworkers to earn respect (Dodge et al., 2010; Hunt, 1990; Rabe-Hemp, 2008a; Todak et al., 2021). Rooted in biological and socialization differences, research supports the idea that while female officers may not display warrior-associated qualities to the degree of their male counterparts, they are not necessarily more likely to use guardian-style strategies (Rabe-Hemp, 9 2008b). Some cite assignments to lower-risk tasks as a potential explanation for results that suggest female officers use less force (Bolger, 2015; Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2005). Others posit that gender does not impact use of force outcomes (Lawton, 2007) or that added context may be required to understand the role of gender (Wright & Headley, 2020). However, several studies establish that female officers emphasize communication more and use less force than male officers (Ba et al., 2021; Bolger, 2015; Dodge et al., 2010; Rabe-Hemp, 2008b; Schuck & Rabe- Hemp, 2005). Based on the evidence so far, we may expect the impact of warrior orientations on views of procedural justice-based policing to be weaker for female officers than for male officers. Conversely, the guardian mentality effect on procedural justice may be stronger for female officers than their male counterparts. Diversification in policing has also been seen with respect to officer race and ethnicity. In 1987, only 9.3% of U.S. officers were Black, and 4.5% were Hispanic (Reaves, 1996). More than three decades later, 12% of local police officers in the U.S. are Black, and 14% are Hispanic (Goodison, 2022). Because non-White officers continue to account for a minority of law enforcement in this country, some argue that officers of color are socialized into the dominant culture on the job, created by the shared experiences of primarily White men, causing minority officers to overcome differences that may have existed, conceivably feeling pressure to conform to the dominant warrior-orientation (Clifton et al., 2021; Paoline, 2001; Paoline & Terrill, 2015). If so, we may see that officer race does not shape the extent to which warrior or guardian orientations are associated with their views of procedural justice. However, several studies found that non-White officers demonstrate more support for a guardian orientation than White officers (Gau & Paoline, 2017; Gau & Paul, 2019, Jenkins, 2017; Paoline et al., 2015; Trinkner et al., 2016). Relatedly, Clifton et al. (2021) showed that officer views toward community policing 10 mattered to officers of color and that non-White officers in communities of color were more supportive of the guardian orientation. Regarding race and community outlook, Gau and Paoline (2017) found that race strongly predicted a lack of cynicism, with Black and Latino police exhibiting a more positive perspective on citizens than White officers. Accordingly, as the population of officers of color grows, police culture may be changing to include greater heterogeneity in subcultural groups (Gau & Paoline, 2017). Consequently, it is necessary to see if officer race shapes the extent to which either warrior or guardian mindsets are associated with officers’ support for procedural justice-based policing. The violent veteran model posits that soldiers acquire a military mindset during their time in the armed forces that they subsequently bring to the job as law enforcement officers in the form of challenges adjusting to different use of force limitations, a lack of empathy, and impatience during public interactions (Gau et al., 2021a). However, the limited studies that investigate this claim do not support it. Instead, such studies have found quite the opposite, suggesting that military experience can better equip officers to manage stressful encounters and prepare them for the physical and operational aspects of their duties (Gau et al., 2021a; Shernock, 2016). Gau et al. (2021a) concluded that military experience does not cause a militarized mindset, nor does it impact officer suspicion or perceptions of danger except potentially to minimize fear. More research is needed to examine the role of military experience on important officer attitudes and behavioral preferences. This study aims to build on the literature by exploring whether military experience impacts the extent to which warrior or guardian orientations are associated with support for procedural justice. An argument for variance in outcomes by level of education originates from the era of professionalization in policing, but today derives from a belief that those with additional 11 education have a better-developed worldview and advanced communication skills (Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Rydberg & Terrill, 2010). In the absence of literature examining the relationship between level of education and warrior/guardian orientations, use of force studies serve as proxy due to the association between the use of excessive force and the warrior mindset, and because the decision to use force is subject to discretion potentially impacted by education (Rydberg & Terrill, 2010). Numerous analyses signal that police officers with advanced schooling use fewer verbal threats and less physical force than officers with only a high school education (Chapman, 2012; Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Rydberg & Terrill, 2010). However, a consensus on the role of education in predicting officer attitudes and behaviors does not exist (Peterson, 2001). This study explores how officer education level influences the relationship between warrior/guardian mentalities and support for procedural justice. Perhaps education serves as a protective factor against otherwise warrior attitudes by giving such officers appreciation for nuance in civilian encounters. In other words, educated officers may be less likely to have their warrior orientations play a role in their support for procedural justice. Expectations for the impact of length of experience also rely on use of force research due to a shared lack of investigation in the context of warrior and guardian mentalities. Paoline et al. (2007) found that police officers with more experience use fewer verbal threats and less physical force. While many examinations conclude that as experience increases, use of force decreases (Garner et al., 2002; Kaminski et al., 2004; McElvain & Kposowa, 2008; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002), others found experience played no role (Alpert et al., 2004). Although analysis is limited, researchers argue that officers with less on-the-job experience are not as prepared to handle stressful situations and may be less tolerant of perceived disrespect, resulting in more frequent use of force incidents (McElvain & Kposowa, 2004). In this way, warrior orientations may have 12 a stronger effect (and guardian mentalities a weaker effect) on support for procedural justice among officers with fewer years of experience. If so, this also implies that more experience may shield officers from the harmful effects of warrior orientations on procedural justice and increase the positive effects of guardian mentalities. 13 Data METHODS Over two weeks between late March and early April of 2017, survey data were collected from patrol officers from the Fayetteville (NC) Police Department (FPD) and the Tucson (AZ) Police Department (TPD) as part of a larger experimental evaluation of an officer training program funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ; only pre-test survey data were used in this study; Alpert et al., 2022). The FPD’s 164 patrol officers served a population of 205,000 at the time of the survey, compared to 320 patrol officers in the TPD that served 530,000 people. In addition to the geographic diversity provided by the two cities, each is differently ethnically diverse, with Fayetteville composed of 46% White and 42% Black residents. Tucson is home to 47% White and 42% non-White Hispanic/Latino residents. In collaboration with personnel at both agencies, researchers distributed questionnaires in person at roll call meetings after presenting a brief introduction emphasizing that participation was anonymous and voluntary. Accounting for various absences (e.g., sick or court leave), researchers collected data from a sample that represented 82.4% of all patrol officers in both cities. Variables Independent Variables McLean et al. (2020a) demonstrated that warrior and guardian orientations can be empirically measured and that each is best represented on separate scales. Using a two-factor model they showed that warrior and guardian mentalities are distinct but not mutually exclusive, where officers may be warriors, guardians, or demonstrate characteristics of both. Accordingly, eight items were used to evaluate police officer mindsets with statements including “My primary responsibility as a police officer is to fight crime” to assess the warrior mentality and “As a 14 police officer, I have a primary responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of residents” for the guardian orientation (a list of all warrior and guardian items is presented in Appendix A). Each statement was coded using a five-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Principal-axis factoring (PAF) showed the items loaded on two factors, one for warrior items (eigenvalue = 0.73, all loadings > 0.53), and the other for guardian items (eigenvalue = 1.91, all loadings > 0.41). Accordingly, two separate weighted factor scores were constructed, one for the warrior orientation (r = 0.50), and one for the guardian orientation (α = 0.71). Higher scores on the measures corresponded with a stronger warrior or guardian orientation, respectively. Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for all analysis variables. Table 1. Summary statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficients Moderator Variables The growing body of research pointing to the heterogeneity of police culture guided the current exploration of demographic characteristics of individual police officers as potential conditioning factors in the relationship between warrior and guardian orientations and 15 perceptions of procedural justice (Ingram et al., 2013; 2018; Paoline & Pau, 2017; Paoline & Terrill, 2014). Gender was treated as a binary variable where 0 = male and 1 = female (variable written as “female”). Officer race/ethnicity was coded as a binary variable where 0 = White/Caucasian and 1 = Minority which included respondents who self-identified as Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Other (variable written as “minority”). Military experience, another binary variable, was coded in response to the question “Have you served in the military?” where 0 = no and 1 = yes (variable written as “military”). Bachelors was a binary variable capturing officers’ education level where answers to “What is your highest level of education?” were coded so that 0 = less than a bachelor’s degree and 1 = bachelor’s degree or higher. Level of experience, measured in response to the question “How long have you worked in law enforcement?” was an ordered categorical variable where 0 = 1-4 years, 1 = 5-9 years, 2 = 10-14 years, 3 = 15-19 years, and 4 = 20 years or more. Control Variables Organizational justice and self-legitimacy were treated as control variables to account for alternative predictors of procedural justice (Bradford et al., 2013; Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Chen et al. 2021; Myhill & Bradford, 2013; Rahr & Rice, 2015; Tankebe 2019; Wolfe & Lawson, 2020; Wolfe & Nix, 2017; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Ten items were used to capture the four elements of organizational justice: procedural, distributive, informational, and interpersonal justice. For example, procedural justice was measured with statements like “Command staff considers employees’ viewpoints” and distributive justice with “My agency’s policies regarding internal decisions (e.g., promotion, discipline) are applied consistently.” Further, informational justice was assessed with such statements as “Command staff clearly explains the reasons for 16 their decisions” and interpersonal justice with “I trust that command staff makes decisions that have employee’s best interest in mind” (all items are presented in Appendix A). Each item was coded on a five-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The items were developed based on existing organizational justice literature (Bradford et al., 2014; Colquitt, 2001; Wolfe et al., 2018; Wolfe et al., 2019; Wolfe & Lawson, 2020). PAF indicated the items loaded on a single factor (eigenvalue = 5.37, all loadings > 0.57) and scale items had strong internal consistency (α = 0.92). Accordingly, a weighted factor score was constructed where higher scores on the scale indicated stronger perceptions of organizational justice. Self-legitimacy was measured using six items that included statements such as “I have confidence in the authority vested in me as a law enforcement officer” (see Appendix A for all survey items). The scale was coded where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Developed based on previous self-legitimacy research (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012), the items had strong internal consistency (α = 0.84) and a PAF showed they loaded on a single factor (eigenvalue = 3.08, all loadings > 0.58). Higher values on the weighted factor score were associated with greater self-legitimacy. Finally, site was a binary variable that differentiated between the two study locations where 0 = Tucson and 1 = Fayetteville. Dependent Variable Officers’ prioritization of procedural justice was evaluated using a vignette describing an interaction between a police officer and a citizen where the officer responds to a suspicious person call and is faced with an angry, uncooperative suspect (see Appendix A). Then, respondents indicated the importance they would place on each of a series of eight statements, for example, “Treating the subject respectfully” and “Earning the subject’s trust” (see Appendix 17 A for full list of items). The statements were coded on a five-point Likert scale where 1 = not important and 5 = very important. These items were developed by McLean et al. (2020b) to assess how police officers prioritize procedural justice throughout citizen encounters and they capture each component of the concept (Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015). PAF demonstrated the items loaded on a single factor (eigenvalue = 3.84, all loadings > 0.60) and had strong internal consistency (α = 0.87). A weighted factor score was created with these items where higher scores indicated a stronger prioritization of procedural justice during the citizen encounter. Analytic Strategy The current study aimed to investigate the generality of warrior and guardian mentalities by testing the extent to which the orientations have an invariant effect on officers’ prioritization of procedural justice across individual officer demographics. To do so mean-centered interaction terms were created between the warrior and guardian scales with each of the officer demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, race, military service, experience, and education; dummy variables were not mean-centered; Aiken & West, 1991; Long & Freese, 2006). Statistically significant interaction effects would indicate that the influence of warrior or guardian orientations on the prioritization of procedural justice is moderated by the respective demographic characteristics. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of the interaction and create a graphical depiction of the relationship, the margins command in Stata 18 was used to explore any statistically significant interaction effects. All models are estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression because the dependent variable approximated normality (skewness = – 0.41; kurtosis = 2.45). 18 RESULTS Table 2 presents results regarding whether individual officer demographics moderate the relationship between warrior and guardian orientations and the prioritization of procedural justice. Each model estimates the effect of the respective interaction term while controlling for the other demographic characteristics and orientation, as well as organizational justice, self- legitimacy, and study site. For example, the first column (“Female”) and the first row (“Warrior * [Variable]”) present the unstandardized partial regression coefficients and standard error for the interaction effect between female officers and warrior orientations on the prioritization of procedural justice. Table 2. The effect of warrior/guardian orientations on procedural justice across demographics The analyses indicate that while most of the interaction effects were not significant, the guardian orientation * racial minority interaction effect is significantly and positively associated with prioritizing procedural justice (b = .301, p < .05). This means that the strength of the guardian effect on procedural justice depends on whether an individual officer identifies as part 19 of a racial/ethnic minority group. Figure 1 allows us to visualize this interaction effect where we see that the guardian orientation effect on prioritizing procedural justice is stronger for non- White officers than for their White counterparts. In other words, the guardian orientation is associated with the prioritization of procedural justice to a greater degree among officers of color. Overall, these results officer evidence that within the current sample, there is a general effect of warrior and guardian mentalities on the prioritization of procedural justice across demographic characteristics (except for race/ethnicity and the guardian orientation). Simply, warrior and guardian mentalities are associated with officers’ prioritization of procedural justice similarly regardless of gender, military service, level of education, or length of experience. Figure 1. Interaction effect between guardian orientation and racial minority It is also worth noting that the results show the guardian orientation effect on prioritizing procedural justice for all but one of the 10 models is statistically significant (p < .05, average b = .253). That is, after accounting for the potential interaction effects, there was a direct effect of the guardian mentality and not the warrior orientation on procedural justice. Although a stronger 20 guardian orientation may facilitate procedural justice, stronger warrior characteristics do not appear to hinder officers’ prioritization of procedural justice. Additionally, self-legitimacy has a statistically significant effect (p < .05) on the prioritization of procedural justice across all the models presented in Table 2 (average b = .231). This indicates that officers with greater self- legitimacy more strongly prioritize procedural justice during hypothetical citizen encounters. Contrasting the conclusions of existing literature, organizational justice did not have a significant effect on the prioritization of procedural justice (Chen et al., 2021; Myhill & Bradford, 2013). 21 DISCUSSION In response to the intensifying calls for police reform, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) repackaged the classic objective of creating the “good policeman” by outlining the need for a switch from warrior to guardian-oriented officers guided by procedural justice. However, the literature historically shows that rather than an officer who only uses one technique to accomplish their goals, an ideal officer should be able to appropriately apply both passion and perspective, one with the bravery to run toward gunfire and the empathy and patience to communicate with people on their worst days (Klockars, 1980; Muir, 1977). Further, recent research indicates that rather than a single spectrum, the warrior and guardian mentalities operate on two separate continuums where a single officer can simultaneously possess qualities associated with both orientations (McLean et al., 2020a). While the current understanding of the mentalities indicates that officers with a stronger warrior orientation will show less support for procedural justice (and guardians more support), existing investigations into the role of demographic differences point to possible variation. To support the effort for improved trust and legitimacy in police-community relations, this study adds to research that treats the warrior and guardian orientations with the necessary complexity. The study also addresses a gap in the literature by exploring the extent to which the mentalities have a general effect on officer prioritization of procedural justice or whether they are constrained to certain individual attributes. As a result, four findings from this thesis require further discussion. There was an invariant effect of the warrior and guardian mentalities across most of the individual officer characteristics investigated in the current sample. In other words, the warrior and guardian mentalities were associated with officers’ prioritization of procedural justice similarly across differences in gender, military service, level of education, and length of 22 experience. This finding adds to a theoretical understanding of factors that may (or may not) impact officers’ prioritization of procedurally-fair behavior in their interactions with the public and contributes to the finite body of research examining the role of such factors on officers’ attitudinal outcomes. If agencies hope to shift officers toward guardian attributes and away from warrior characteristics, this evidence indicates that training may similarly influence attitude changes in officers regardless of these factors and could play an important role in recruitment tactics. But, of course, this is an empirical question awaiting future inquiry. Notably, there was a statistically significant interaction effect of the guardian orientation on officers in the “minority” group, meaning that the strength of the guardian effect on prioritizing procedural justice depends on whether an officer identified as a racial/ethnic minority. In this sample, the guardian effect on prioritizing procedural justice was stronger for officers of color than for White officers, a finding congruent with existing literature that demonstrates non-White officers showed more support for a guardian orientation than White officers (Gau & Paoline, 2017; Gau & Paul, 2019; Jenkins, 2017; Paoline et al., 2015; Trinkner et al., 2016). This finding offers evidence that the guardian orientation effect on how officers value procedural justice is not invariant across all characteristics. As police culture expands to include more heterogeneity in subcultural groups, the face of law enforcement is changing. While this result could suggest that racial/ethnic diversification in policing could lead to positive outcomes, further research is needed to determine whether officers of color are more likely to have guardian views. Guardian survey questions may have been interpreted differently across racial groups. Perhaps non-White officers were more likely to consider how they serve underprivileged communities than White officers when responding to the measure about their support for procedural justice. Alternatively, this result could reflect the uniquely racially 23 representative police departments surveyed in the current study. Although this investigation alone is insufficient to guide policy recommendations, it justifies additional research to explore whether this finding applies to behavioral outcomes and if officers of color may better employ procedural justice practices in their interactions with the community. The direct guardian effect on prioritizing procedural justice was statistically significant for all but one model. There was a direct effect of the guardian orientation, and not the warrior mentality, on prioritizing procedural justice after accounting for the interaction effect. Simply put, in the current study, a stronger guardian orientation was associated with greater prioritization of procedural justice, but a stronger warrior orientation was not related to such prioritization. However, this result may only apply to the current findings and should be interpreted with caution. Substantive meaning is difficult to determine from this result because the present model includes interaction effects. Moreover, other studies clearly show that stronger warrior orientations are associated with negative outcomes among officers, such as a lack of support for de-escalation tactics and procedural justice, and more support for excessive use of force (McLean et al., 2020a; Wolfe et al., 2024). In short, more research is needed to better understand the role of warrior orientation on officer attitudes and behavioral outcomes. Finally, self-legitimacy and not organizational justice had a significant effect on officers’ prioritization of procedural justice across all models. While this may underline the importance of self-legitimacy in supporting the prioritization of procedurally-fair strategies among officers, it contrasts with empirical evidence that establishes organizational justice as a predictor of procedural justice (Bradford et al., 2013; Myhill & Bradford, 2013; Wolfe & Lawson, 2020; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Importantly, this finding resulted from a model that included interaction effects where previous research did not and should be interpreted as such. Additional research is 24 necessary to determine whether self-legitimacy is more important than organizational justice in predicting procedural justice prioritization. Despite its contribution to warrior/guardian and procedural justice literatures, several limitations in this study provide opportunities for future research. First, a vignette was used to measure patrol officers’ prioritization of procedural justice. While warrior and guardian mentalities were not associated with how officers prioritized procedural justice differently across individual characteristics (i.e., they have a more “general” effect), except in the case of those belonging to a racial/ethnic minority, the current study did not examine behavioral outcomes. Existing research establishes that attitudes are not always representative of behavior and therefore, officers’ attitudes surrounding the use of procedural justice may not manifest in their use of such communication strategies (Waddington, 1999; Worden, 1989). Future studies should incorporate methods including systematic behavioral observation, analysis of body-worn cameras, or in-person interviews to establish the behavioral impact of the warrior and guardian mentalities on using procedural justice. Second, the present study uses cross-sectional data, providing only a snapshot from one point that does not capture whether the mentalities are stable over time. Smith and Alpert (2007) discuss the illusory correlation as it applies to racial bias in policing, where an officer who observes negative behaviors from a group of people can mistakenly over-ascribe those behaviors to that group and develop an unconscious bias reinforced by cultural stereotypes. In this context, an officer may join the police force with a guardian approach but, over time, transition toward the warrior orientation based on an illusory correlation developed during their duties. Indeed, recent research suggests that officers may develop cognitive distortions as a result of police subcultural socialization processes that result in negative outcomes such as extreme warrior 25 orientations (Sierra-Arévalo, 2021; Wolfe et al., 2024). An ideal study would incorporate longitudinal behavioral analysis measuring changes in officer mentalities and their impact on the use of procedural justice to address this gap. A third limitation surrounds the narrow assessment of the warrior mentality. Hindering the exploration of the variety of elements encompassed by warrior orientation, only two measures were used to evaluate the warrior mentality in this study (compared to six for the guardian orientation). The false narrative that the warrior orientation is only negative fails to capture the diverse features that comprise the warrior mindset or acknowledge the impossibility of choices officers face as part of their discretionary decision-making process (Klockars, 1980). This shortcoming points to a need for future studies to evaluate a more complete picture of the warrior orientation, including elements considered potentially detrimental (e.g., a thin blue line mentality) and those viewed as potentially desirable (e.g., running toward danger). Finally, all demographic moderator variables except experience were treated as binary. Because the literature that explores the relationship between officer characteristics and behavioral outcomes offers varying conclusions about the extent to which these factors have an impact, binary variables may not sufficiently address the complexity of those relationships. For example, while police patrol may not necessarily include adequate diversity to incorporate more than two categories for gender and race, simply asking whether an officer was in the military does not encapsulate the breadth of experiences they could have. By incorporating detailed survey questions aimed at differentiating more specifically among characteristics and collecting data from more than two research sites, future studies can explore demographic factors with greater complexity. 26 In the end, this research adds empirical evidence to the largely theoretical discussion of the warrior and guardian framework in policing. Results suggest that the effect of the mentalities on officers’ prioritizations of procedural justice is largely invariant except in the case of minority officers and that the warrior mentality did not have a detrimental relationship with officers’ perceptions of procedural fairness. Future studies should examine behavioral outcomes rather than attitudes across a larger sample to allow for a more complex evaluation of the role of individual characteristics. Ultimately, this paper refocuses the existing dichotomous understanding of the mentalities and highlights the need for a more complex consideration of the warrior orientation to improve police-community relations. 27 REFERENCES Aiken, L. S. and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage. Alpert, G. P., Dunham, R. G., MacDonald, J. M. (2004). Interactive police-citizen encounters that result in force. Police Quarterly, 7(4), 475-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611103260507 Alpert, G. P., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., Smith, M. R. (2022). Social interaction training to reduce police use of force, Fayetteville, NC and Tucson, AZ, 2016-2018 [Data set]. Inter- university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37856.v1 Ba, B. A., Knox, D., Mummolo, J., Rivera, R. (2021). The role of officer race and gender in police-civilian interactions in Chicago. Science, 371(6530), 696-702. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/science.abd8694 Balko, R. (2013). The rise of the warrior cop. PublicAffairs. Bolger, C. P. (2015). Just following orders: A meta-analysis of correlates of American police officer use of force decisions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 466-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9278-y Bolger, C. P. and Walters, G. D. (2019). The relationship between police procedural justice, police legitimacy, and people’s willingness to cooperate with law enforcement: A meta- analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 60, 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.01.001 Bottoms, A. and Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119- 170. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol102/iss1/4 Bradford, B. and Quinton, P. (2014). Self-legitimacy, police culture and support for democratic policing in an English Constabulary. British Journal of Criminology, 54(6), 1023-1046. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu053 Bradford, B., Quinton, P., Myhill, A., Porter, G. (2014). Why do ‘the law’ comply? Procedural justice, group identification and officer motivation in police organizations. European Journal of Criminology, 11(1), 110-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370813491898 Burkhardt, B. C. and Baker, K. (2019). Agency correlates of police militarization: The case of MRAPs. Police Quarterly, 22(2), 161-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611118800780 Chapman, C. (2012). Use of force in minority communities is related to police education, age, experience, and ethnicity. Police Practice and Research, 13(5), 421-436. 28 https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2011.596711 Chen, F.-L., Sun, I., Wu, Y., Wang, S.-Y., K. (2021). Does officer self-legitimacy mediate the linkage between internal and external procedural justice? Evidence from Taiwanese police officers. Policing: An International Journal, 44(5), 893-908. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2021-0047 Clifton, S., Torres, J., Hawdon, J. (2021). Examining guardian and warrior orientations across racial and ethnic lines. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology (2021) 36, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09427-6 Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.678 Dang, N. (2022). The implications of a militarized police force in the United States. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 10(2), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.31979/THEMIS.2022.1002 Delehanty, C., Mewhirter, J., Welch, R., Wilks, J. (2017). Militarization and police violence: The case of the 1033 program. Research and Politics, 4(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017712885 Dodge, M., Valcore, L., Klinger, D. A. (2010). Maintaining separate spheres in policing: Women on SWAT teams. Women and Criminal Justice, 20(3), 218-238, https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2010.490476 Donner, C., Maskaly, J., Fridell, L., Jennings, W. G. (2015). Policing and procedural justice: A state-of-the-art review. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 38(1), 153-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2014-0129 Garner, J. H., Maxwell, C. D., Heraux, C. G. (2002). Characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity of force used by the police. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 705-746, https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095401 Gau, J. M., Brook, E. J., Paoline, E. A., III, Roman, K., L. (2021a). Military experience among police officers: An examination of veterans’ attitudes toward the community. Policing: An International Journal, 44(6), 1060-1076. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2021-0070 Gau, J. M., Paoline, E. A., III, (2017). Officer race, role orientations, and cynicism toward citizens. Justice Quarterly, 34(7), 1246-1271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1380838 Gau, J. M., Paoline, E. A., III, Roman, K. L. (2021b). Hispanic and Latinx police officers’ perceptions of the working environment. Crime and Delinquency, 69(4), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211052435 29 Gau, J. M. and Paul, N. D. (2019). Police officers’ role orientations: Endorsement of community policing, order maintenance, and traditional law enforcement. Policing: An International Journal, 42(5), 944-959. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2019- 0044 Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing, 4(4), 403-410. http://doi.org/10.1093/police/paq041 Hamm, J. A., Smidt, C., Mayer, R. C. (2019). Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust. PLoS ONE, 14(5), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215835 Hamm, J. A., Trinkner, R., Carr, J. D. (2017). Moving toward an integrated framework of police legitimacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(9), 1183-1212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817710058 Helfgott, J. B., Strah, B. M., Pollock, J., Atherley, L. T., Vinson, J. (2018). A qualitative approach to understanding guardian models of policing. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 6(1), 93-120. http://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.ac7b66fa Hinds, L. and Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.40.1.27 Hinds, L. (2007). Building police—Youth relationships: The importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice, 7(3), 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225407082510 Hunt, J. C. (1990). The logic of sexism among police. Women and Criminal Justice, 1(2), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v01n02_02 Ingram, J. R., Paoline, E. A., III, Terrill, W. (2013). A multilevel framework for understanding police culture: The role of the workgroup. Criminology, 51(2), 365-397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12009 Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., Tyler, T. R (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051-1071. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1994490 Jenkins, M. J. (2015). Police support for community problem-solving and broken windows policing. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-015-9302-x Jonathan-Zamir, Mastrofski, S. D., Moyal, S. (2015). Measuring procedural justice in police- citizen encounters. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 845-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2013.845677 30 Jonathan-Zamir, T. and Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242781141800 Kaminski, R. J., DiGiovanni, C., Downs, R. (2004). The use of force between the police and persons with impaired judgment. Police Quarterly, 7(3), 311-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611103253456 Klockars, C. B. (1980). Th Dirty Harry problem. Annas of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452, 33-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1042758 Kraska, P. B. (2007). Militarization and policing—Its relevance to 21st Century police. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 1(4), 501-513. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pam065 Lawson, E., Jr. (2019). TRENDS: Police militarization and the use of lethal force. Political Research Quarterly, 72(1), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918784209 Lawton, B. A. (2007). Levels of nonlethal force: An examination of individual situational, and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(2), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427806297738 Leiblich, E. and Shinar, A. (2018). The case against police militarization. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 23(1/2), 105-153. https://doi.org/10.36643/mjrl.23.1.case Lind, E. A. and Earley, P. C. (1992). Procedural justice and culture. International Journal of Psychology, 27(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599208246877 Lind, E. A. and van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-X Long, J. S. and Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. (Vol. 7). Stata Press. Marenin, O. (2016). Cheapening death: Danger, police street culture, and the use of deadly force. Police Quarterly, 19(4), 461-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116652983 Marquez, A. (2021). The rise of police militarization and impact on civilians. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 9(1), 167-189. https://doi.org/10.31979/THEMIS.2021.0901 Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sergeant, E., Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9175-2 McElvain, J. P. and Kposowa, A. J. (2004). Police officer characteristics and internal affairs 31 investigations for use of force allegations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(3), 265-279. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.02.006 McLean, K., Alikhan, A., Alpert, G. P. (2023). Re-examining the use of force continuum: Why resistance is not the only driver of use of force decisions. Police Quarterly, 26(1), 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111211066353 McLean, K., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., Alpert, G. P., Smith, M. R. (2020a). Police officers as warriors or guardians: Empirical reality or intriguing rhetoric? Justice Quarterly, 37(6), 1096-1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1533031 McLean, K., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., Alpert, G. P., Smith, M. R. (2020b). Randomized controlled trial of social interaction police training. Criminology and Public Policy, 19(3), 805-832. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12506 McNeill, W. H. (1982). The pursuit of power: Technology, armed force, and society since A.D. 1000. The University of Chicago Press. Moule, R. K., Jr., Burruss, G. W., Parry, M. M., Fox, B. H. (2019). Assessing the direct and indirect effects of legitimacy on public empowerment of police: A study of public support for police militarization in America. Law and Society Review, 53(1), 77-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12379 Muir, W. K., Jr. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. University of Chicago Press. Murphy, K., Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S. (2014). Promoting trust in police: Findings from a randomized experimental field trial of procedural justice policing. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 24(4), 405-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.862246 Myhill, A. and Bradford, B. (2013). Overcoming cop culture? Organizational justice and police officers’ attitudes toward the public. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 36(2), 338-356. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511311329732 Nix, J., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., Kaminski, R. J. (2014). Trust in the police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime and Delinquency, 61(4), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714530548 Nix, J., Wolfe, S. E., Campbell, B. A. (2018). Command-level police officers’ perceptions of the “war on cops” and de-policing. Justice Quarterly, 35(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1338743 Paoline, E. A., III. (2001). Rethinking police culture: Officers’ occupational attitudes. LFB Scholarly Publishing. 32 Paoline, E. A., III, and Gau, J. M. (2017). Police occupational culture: Testing the monolithic model. Justice Quarterly, 35(4). 670-698. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1335764 Paoline, E. A., III, and Gau, J. M. (2022). Police stress: The role of occupational culture and officer characteristics. Policing: An International Journal, 46(1), 194-208. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2022-0102 Paoline, E. A., III, and Terrill, W. (2007). Police education, experience, and the use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806290239 Paoline, E. A., III, Terrill, W., Rossler, M. T. (2015). Higher education, college degree major, and police occupational attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 26(1), 49-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.923010 Paoline, E. A., III, Terrill, W., Somers, L. J. (2021). Police officer use of force mindset and street- level behavior. Police Quarterly, 24(4), 547-577. https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111211025523 Paul, J. and Birzer, M. L. (2009). The militarization of the American police force: A critical assessment. In O.N.I. Ebbe, D.K. Das (Eds.), Criminal Abuse of Women and Children (pp. 323-337). Peacock, R. P., Ivković, S. K., Wu, Y., Sun, I., Vinogradac, M., Vinogradac, V. P. (2023). The surprising positive asymmetry in the impact of organizational justice on police outcomes. Policing, 17(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paad019 Peterson, D. S. (2001). The relationship between educational attainment and police performance. Illinois State University. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015, May). Final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf Rabe-Hemp, C. (2008a). Survival in an “all boys club”: policewomen and their fight for acceptance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 31(2), 251-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510810878712 Rabe-Hemp. C. E. (2008). Female officers and the ethic of care: Does officer gender impact police behaviors? Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 426-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.07.001 Rahr, S. and Rice, S. K. (2015, April). From warriors to guardians: Recommitting American police culture to democratic ideals. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248654.pdf 33 Rydberg, J. and Terrill, W. (2010). The effect of higher education on police behavior. Police Quarterly, 13(1), 92-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611109357325 Schuck, A. M. and Rabe-Hemp, C. (2005). Women police. Women and Criminal Justice, 16(4), 91-117. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v16n04_05 Schulhofer, S. J., Tyler, T. R., Huq, A. Z. (2011). American policing at a crossroads: Unsustainable policies and the procedural justice alternative. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(2), 335-374. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/3634 Shernock, S. (2016). Conflict and compatibility: Perspectives of police officers with and without military service on the military model of policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 39(4), 740-755. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-11- 2015-0131 Sierra-Arévalo, M. (2021). American policing and the danger imperative. Law and Society Review, 55(1), 70-103. Simon, S. J. (2021). Training for war: Academy socialization and warrior policing. Social Problems, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/me4cv Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., Lind, E. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of experimental social psychology, 34(5), 470-493. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1360 Smith, M. R. and Alpert, G. P. (2007). Explaining police bias: A theory of social conditioning and illusory correlation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(10), 1262-1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807304484 Stoughton, S. W. (2015). Law enforcement’s “Warrior problem.” Harvard Law Review, 128, 225. https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/law-enforcements-warrior-problem/ Stoughton, S. W. (2016). Principled policing: Warrior cops and guardian officers. Wake Forest Law Review, 51, 611. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2321&context=law_facpub Strah, B. M., Pollock, J. M., Becker, L. T. (2023). Shifting from warriors to guardians: Officer reflections on law enforcement training in Washington State. Crime and Delinquency, 69(2), 439-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221117488 Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513-548. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1555077 Tankebe, J. (2019). In their own eyes: An empirical examination of police self-legitimacy. 34 International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43(2), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2018.1487870 Terrill, W. and Mastrofski, S. D. (2002). Situational and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 215-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095221 Terrill, W. and Paoline, E. A., III. (2015). Citizen complaints as threats to police legitimacy: The role of officers’ occupational attitudes. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(2), 192-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214568842 Terrill, W., Paoline, E. A., III, Gau, J. M. (2016). Three pillars of police legitimacy: Procedural justice, use of force, and occupational culture. In The Politics of Policing: Between Force and Legitimacy (pp. 59-76). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-613620160000021004 Todak, N., Leban, L., Hixon, B. (2021). Are women opting out? A mixed-methods study of women patrol officers’ promotional aspirations. Feminist Criminology, 16(5), 658-679. https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851211004749 Trinkner, R., Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A. (2016). Justice from within: The relations between a procedurally just organizational climate and police organizational efficiency, endorsement of democratic policing, and officers well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(2), 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000085 Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830-838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830 Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. (2017). Procedural justice and policing: A rush to judgment? Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 29-53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113318 Tyler, T., Degoey, P., Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 913-930. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.70.5.913 Tyler, T. R. and Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. The Russell Sage Foundation. Tyler, T. R., Jackson, J., Bradford, B. (2013). Psychology of procedural justice and cooperation. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer-Verlag. Van Damme, A., Pauwels, L., Svensson, R. (2015). Why do Swedes cooperate with police? A SEM analysis of Tyler’s procedural justice model. European Journal of Criminal Policy 35 and Research, 21, 15-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-013-9224-4 Waddington, P. A. J. (1999). Police (canteen) sub-culture: An appreciation. The British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 287-309. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/39.2.287 White, M. D., Mulvey, P., Dario, L. M. (2015). Arrestees’ perceptions of the police: Exploring procedural justice, legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police across offender types. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548156025 Wolfe, S. E. and Lawson, S. G. (2020). The organizational justice effect among criminal justice employees: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 58(4). 619-644. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745- 9125.12251 Wolfe, S. E., McLean, K., Alpert, G. A., Rojek, J. (2024). [Forthcoming]. Us vs. them? The problem of cognitive distortions in policing. Police Quarterly. Wolfe, S. E., McLean, K., Rojek, J., Alpert, G., Smith, M. (2019). Advancing a theory of police officer training motivation and receptivity. Justice Quarterly, 39(1), 201-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1703027 Wolfe, S. E. and Nix, J. (2017). Police officers’ trust in their agency: Does self-legitimacy protect against supervisor procedural injustice? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(5), 717-732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816671753 Wolfe, S. E. and Piquero, A. R. (2011). Organizational justice and police misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(4), 332-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385481039773 Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., Manjarrez, V. M., Jr., Rojek, A. (2018). Why does organizational justice matter? Uncertainty management among law enforcement officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 54, 20-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.11.003 Worden, R. E. (1989). Situational and attitudinal expectations of police behavior: A theoretical reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 23(4), 667-711. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053852 Wright, J. E., II and Headley, A. M. (2020). Police use of force interactions: Is race relevant or gender germane? American Review of Public Administration, 50(8), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020919908 36 Warrior Factor Loadings 0.58 Guardian Factor Loadings — APPENDIX Table 3. Scale Properties of Measures Warrior/Guardian Orientationa 1. Enforcing the law is a patrol officer’s most important responsibility. 2. My primary responsibility as a police officer is to fight crime. 3. I routinely collaborate with community members in my daily duties. 4. Law enforcement and community members must work together to solve local problems. 5. As a police officer, I have a primary responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of residents. 6. A primary responsibility of a police officers is to build trust between the department and the community. 7. As a police officer, it is important that I have non- enforcement contacts with the public. 8. As a police officer, I see myself primarily as a civil servant. Eigenvalue Organizational Justicea 1. My agency’s policies regarding internal decisions (e.g., promotion, discipline) are applied consistently. 2. My agency’s policies are designed to allow employees to have a say in agency decisions (e.g., assignment changes). 3. My agency’s investigation of civilian complaints is fair. 4. Landing a desirable assignment in my agency is based on whom you knowb 5. If you work hard, you can get ahead at this agency. 6. My agency can be trusted to do what is right for the community. 7. Command staff considers employees’ viewpoints. 8. Command staff treats employees with respect. 9. Command staff clearly explains the reasons for their decisions. 10. I trust that command staff makes decisions that have employee’s best interest in mind. Eigenvalue 37 0.53 — — — — — — 0.73 — 0.41 0.59 0.58 0.61 0.50 0.50 1.91 Factor Loadings 0.72 0.78 0.65 0.62 0.72 0.57 0.82 0.73 0.82 0.85 5.37 Table 3. (cont’d) Self-legitimacya 1. I have confidence in the authority vested in me as a law enforcement officer. 2. I am confident that I have enough authority to do my job well. 3. I believe law enforcement is capable of providing security for all citizens of the community. 4. I feel that I represent the values of the public in my local community. 5. I feel my job positively impacts the community I serve. 6. I understand how my work contributes to the success of my agency. Eigenvalue Procedural Justicec 1. Treating the subject respectfully 2. Establishing rapport with the subject 3. Explaining the reason you’ve made contact with the subject 4. Treating the subject politely and with dignity 5. Allowing the subject to explain his side of the story 6. Considering the subject’s side of the story 7. Explaining to the subject the reasons for your decisions 8. Earning the subject’s trust Factor Loadings 0.72 0.75 0.58 0.70 0.82 0.72 3.08 Factor Loadings 0.66 0.66 0.60 0.79 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.66 Eigenvalue a Items were measured using a scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. b Reverse-coded c Respondents ranked item importance after reading a vignette, “While on patrol, you receive a call regarding a suspicious person in the parking lot of a busy strip mall. You have little information and do not know whether the subject has a weapon, but arrive at the scene and make contact with a male who fits the description you were given. He appears to be angry, is being loud, using profanity, and occasionally breaks eye contact and looks around the shopping area. The subject continues to slowly walk backwards away from you despite your order to stop.” Items were measured on a scale where 1 = not important, 5 = very important. 3.84 38