1
University of Trento School of Law
International Ph.D. in Criminology XV cycle
Ph.D. Thesis
WWhhyy PPeeooppllee TTrruusstt TThhee PPooll iiccee.. AAnn EEmmppiirriiccaall SSttuuddyy
Tutor: Prof. Ernesto U. Savona
Candidate: Roberto Cornelli
Academic Year 2001-2002
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS _________________________________ 6
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING WHY PEOPLE TRUST THE POLICE ___________________________ 8
1.1 The Police At The Center Of The Crisis About Public Security And The Loss Of Police Legitimacy _________________________________________ 10
Functions Of The State Police ___________________________________ 10
The Myth Of The Police As Primarily A Crime-Fighting Agency _______ 11
Crime Prevention Is Not The Core Mission Of The Police _____________ 15
Facing New Challenges ________________________________________ 16
The Police At The Centre Of The Crisis About Public Security _________ 19
1.2 Police Searching For People’s Trust _____________________________ 20
An Intermediate Goal Of Several Police Strategies: Increasing Trust In The Police ______________________________________________________ 20
The More People Trust The Police The Safer They Feel ______________ 25
The More People Trust The Police The Safer Are The Neighbourhood ___ 28
3
1.3 Problems Addressed By This Thesis _____________________________ 31
Problem 1: Does Trust In The Police Depend On The Police’s Work? ___ 32
Problem 2. How Can Police Achieve The Goal Of Increasing Trust In The Police? _____________________________________________________ 32
1.4 Purpose Of This Thesis ________________________________________ 34
CHAPTER 2 EXTANT LITERATURE ON TRUST IN THE POLICE AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES _______________________________________ 36
2.1 Trust And Trust In The Police __________________________________ 37
Theoretical Issues On Trust _____________________________________ 38
Definition Of Trust In The Police ________________________________ 46
Is Trusting Based On The Truster’s Inclination To Do So Or On The Truster-Trustee Relationship? __________________________________________ 48
2.2 Factors Affecting Trust In The Police That Have Been Suggested By Previous Studies _________________________________________________ 54
Individual Variables ___________________________________________ 55
Relational Variables ___________________________________________ 62
2.3 Research Hypotheses. Does Trusting The Police Depend On How Police Work? In Particular, Does It Depend On How Fair, Polite And Effective The Police Are? _____________________________________________________ 73
Summary Of Extant Literature ___________________________________ 73
Research Hypotheses __________________________________________ 75
CHAPTER 3 TESTING THE HYPOTHESES: FINDINGS FROM THE TRENTINO SURVEY _____________________________________________ 78
3.1 Overview Of Trentino _________________________________________ 79
Demographic Composition Of The Population ______________________ 79
4
A Low Crime Rate ____________________________________________ 80
A High Number Of Police Officers _______________________________ 81
High Levels Of Personal Safety And Trust In The Police ______________ 82
3.2 Research Design And Methodology ______________________________ 83
Survey Of Public Attitudes Towards Police: An Introduction To The Data Gathering Method ____________________________________________ 84
Data Collection And Sample Selection ____________________________ 86
Method Of Analysis ___________________________________________ 87
The Dependent Variable _______________________________________ 90
The Independent Variables _____________________________________ 93
3.3 Findings ____________________________________________________ 100
Some Preliminary Results _____________________________________ 100
Testing The Research Hypotheses _______________________________ 110
Summary Of The Findings _____________________________________ 118
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS _________________ 123
4.1 Residents Trust The Police Because They Evaluate Positively What The Police Do ______________________________________________________ 125
Empirical Support For All Three Research Hypotheses ______________ 125
Residents Trust The Police On The Basis Of What They See Or Hear About The Police’s Work ___________________________________________ 126
4.2 Limitations Of The Study _____________________________________ 127
4.3 Implications And Directions For Future Research _________________ 129
The Need To Study Which Police Officer Behavioural Styles Increase People’s Trust In The Police. ___________________________________ 130
The Need To Study Which Policing Models Increase People’s Trust In The Police _____________________________________________________ 130
5
The Need To Study More Specifically Why People Distrust The Police _ 132
Other Directions For Future Research ____________________________ 133
4.4 Conclusions _________________________________________________ 134
REFERENCES ________________________________________________ 137
APPENDIX SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE _______________________ 163
6
OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS
This thesis tackles why people trust the police.
Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter aimed at explaining why it is
important to study which factors affect people’s trust in the police.
It begins by considering that the police, faced with a crisis in public
security, new trends in policing and police ineffectiveness in preventing
crime, risk losing their legitimacy (para. 1.1). It also considers that the
police are reacting to this crisis by developing strategies aimed at increasing
people’s trust in them. This is also occurring because recent studies have
emphasised the importance of trust in the police for the success of crime
prevention and insecurity reduction strategies (para. 1.2). Although the call
for developing and sustaining these trust-oriented strategies has been loud,
it is recognised that we need to know ‘if’ and ‘how’ police’ work may
affect people’s trust in the police (para. 1.3). This thesis, therefore, looks at
the reason why people trust the police, in order to know if and how police
work may affect people’s trust in the police (para. 1.4).
In chapter 2, a review of extant research literature in the area of trust
and trust in the police is presented.
7
The chapter starts by tackling theoretical issues on trust in human and
social sciences in order to learn why people trust the police. From this
review two different perspectives about why people trust the police are
discussed. In the first, people trust the police because they have a subjective
inclination to do so; in the second, people trust the police because police
actions induce them to do so (para. 2.1). Next, the chapter reviews studies
on factors of trust in the police, in order to learn which perspective
regarding why people trust the police has more support from empirical
research (para. 2.2). Considering that the findings of previous studies do not
provide a definitive answer, at the end of the chapter three research
hypotheses on which variables affect trust in the police are formulated
(para. 2.3).
Chapter 3 presents the design and methodology used to test the
research hypotheses.
Data from a survey of residents’ attitudes towards police in Trentino, a
northern Italian province, are analysed. The chapter begins by providing
information on where the survey was conducted (para. 3.1). Then, it
answers the methodological issues that arise from the following questions:
how did the survey collect data? How was the sample selected? How was
the data analysed to test the research hypotheses? How were dependent and
independent variables measured? (para. 3.2). Next, the chapter presents the
main findings of the data analyses (para. 3.3).
In conclusion, chapter 4 discusses the findings and examines the
implications as well as makes recommendations for future research.
8
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING WHY PEOPLE TRUST THE POLICE
Policing, as an activity of providing security through physical
constraint1, is undergoing a historic restructuring. For several centuries, the
policing has been a quintessential function of government, which exerted it
through a state police force. Recently something has changed. A
multiplicity of agencies, private and public, have been involved in
providing safety; local authorities and non-governmental groups have
assumed responsibility for guaranteeing citizen security; transnational
cooperation among police forces has developed rapidly in order to fight
transnational crimes. These trends in policing are badly affecting the state
police’s ability to provide security. On the other hand, policing studies
which were already being conducted in the Sixties in the U.S.A. and Britain
1 The concept of policing is closely related to that of social control. It is commonly defined as ‘the function of maintaining social control in society, but this definition misses the specificity of the idea of policing: providing security through surveillance and the threat of sanctions. As Reiner (1997: 1005) states: “Policing is the set of activities directed at preserving the security of a particular social order (although the effectiveness of policing is a moot point). Policing does not encompass all activities intended to produce order. It excludes post hoc punishment, as well as activities intended to create conditions of social order (for example, socialization, measures to secure family stability, encouragement of religion, or other forms internalised ethical controls)”.
9
pointed out the ineffectiveness of traditional police strategies in reducing
crime.
As a result, state police are now suffering a crisis of legitimacy. But
they seem to have realized it early. In several countries, among which Italy,
police are trying to recover public support and, therefore, their legitimacy
by strategies specifically directed at increasing trust in the police.
Furthermore, recent studies have underlined the importance of trust in the
police for the success of crime prevention and insecurity reduction
strategies. Therefore, increasing trust in the police seems to be a practical
way for police to be legitimised as security provider.
But can police achieve the goal of increasing people’s trust, and, if
they can, how?
Although the statement that the police’s work affects people’s trust in
the police has traditionally been accepted by social scientists and policy
makers, it has been pointed out that the statement is not empirically
supported.
Furthermore, although several police strategies are based on the
statement that increasing police visibility increases the degree of trust in the
police, this statement is not supported by convincing data.
The result is that we do not know if recent police efforts to increase
people’s trust have some chance of achieving their goal.
Starting from these problems, briefly mentioned in this chapter, this
thesis intends to investigate the reasons why people trust the police, in order
to know ‘if’ and ‘how’ police work may influence people’s trust in the
police.
10
1.1 The Police At The Center Of The Crisis About Public Security And The Loss Of Police Legitimacy
Functions Of The State Police
The function of the police is essentially to regulate and protect the
social order, using legitimate force if necessary (Reiner, 1992: 761). The
origins of policing as an activity carried out by a body separate from the
community arose as the extension of state power (transformation of social
control from community-based to state-directed activity). Modern police
were initially created by states to protect the interests of government. In
Western societies, the creation of state police forces results from the desire
of groups that controlled the state for information on potential challengers
and the need to deal with problems of disorder (Marenin, 1982: 241). They
were an instrument for the preservation of dominant class control over
restricted access to basic resources, over the political apparatus governing
this access, and over the labour force necessary to provide the surplus upon
which the dominant class lives (Robinson and Scaglion, 1987: 109). As a
result, the primary functions of the police were the suppression of collective
unrest (Bayley, 1994: 121), and the regulation of the population.
Specifically the police controlled the conflict among classes.2. These
functions, even if with some adjustments, are nowadays part of the police’s
routine activity. Therefore, on one hand, the policing of protest, defined as
the police handling of protest events or as the repression of mass
demonstrations, is an aspect of state response to political dissent in
contemporary Western Democracies (see Della Porta and Reiter, 1998). On
2 Critical criminologists point out that the central function of the police is to control the working class. For a review of the main critical theorists’ views on policing see Marenin (1982).
11
the other hand, police maintain the tasks of regulating the population with
regards to ‘new deviants’, such as, in Europe, non-EU citizens.
However, in the twentieth century a great change occurred in policing.
Compelled by the expansion of the area of democracy and political
participation, in western countries police became responsive to the security
needs of the general public. While governments assumed primary
responsibility not only for protecting citizens from foreign threats and for
maintaining public order, but also for providing security to citizens, police
officers on the streets become city servants as well as crime-control officers
(Monkkonen, 1992: 554; see also Lane, 1992). A shift from public-order
control to crime control occurred as a result of pressure from the new
demands of citizens:
“A methodological change in policing that drew its attention away from public disorder offences toward the more urgent task of protecting lives and property.” (Wertsh, 1987: 448)
Police everywhere promised to ‘serve and protect’ citizens (Bayley,
1994: 9). Therefore, the image of the state police as a crime-fighting force
arose, and primed the process of legitimacy of the state police as a
democratic institution to which society delegated the task of making society
safe. Until recently, state police placed all their credibility on their ability to
prevent crime.
The Myth Of The Police As Primarily A Crime-Fightin g Agency
But, the image of the state police as a crime-fighting agency is
described by several authors as a ‘myth’.
12
“ The myth of the police as primarily a crime-fighting, deterring, and investigating agency is deeply engrained in our society. This view is reinforced each day by media, which portray the police as going from critical event to critical event, constantly dealing with crime, and often resorting to weapons. […] However, considerable research done since 1950 has shown this image to be inaccurate”. (Kelling, 1978: 174)
Although scholars suggest different solutions to improve police
effectiveness, they substantially agree with this diagnosis: the police, as
they are, are failing to achieve the crime reduction goal.
“The police do not prevent crime. This is one of the best kept secrets of modern life. Yet the police pretend that they are society’s best defence against crime and continually argue that if they are given more resources, especially personnel, they will be able to protect communities against crime. This is a myth.” (Bayley, 1994: 3).
Some evidence for this assertion is suggested by a large body of
research in English-speaking Countries3.
Increased numbers of police officers and increased resources for
criminal investigations are the two core elements of modern police strategy.
3 Studies on policing are mainly English-speaking. As Reiner (1996: xiii-xix) reports, until the early 1960s research on the police was almost entirely non-existent in criminology, as indeed it was in every other academic discipline. Research on policing was born in North America and in Britain during the Sixties. Systematic studies on policing were have taken place in the United States since the American Bar Foundation sponsored a series of studies spanning the criminal justice system in the 1950s. But the conditions for the growth of research on policing in North America and Britain have to be found in two areas: intellectual and political. The key intellectual condition was the epistemological shift in the problematics of academic criminology in the 1960s which is commonly referred to as ‘labelling theory’. This theory allowed the structure and the functioning of criminal justice systems to become legitimate targets for intellectual curiosity and empirical research. The other condition of police research was the centrality of policing issues to political debate in the early 1960s (see Reiner, 1997: 999-1003). In the U.S., the early 1960s were years of growing civil unrest, political demonstrations and urban riots. By the late 1960s ‘law and order’ had become the dominant domestic political issue and the key focus of Nixon’s 1968 Presidential election campaign (Quinney, 1979). Law and order and civil rights were the main political concerns. These concerns started up the research on policing, becoming even more important. In Italy, however, research on police is rare (Palidda, 2000): in contrast to other countries, Italian police agencies are almost totally inaccessible to researchers.
13
“The specificity of policing as a sub-set of control process is the creation of systems of surveillance coupled with the threat of sanctions for discovered deviance. The most familiar system is the one denoted by the modern sense of police: regular uniform patrol of public space coupled with post hoc investigation of reported or discovered crime or disorder.” (Reiner, 1997: 1005)
Not one of them seems to have any influence on crime rates. An
Home Office study aimed at summarise the research about the relative
effectiveness of different police strategies, tactics or practices in reducing
crime (Nuttall et al., 1998: 65-69), showed that: the effect on crime rate of
overall numbers of police officers is unclear; the random patrol does not
have a marked effect upon crime levels; increasing the use of police power
arrest is effective only in some domestic violence (Sherman and Berk,
1984) and counterproductive for juveniles.4 Repeated analysis has
consistently failed to find any connection between number of police officers
and crime rates (see Loftin and McDowall, 1982; Bayley, 1994: 3-5;
Sherman, 1995: 328). U.S.A. studies comparing police jurisdictions, with
similar social conditions, determining whether differences in the rate of
crime vary with the number of police officers employed indicated that cities
with more crime had more police, but also more police per crime. The lack
of connection between police officer numbers and crime can also be found
in the analyses of historical trends in the U.S.A., Australia, Britain, Canada
(see Bayley, 1994: 3-4). In Italy from 1981 to 1996 the number of police
officers per 100,000 residents rose by 39%, but crimes reported to police
per 100,000 residents in the same period also rose by 102 %.5
4 The study also shows that the following police strategies or practices, although less used by police, may be more effective in reducing crime: targeting high profile crimes or criminals, problem-oriented policing, responding quickly to emergency calls (see Nuttall et al., 1998). 5 Elaborations on Istat data.
14
Moreover, increasing the number of police officers does not seem to
increase the police success rate in solving crime. Police success in criminal
investigations is measured by clearance rates, that is the ratio of crime
solved to the number of crimes reported to the police. In Italy, for example,
from 1981 to 1996 the number of police officers per 100,000 residents rose
by 39%, but in the same period, the ratio of crimes solved (crimes with
offender known) to the number of crimes reported to the police decreased
by 19%. Considering only homicide, where the efforts of criminal
investigation are especially focused, from 1981 to 1996, the ratio of crimes
solved to the number of crimes reported to the police decreased by 44%.6
In conclusion, increasing the success of criminal investigations has a
modest effect on the crime rate7. As Sherman (1995: 35) stated:
“Even if we could increase arrest rates, it would be probably not cause crime to decrease.”
In Italy, for example, like other Western Countries, although the
number of criminals arrested in the period 1990-1999 rose from 64,814 to
123,252 (Ministero dell’Interno, 2001: 453), the crime rate, measured as
crime reported to the police, did not diminish in a relevant way: from 4,362
in 1990 to 4,036 in 1999. Furthermore, in the same period, the number of
criminals reported to the police increased: from 453,751 to 700,199
(Ministero dell’Interno, 2001: 453). If criminals noticed the increased
efficiency of the police, they certainly did not seem to care (see Bayley,
1994: 7 for similar conclusions).8
6 Elaborations on Istat data. 7 As Bayley (1994: 7) suggested, in all probability, the relationship does not run from police success in solving crime to crime, but from crime to clearances. That is, success in making arrests for known offences does not reduce crime, but the amount and nature of crime determine how successful the police are likely to be in solving crime. 8 Criminal investigations, together with increased police visibility are recognised as having a demonstrative goal: they show offenders and the public that a regime of law exists. It has a deterrence function, which may have some effect on the crime rate: it is recognised that a certain
15
Saying that police are not able to prevent crime does not mean saying
that police are not useful. Scholars identified several specific reasons for the
inability of the police to prevent crime, and suggested that by tackling these
reasons police may become more effective. One of the most famous
scholars of policing, Bayley (1994: 73), identified two main reasons:
police’ preoccupation with other tasks, and an inadequate organizational
culture.9
Crime Prevention Is Not The Core Mission Of The Police
Police are not effective in preventing crime because, although their
legitimacy (the reason why they exist) is based on their crime prevention
function, their actual daily activity is focused on performing multiple tasks
(see also Whitaker and Phillips, 1983). Goldstein (1979) characterized the
fundamental objectives of the police as follows: to prevent and control
conduct threatening to life and property (including serious crime); to aid
crime victims and protect people in danger of physical harm; to protect
constitutional guarantees, such as the right to free speech and assembly; to
quota of police is necessary to guarantee social order and to deter certain types of crime (see, for example, Sherman and Berk, 1984, on the deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault). But, research findings suggest that the deterrence function has a modest effect in reducing the crime rate. As Tonry and Petersilia (1999) noted: “Presumibly most people would conclude a priori that a quarter-century’s quintupling of the prison and jail population must have reduced crime rates. There has, however, been relatively little research in recent years on deterrence and incapacitation, and most authoritative reviews of both subjects conclude that while such effects exists, they are probably modest (Nagin, 1998). So also concluded the most famous examination of the subjects, the 1978 report of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects (Blumstein, Cohen, and Nagin, 1978). Similar conclusions were reached in successive decades by National Academy of Sciences Panels on Criminal Careers (Blumstein et al., 1986) and Understanding and Control of Violence (Reiss and Roth, 1993) and by an exhaustive recent survey of research on deterrence effect commissioned by the Home Office of England and Wales (von Hirshi et al., 1998).” 9 The statements of Bayley are the result of four years of intensive research in five countries – Australia, Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the United States -, and of a review of the literature in the same countries.
16
facilitate the movement of vehicles and people; to assist those who cannot
care for themselves, including the intoxicated, the addicted, the mentally ill,
the physically disabled, the elderly, and the young; to resolve conflicts
between individuals, between groups, or between citizens and their
government; to identify problems that have the potential of becoming more
serious for individuals, the police or the government; to create and maintain
a feeling of security in the community.
Several studies show that noncriminal problems occupy the police
more than crime. Therefore, Punch and Naylor (1973: 358) noted that most
routine calls to the police involve a demand for help and some form of
support for personal and interpersonal problems. Cumming and colleagues
(1965: 139) analysed incoming calls to the police over an 82 hours period
and concluded that more than half the calls to the police involved demands
for noncrime services. Also Matrofsky’s (1983: 34-35) study on Chicago
Police Radio Dispatch Responses in the period 1970-1978, found that
noncrime serivces are becoming an increasingly important part of police
work.
Therefore, police activities related to crime prevention are actually not
the core function of the police. As Bayley (1994: 73) suggests, their
ineffectiveness may also depend on this situation.
Facing New Challenges
According to Bayley (1994: 73) the police are not effective in
preventing crime, which is also due to the fact that they are having
difficulty in facing the new challenges arising from the shifting
circumstances of modern life.
17
Policing, as an activity of providing security, is undergoing an historic
restructuring (Bayley and Shearing, 2001: 1) around three phenomenon:
pluralization of agencies involved in providing safety, localization of
responsibility to provide protection and the transnationalisation of policing.
Pluralization of agencies. Nowadays policing is not an activity that is
only carried out by state police: a multiplicity of agencies are involved in
providing safety (pluralization of policing: see Loader, 2000). The police
monopoly on public safety has been eroded by private police forces, who
now perform all the tasks once reserved to the state police (‘privatisation’
of the police: see Shearing, 1992), and by organized self protection
activities on the part of communities (such as Neighbourhood Wardens: see
Johnston, 1996).
Localization of responsibility deals with two phenomena:
decentralisation (localization from state to local authorities), and
privatisation (localization from state to private, individuals or groups). On
one hand, under pressure from citizens, local authorities have assumed the
responsibility of providing security, thereby eroding the monopoly of state
governments. And they demand something more than just crime fighting.
They ask the police to also prevent those non-criminal problems that may
affect people’s security. On the other hand, non-governmental groups (or
individuals) have explicitly assumed the responsibility for organizing their
own protection and ask for private (and every so often state) police to
provide it. Therefore the contemporary restructuring of policing regards the
pluralization of the supply of security (agencies providing security), but
also the pluralization of the demand for security: no longer are only state
governments responsible for society’s security needs, but also local
authorities and non-governmental groups. As Bayley and Shearing (2001:
5) reported:
18
“The contemporary restructuring of policing separates both the authorization of security and the activity of policing from what is recognised as formal government. In so doing the distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ itself becomes problematic. […] For these reasons it is more accurate to characterize what is happening as multilateralization in the governance of security, rather than privatization of policing.”
Transnationalization of policing has several dimensions. First, private
multinational corporations now provide policing on a worldwide basis.
Second, transnational cooperation among law enforcement agencies of
nation-states is developing rapidly in order to fight the transnationalization
of crimes. Third, policing is being undertaken by genuinely international
institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Court and the European
Union (see Bayley and Shearing 2001: 40; Bruggeman, 2001: 283).
Each of these phenomenon (pluralization, localization and
transnationalization) throws up a challenge to the state police. New
demands and new security control spaces have emerged, but all of these
demands differ from those the police were used to dealing with in the past
(Recasens I Brunet, 2000). State police are no longer the only security
provider: they are put on the market of policing, where a multiplicity of
subjects, private and public, demand security, and a multiplicity of agencies
contend with each other on the basis of their effectiveness to provide
security. Therefore, private polices exhibit a different mentality from that of
state police: they are more concerned with preventing than punishing crime.
“Rather than deterring crime through the threat of detection, arrest, and punishment, private policing tries to regulate behaviour and circumstances to diminish the possibility that crime will occur. […] private security tries to create an environment of discipline and order that limits opportunities for crime, reassure law-abiding people, and constrains the deviant few.” (Bayley and Shearing, 2001: 18)
19
It is a new policing style, in line with up to date crime prevention theories
(which includes situational crime prevention). It is this style that state
police are required to adopt (Bayley, 1998a: 5). In conclusion, the need for
international cooperation forces state police to abandon the reference to
state-nation and to reorganize themselves at a transnational level, without
loosing their specificity (see Kumar, 1998). The risks, in fact, are, on one
hand, that of confusion at an international level between military forces and
police forces (Bayley and Shearing, 2001: 40; Bayley, 1998a: 6)10, and on
the other that of the loss of the democratic accountability of policing
(Loader, 2000).
It is to face these challenges that police have to rethink their goals and
practices; but police culture (and society’s thoughts on the police, that is
how people and institutions think about police organization and activity)
seems to be too much rigid to adapt to this new reality (see Bayley and
Shearing, 2001).11
The Police At The Centre Of The Crisis About Public Security
Therefore, for several reasons, the crime-fighting strategies developed
by the police have failed to obtain the desired results, and recent trends in
policing are hitting the police’s ability to provide security hard. The result is
that police failures have alienated citizens, and may have exacerbated fear
of crime problems (Kelling, 1978 :227). As Bayley (1994: 11) referred:
10 Regarding the confusion between police and the military, Palidda speaks of two trends: that of the militarization of the police, and that of torsion of military towards international police actions (see Palidda, 2000: 3). 11 Although some changes occurred in recent years (see para. 2.3), the dominant model of policing in several Western Countries is still the so-called ‘bureaucratic or centralized model’. It is recognised that this model produces a police culture characterized by resistance to change (see Zhao et al., 2001: 366).
20
“In democratic countries all over the world there is a sense of crisis about public security. And at the centre of this crisis are the police, who promise to protect us but do not appear to be able to do so.”
Police forces seem to have realized it, and some of them have tried to
recover public support by strategies specifically directed at increasing trust
in the police.
1.2 Police Searching For People’s Trust
An Intermediate Goal Of Several Police Strategies: Increasing Trust In The Police
The last two decades has produced new strategies for policing based
around the idea of Community Policing or Police de Proximité.
The term ‘Community Policing’ began to appear in professional
literature around the mid-1970s. Pioneering U.S. police departments, like
the Santa Ana Police Department, used the knowledge acquired from ‘team
policing’ experiments to expand some of the elements, such as geographic
decentralization and despecialisation of police services, and interaction
between police and community, more broadly in the department’s routine
operations (Scott, 2000: 98). From here, in the 1980s several cities in
U.S.A. and abroad12 began to implement community-oriented policing
12 See, for example, the SPCUM (Service de Police de la Communauté Urbaine de Montréal) of Montréal, Québec, Canada (see Normandeau, 2000); the Community Policing program in the Rotterdam-Rijmond police, Netherlands (see Hessing, 1997); the recent development in East Europe of police organizational models in accordance with the expectations of the community (see Sutka, 1997). For a brief overview of the spread of Community Programs around the world in 1990, see the proceedings of the Conference of the Australian Institute of Criminology on The Police And The Community In The Era 1990, Canberra, 22-23 October 1990. See also Trojanowicz and Harden, 1985.
21
strategies. Data from the Lemas survey, which since 1987 has periodically
collected data from State and local law enforcement agencies in U.S.A.,
show the wide diffusion of the community policing programs. For example,
64% of local police departments serving 86% of all residents had full-time
officers engaged in Community Policing activities during 1999, compared
to 34% of departments serving 62% of residents; state and local law
enforcement agencies had nearly 113,000 Community Policing officers or
their equivalents during 1999, compared to about 21.000 in 1997 (Hickman,
and Reaves, 2001).
The central goal of Community Policing is establishing and
maintaining mutual trust between citizens and police (Community Policing
Consortium, 1994: 15). This on the assumption that:
“Without trust between police and citizens, effective policing is impossible.” (Community Policing Consortium, 1994: vii)
Although Community Policing programs can be very different from
each other (see Beyer, 1990), there are two main elements of Community
Policing philosophy: community partnership and the problem solving
approach (Community Policing Consortium, 1994: 15-18). On one hand the
police recognize the need for cooperation with the community: only by
collaborating with citizens are police able to build effective policing
strategies. On the other hand, police reorganize themselves by adopting a
problem-solving approach. Problem-solving is a broad term that implies
more than simply the prevention of crime: it is based on the assumption that
crime and disorder can be reduced in small geographic areas by carefully
studying the characteristics of problems in the area, and then applying the
appropriate resources (see Goldstein, 1979). Although the problem-solving
approach has been included in many Community Policing programs (see
22
Scott, 2000: 36), the effectiveness of the Problem-solving approach is
considered dependent on the widespread involvement of community in the
program. Community Policing and Problem-oriented Policing have very
different historical and theoretical roots. Community Policing arises from
the crisis of legitimacy after the urban race riots of the 1960s, while
Problem-Oriented Policing, in contrast, arose from the crisis of police
effectiveness in crime prevention (Sherman, 1998: 4)13. Although these
differences exist, both come from the crisis of police legitimacy and may be
viewed as the police’s attempts to react to this crisis by recovering an image
of credibility with the public.
The birth of the Police de Proximitè in France has the same roots.
Since the early 1980s, French police activities have gradually evolved
towards an approach that emphasises accessibility and proximity. This
occurred under pressure from the newly established national council for
crime prevention and from communal councils for crime prevention (see
Vourc’h C., Marcus M., 1996: 58), which spread in those years to address
the urban safety problem. Thus, also in France, similar to the Anglo-Saxon
model of “Community Policing”14, when faced with a crisis in public
security that threatened police legitimacy, policy makers reacted by
drawing police closer to citizens.
In Italy, the crisis of police legitimacy during 1970s concerned almost
exclusively the manner in which protests were being policed, and did not
13 As Reiss (1992: 91-94) suggested, Community Policing may be viewed as a reaction against the centralization of command and control in a police bureaucracy. Centralization produced impersonality in contact between citizen and police and a sense of abandonment of local problems. Community policing is expected not only to bring police officers closer to the citizens they serve by instituting foot patrol, but also to develop new policing strategies through citizen participation. In contrast, Problem-Oriented Policing may be seen as a reaction against what are regarded as the preoccupations of a centralized command, preoccupation with efficiency and effectiveness of policing. 14 Vourc’h C., Marcus M. (1996: 58) identified four points of similarity between Police de Proximité and Community Policing: greater attention to the public and to public expectations in
23
produce specific police strategies, but several changes in the practices used
to maintain public order, first of all negotiation (Palidda, 2000; Della Porta
and Reiter 1998). In fact, the specificity of the Italian case is that the ‘urban
security problem’ arose in the political and social debate more recently than
in other Western Countries (at the beginning of the 1990s; see Pavarini,
1994: 443). This Italian ‘delay’ led the public in 1970s and 1980s to focus
not on police effectiveness in providing security, but only, on police
practices in maintaining social order during labour union or student protests
(an appreciable problem since the 1960s). Furthermore, the national
emergencies of ‘terrorism’ and ‘mafia’ during 1980s brought the public
closer to the police forces, who are considered to be a bulwark of
democracy. In conclusion, Italy does not have a tradition in studying police.
In other countries research on policing were important in opening the
debate on police effectiveness (see Sherman, 1998). The result is that the
Italian police have never been under discussion as security providers for
citizens. At least until recently. Nowadays, in fact, also in Italy there is a
wide sense of crisis about public security, and police forces, if are not yet at
the centre of this crisis, are at least touched. As in France and the United
States, Italian police forces seem to be reacting by focusing on recovering
people’s trust in them. The Italian Report on the state of security in Italy
from the Ministry of the Interior (Ministero dell’Interno, 2001 :470) stated
that police are required to create a solid trust-based relationship with
citizens, according to which the police officer becomes the stable and
reassuring point of reference for citizens. The initiatives of polizia di
prossimità, which the Italian Government has recently implemented (see
Ministero dell’Interno, 2001: 469-473) intend to take the police in this
direction.
matters of safety; focus on partnership; a territorial approach to police services; focus on prevention.
24
Thus, in Italy, as in several other Countries15, increasing trust in the
police has become one of the main goals of policing. Achieving this goal is
first of all an instinctive police reaction to the risk of losing legitimacy in an
era of insecurity: they try to recover the legitimacy which they are losing.
Then, it seems something more: a practical way for state police to be
considered an effective security provider. In fact, a growing number of
policy makers state that public support is central to police accomplishing
their core mission of preventing crime and reducing insecurity. In other
words, police success in that mission depends heavily on their legitimacy
(Sherman, 1998). So, increasing trust in the police may be viewed as an
intermediate (and achievable) goal for police strategies aimed at preventing
crime and reducing insecurity. Several studies appear to support this
statement.
Recent research findings highlight the key role played by trust in the
police in improving the security conditions in the neighbourhood.
Neighbourhood security conditions may be subjective and objective. In the
first case, a neighbourhood is safe if residents feel safe. In the second case,
a neighbourhood is safe if residents comply with the law and the crime rate
is low. Recent studies on insecurity have shown that the more people trust
the police the safer they feel (see below Baker and colleagues, 1983; Box
and colleagues, 1988; Smith et al., 1999; Istat, 1999; Cornelli and Castellan,
2001; Mindel et al., 2000; Normandeau, 2000). That is why, very often,
feeling unsafe is linked to a sense of distrust in the capacity of institutions,
among which mainly the police, to solve problems in the neighbourhood
(see Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Several other studies have shown that the
higher the trust in the police is, the less people break the law, and the more
15 The loss of police legitimacy and the reaction aimed at increasing people’s trust are not trends that concern only western societies. See Goldsmith (2002) for Colombian case and Font (2002) for Argentina case.
25
police are able to reduce the amount of crime, and the more likely police are
to make arrests (see below Tyler, 1990; La Free, 1998; Pino, 2001; Bayley,
1994).
A brief overview of these research findings follows.
The More People Trust The Police The Safer They Feel
A review of extant literature on fear of crime16 shows that trust in the
police is not included in the main predictive models of fear of crime. Other
variables are traditionally studied in relation to fear of crime: victimization,
vulnerability, disorder and, very recently, collective efficacy17.
16 Although research on fear of crime has been going on for more than 30 years, the meaning of the term “fear of crime” is even more ambiguous: over the years, fear of crime has been associated with a variety of perceptions, emotions, opinions, feelings and attitudes (such as mistrust, worry, anger, perceived risk, anxiety, concern about neighbourhood disorder, declining national morality). Scholars in their attempts to give sense to different and often contrasting definitions, have distinguished a cognitive dimension of fear (related to assessments of risk) from an emotional dimension of fear (related to feelings). In this way Wilcox Rountree (1998) and Fishman and Mesch (1996) and Hale (1996) analysed the literature on the fear of crime (more than 200 articles and monographies) and found that most of the studies failed to distinguish between a series of concepts related to perceptions of and response to crime. He created a map of all key-definitions used in quantitative studies on fear of crime, distinguishing between personal (self directed) and general (other directed) perceptions and separated these perceptions into judgements of risk, crime related values evidenced in levels of concern, and emotional responses of worry and fear. Hale’s model, based on the work of Lagrange and Ferraro (1989), was recently extended by Tulloch (1998), who incorporated the behavioural dimension into the fear of crime model. For a brief discussion of the problems in defining fear of crime, see William et al., 2000. 17 The relationship between previous victimization and fear of crime seems to be of a complex nature and the results reported in literature are contradictory (see Warr, 2000; Hale, 1996; Borooah and Carcach, 1997). Sociodemographic variables are found to be predictors of fear of crime. The most common explanation deals with the concept of vulnerability (see Barbagli, 2002: 206). Other researchers have adopted a disorder (or incivilities) perspective, according to which fear is linked to social incivilities including behaviour like public drinking, drunkenness, drug use, being noisy in public, or ‘hey honey’ hassles and physical incivilities, including graffiti, litter, vacant houses, house and properties not well maintained, and abandoned cars (see Wilson and Kelling, 1982). This perspective has been recently contradicted by findings from a longitudinal study on Baltimore (Taylor, 1999). Recently, some authors have suggested that ‘collective efficacy’, that is cohesion among neighbourhood residents combined with shared expectations for formal or informal social control of public space, is the major social process inhibiting both crime and disorder and reducing fear of crime (Sampson and Raudenbush, 1999; Sampson and Raudenbush, 2001).
26
However, where it is studied, trust in the police is found related to
insecurity.
Baker and colleagues (1983: 330) found that confidence in the police
has a substantial negative effect on fear: individuals who have more
confidence in the police are less fearful.
Box and colleagues (1988) constructed a model for explaining fear of
crime and tested it by examining data from the second British Crime
Survey. They considered several variables in this model which are found in
extant literature as factors of fear of crime (gender, age, race, incivilities,
neighbourhood cohesion, housing conditions, knowledge about crime,
victimization) which also included confidence in the police.
“If people believe that the police are effective and efficient at clearing-up crimes and apprehending criminals, that they respond to calls quickly and that they have physical presence on the ground, then they are less likely to fear of crime”. (Box et al., 1988: 342)
Analysis of the data showed that individuals who have confidence in the
functioning of their local constabulary have a lower probability of fear than
similar respondents who do not (Box et al., 1988: 351).
Similar findings came from a survey on criminal victimization and
citizen perceptions in 12 cities across the United States, held by the Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics as supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey with
questions related to Community Policing (Smith et al., 1999). A household
telephone survey asked residents aged 16 or older about their level of
satisfaction with the police who served their neighbourhood and crossed
these responses with those who reported their fear of neighbourhood crime.
When compared to those who were not fearful, persons who were fearful of
27
crime in their neighbourhood were less likely to be satisfied with the local
police (Smith et al., 1999: 26).
Data from the first Italian National Crime Victimization Survey also
showed that fear of crime grows when trust in the police falls (Istat, 1999):
residents who were satisfied with the local police were less likely to say
they felt unsafe walking alone in their neighbourhood at night (Figure 1).
The importance of trust in the police in producing fear of crime was
also asserted by findings of a survey held in Trentino, a northern Italian
province, by Transcrime in 2001 (Cornelli and Castellan, 2001). This
survey measured residents’ sense of insecurity with a multi-item approach,
distinguishing between emotional and cognitive dimensions of insecurity
and between insecurity at general, neighbourhood and personal levels (see
Hale, 1996; Taylor and Hale, 1986; Wilcox Rountree, 1998). Then, it
studied the influence of seven independent variables on each item of
insecurity. The independent variables were: sex, age, level of education,
Figure 1 - Residents degree of safety in the neighbourhood by whether they were satisfied with the police (a lot, quite a lot, not very much, not at all). Italy, 1997-98.
(Percentage of respondents)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
feeling unsafe feeling safe
a lotquite a lotnot very muchnot at all
Source: Transcrime elaborations on Istat data
Per
cent
age
28
victimisation (having been a victim of a crime), indirect victimisation
(knowing about a crime that took place), trust in the police, and life-style.
The analysis of the statistical significance, through H-test of Kruskal-
Wallis, showed that the most dependent variables used were related to trust
in the police with a very high degree of significance, so trust in the police
appeared to be the most important factor explaining insecurity in Trentino
(Cornelli and Castellan, 2001).
In conclusion, several surveys aimed at evaluating policing programs
indicate that in areas where residents’ trust in the police is higher, feeling of
insecurity is lower (see, for example, Mindel et al., 2000: 43-55;
Normandeau, 2000).
The More People Trust The Police The Safer Are The Neighbourhood
Neighbourhoods are safe not only if citizens feel safe, but also if the
crime rate is low. Studies suggest that the more people trust the police, the
lower the crime rate is likely to be. Three perspectives are addressed. In the
first, the likelihood that a crime occurs, that is someone does not comply
with the law, is related to the degree of police legitimacy, which is a
construct similar to that of trust. In the second, the likelihood that police can
prevent crimes depends on their cooperation with citizens, based on mutual
trust. In the third approach, the likelihood that offenders will be arrested
depends on the public’s support of police investigations.
Criminality, taken as a whole, is first a problem of non-compliance
with the law18. The assumption that the legitimacy of a criminal justice
system enhances compliance, has traditionally been accepted by lawyers
29
and social scientists (see Tyler, 1990: 3). But what is legitimacy? A
common approach to assessing legitimacy is to measure the extent to which
authorities enjoy the public’s support, allegiance, and confidence. The
essential concept in definitions of support is a favourable affective
orientation towards an authority, an orientation that prepares a citizen to act
as directed by the authority (Tyler, 1990: 28). In this sense, legitimacy is a
construct similar to that of trust in the police. Research findings on police
legitimacy may support the assumption that the more citizens trust the
police the more they are likely to comply with the law. Tyler, for example,
examined legitimacy in two ways: as a perceived obligation to obey the
law, and as support for legal authorities, and tested the influence of
legitimacy on compliance with the law by using multiple regression
analyses. The results indicated that, among other factors such as sex, age,
income and personal morality, also legitimacy, both as an obligation to
obey the law and as support for legal authorities, had a significant
independent effect on compliance, even when the other potential causal
factors are controlled (Tyler, 1990: 57-60). The author stated that this result
is in line with previous other studies, which indicated that those who
viewed police and courts as legitimate are less likely to break the law
(Tyler, 1990: 31). More recently, La Free (1998), in his historical study on
crime in the U.S.A., explained the rise in street crimes in the U.S.A. from
1960s to 1980s, and the rapid drop in the 1990s by speaking of the
‘legitimacy of the social institutions’. According to the author, the rise in
the crime rate was determined by the loss of legitimacy of social institutions
(mainly political and economic institutions and the family), while the drop
in the crime rate in the 1990s was determined by people’s increased trust in
18 The most common definition of crime regards if as ‘an action defined by the law which, if detected, will lead to some kind of sanction being employed against the perpetrator’ (see Emsley, 1997: 58).
30
other institutions, such as the justice system (police and courts) and the
school and welfare systems.
People’s trust in the police is crucial in increasing police ability to
prevent crime, because it allows police to integrate their ‘policing’ work
with the spontaneous social control exercised by citizens. Policing is not
only what police do. Members of the public are themselves engaging in a
great deal of ‘policing’ work and they wish the police to complement and
extend what they are currently doing (Shapland and Vagg, 1987: 54).
Therefore, much social control is informal: informal social control
mechanisms play a far greater role than formal policing in determining
crime levels. Recent studies on collective efficacy, defined as cohesion and
mutual trust among residents combined with shared expectations for the
social control in public space (Sampson and Raudenbush 1999: 603), also
confirmed this view. The researchers of the Project on Human Development
in Chicago Neighbourhoods found that collective efficacy is the largest
predictor of crime levels in the neighbourhoods: they showed that the
higher collective efficacy is in a social group, that is, the higher the trust
between neighbours and the willingness to intervene on behalf of the
common good, the lower the crime rate (see Sampson and Raudenbush
1999: 603; Morenoff et al., 2001). Therefore, police may be effective in
preventing crime only if their work is integrated with citizen social control
activities (see Hough, 1987: 75-76). And this cooperation may occur if
there is mutual trust: some scholars suggest, in fact, that a lack of trust
between the citizens and the police will not allow policing programs to
reach their full potential (see, for example, the study by Pino, 2001: 213).
Without social support, police can do little to prevent crime.
In conclusion, it is recognised that the critical ingredient in solving
crimes is whether the public – victims and witnesses – provide information
to the police that helps identify the suspect. In fact, it has recognised that
31
successful criminal investigations are based on the use of modern
technology, which increases the quantity of information available on a
specific crime, and also on a flow of information from citizens to police
(Bayley, 1994: 7). This flow occurs if citizens trust the police to do a good
job.
1.3 Problems Addressed By This Thesis
Thus, trust in the police is a factor of insecurity; it favours the
compliance with the law, and it is crucial for the success of policing and
crime prevention strategies.
Also for these reasons, in Italy, like several other countries, the state
police, faced with the risk of losing legitimacy, have began to concentrate
on increasing people’s trust in them. The spread of new strategies for
policing based around the idea of Community Policing or Police de
Proximité are examples of this new goal.
But, are we sure that police can achieve this goal?
This thesis tackles this issue by addressing two problems. The first
regards if the police’s work affects people’s trust in the police. If this is the
case, the second is how the police’s work may affect people’s trust in the
police.
32
Problem 1: Does Trust In The Police Depend On The Police’s Work?
Although several police forces around the world have promoted
initiatives or programs aimed at improving the trust relationship with
citizens, there is no empirical support that trusting the police depends on the
police’s work. The problem is ‘whether’ the police are able to increase
people’s trust. In other words, is trust determined by the characteristics of
the subject who trusts, or by the characteristics of the object that has to be
trusted?
In fact, the two perspectives may contradict each other.
In the first perspective, people trust the police because they have a
particular position in social space (being male or female, being younger or
older, having an high level of education or not, being rich or poor, having a
proactive life-style or not, living in urban or rural areas, and so on), which
induce them to do so. In this case, trusting the police is an attitudinal issue.
In the second perspective, people trust the police because they focus
on their relationships with police, which provide inputs for trusting or not.
In this case, trusting the police depends more on what police do and how
people assess what police do rather than on people’s inclination to trust.
Here trusting the police is a police matter.
Therefore this thesis tackles this issue in order to know if the police’s
work may affect people’s trust in the police. If so, police might have a
concrete objective to achieve in order to increase their effectiveness.
Problem 2. How Can Police Achieve The Goal Of Increasing Trust In The Police?
High visibility is a pillar of modern police strategy (Sherman, 1995:
327). Several programs increased the number of police officers on the street
33
by engaging new police officers or by shifting police officers from the
office to the street. That is because they assume that the more police
officers there are on the street, the more visible the police are, the more
police-public contacts occur, the more police are perceived as being close to
people, and, therefore, the more people are likely to trust the police (see, for
example Community Policing Consortium, 1994: 14, according to which
“increased police presence is an initial move in establishing trust”). Italy is
also following this direction. Public resources for police are increasing; the
number of police officers per 100,000 residents increased by 38.8% from
1981 to 1996 (Istat, 2000: 319); the new strategies of polizia di prossimità
are focusing on increasing police visibility in neighbourhoods.
Therefore, policy makers tend to justify increased police size by
saying that more police is crucial to induce people to trust the criminal
justice system. They suggest that police officers are the ‘gatekeepers of the
criminal justice system’19: the amount of safety that citizens receive from
institutions is decided nearly exclusively by patrol officers at a street level
(Hall et al. 2001: 628). They also think that more police is what people
want for their safety: if institutions don’t provide more police, the trusting
relationship between citizens and institutions (and police themselves) might
break. Therefore, the positive effect of the increased police presence in the
neighbourhood on people’s trust in the police has become common sense.
Even if people really wanted more police, there is no empirical
support for the statement that more police in the neighbourhood leads to
more trust in the police (and in the criminal justice system). Thus, it is taken
for granted that police may influence people’s trust in them (problem 1), a
second problem is ‘how’ can police increase people’s trust in them: by
19 This expression has been used by Novak and colleagues ( 2002).
34
increasing their size and their presence in the neighbourhoods? Or by doing
something different?
Therefore, this thesis tackles this issue in order to know how the
police’s work may affect people’s trust in the police.
1.4 Purpose Of This Thesis
Although trust in the police is recognised by several studies as an
important predictor of fear of crime, of the compliance with the law, and
crucial for the success of policing programs, currently it is not specifically
addressed by criminologists. Knowledge about it is limited and incomplete.
There are two bodies of research about people’s attitudes towards the
police20: policing studies and citizens’ surveys. The first provide
information on citizens’ satisfaction with the police by evaluating the
effectiveness of specific policing strategies. The second provide
information on citizens’ attitudes toward the police by investigating their
opinions and experiences21.
There are some limitations in previous studies.
On one hand, evaluation studies often measure the success of policing
programs by several means, among which by asking citizens if they are
satisfied with the police. Therefore, they evaluate whether the policing
strategy is effective in increasing trust in the police; they provide
suggestions about whether police activity influence, under certain
circumstances, people’s satisfaction with the police. But, they do not allow
hypotheses to be tested regarding relationships between different
20 As mentioned above, most literature on policing is English-speaking. 21 For a deeper review of the literature on trust in the police see chapter 2.
35
independent variables and trust in the police; that is, they do not allow the
investigation of whether trust in the police depends more on how police
work in the neighbourhood or on what are people’s attitudes towards trust.
On the other hand, surveys on citizens’ attitudes toward the police are
mainly descriptive. They investigate ‘how much’ people trust the police,
but not ‘why’. Most of the small number of surveys that attempt to find
causal relationships regarding attitudes toward the police consider single
independent variables with bivariate analysis, without simultaneously
controlling other factors (Hale and Uglow, 1997). Furthermore, even when
more independent variables are simultaneously studied, often only a few
theoretically relevant groups of variables are considered. Therefore it is
possible that variables regarding the police’s work are not considered (see,
for example, Cao et al., 1998). This happens because knowledge about what
is trust in the police is lacking. It is not by chance that most of the studies
avoid speaking about trust in the police, and use terms such as ‘satisfaction
with the police’, ‘support for the police’, ‘positive attitudes towards the
police’. It is difficult to speak about trust in the police because there is no
general framework about what it is.
Beginning with previous studies and their limitations, this thesis
expands extant literature on trust in the police by addressing why people
trust the police. To do this it tackles the two problems mentioned above: is
the public’s trust in the police a police matter? (Problem 1) How can the
police achieve the goal of increasing trust in the police? (Problem 2).
36
CHAPTER 2 EXTANT LITERATURE ON TRUST IN THE POLICE AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Trust in the police has become a very important topic in
criminological matters: it is recognised as factor of insecurity; it favours
compliance with the law, and it is crucial for the success of policing and
crime prevention strategies.
However, studies that specifically address the question of trust in the
police are rare, and the conditions under which trust in police is produced
have only been partially analysed.
As a result we do not know if police can do something in order to
produce trust in the police: is trust in the police affected more by the
subjective characteristics of people, or by the way police act in the
neighbourhood?
This lack of knowledge is an obstacle to finding effective ways to
reduce crime and the fear related to it, and to effectively implement many
crime prevention and policing strategies.
With these points in mind, this chapter begins by addressing
theoretical issues on trust in general. It draws a definition of trust in the
37
police and discusses two different views regarding why people trust the
police: in the first, people trust the police because they have a subjective
inclination to do so; in the second, people trust the police because police
actions give them good reason to do so. Next, this chapter reviews previous
studies on factors of trust in the police, to investigate which variables are
suggested as being better predictors of the levels of trust in the police. The
purpose is to learn which view of why people trust the police is more
founded in empirical research. Research findings do not provide a definitive
answer, therefore at the end of the chapter three working hypotheses
regarding which variables affect trust in the police are formulated. These
hypotheses will be tested in the next chapter.
2.1 Trust And Trust In The Police
In the same way that today trust in the police is under considered in
criminology, until the eighties trust was also under considered in
sociological literature. As Misztal (1996) stated:
“Although it was incorporated into many models of social relationship, trust was seldom explicitly questioned or studied. […] Modern social sciences have not contributed significantly to our understanding of the concept of trust and the conditions under which trust relations thrive or struggle to survive”
In recent years, however, there has been growing interest in the study
of trust in different areas. Economists think of trust as regulatory
mechanism of the market, and as a public benefit to be considered in
consumer protection legislation. Social psychologists are interested in
38
investigating the changing role of interpersonal trust and its effect on
institutional trust (Wells and Kipnis, 2001). The visibility of this issue is
also increasing in social sciences. Social theorists tend to study trust by
concentrating on its functions and the benefits it produces. It is recognised
as the basis for individual risk-taking behaviour, reduced social complexity,
order, social capital22 and so on (Möllering, 2001).
In explaining why trust is essential for a stable relationship, important
for the maintenance of order or for mutual cooperation, at the basis of any
exchange and necessary for the most routine of everyday interactions
(Misztal, 1996), authors often give different definitions of trust.
Due to the lack of criminological studies that specifically address trust
in the police, looking at how trust is defined in social and human sciences is
useful to specifically study trust in the police.
Theoretical Issues On Trust
John Locke declared trust to be ‘the bond of society’, the vinculum
societatis (see Hollis, 1998). Everyday life is a catalogue of success in the
exercise of trust. Our dealings with friends and enemies, neighbours and
strangers depend on it, whether at home, on the streets, in markets, seats of
government or other arenas of civil society. Would you ask a stranger the
22 Trust is recognised as a form of social capital, facilitating cooperation within the social structure and making the creation of economic prosperity possible. A number of studies have paid attention to the benefits that trust produces in terms of social and economic development. The Putnam study (Putnam, 1992) on different regions in Italy shows two different areas, the first one characterised by the honesty of leaders, solidarity, civic engagement, cooperation and good governance. The second one characterised by poor engagement in social and cultural associations, prevalence of private business on public purpose, corruption, governance less effective. The difference between the two areas regards the existence of trust, norms of reciprocity, civic engagement and association, all presented as elements of social capital. Thus more trust means more social capital. Fukuyama (1995) studied the role of trust in the creation of economic prosperity in Japan. Like Putnam, Fukuyama found high correlation between trust, communal ties (or solidarity), well-functioning social order and economic development.
39
time unless you could normally count on getting a truthful answer? Could
you use the highway without trusting others? Could an economy progress
beyond barter, or a society beyond mud huts, unless people relied on one
other to keep their promises? Without trust, social life would be impossible
(Hollis, 1998).
But what is trust? How is it conceptualised in human and social
sciences?
The following review of extant literature on trust provides four main
perspectives: Simmel’s notion of trust as ‘weak knowledge’, Luhmann’s
distinction between trust and confidence, rational choice scholars’ notion of
trust as rational calculation, and Giddens’ distinction between personal trust
and trust in an abstract system. These perspectives will be discussed and
integrated with the points of views of other authors, such as Roniger,
Seligman, Möllering, Misztal and Dibben.
The Simmelian notion of trust provides a theoretical framework for
analysing personal as well as generalised (impersonal) trust (see Möllering,
2001; Misztal, 1996). Three main elements can be identified in Simmel’s
view: trust as confidence based on personal knowledge, trust as a weak
form of inductive knowledge and trust as an individual’s state of mind.
Simmel (1950), studying secret societies, recognised that the main
internal relationship amongst the members of a secret society is reciprocal
confidence: here trust is based on personal knowledge among individuals
(personal trust). But the notion of trust changes when Simmel address the
problem of the exchange of money in modern societies in The Philosophy
Of Money (1978).23 In this book, the author paid particular attention to how
money has transformed social relations, replacing personal ties of
23 In Simmel the dominant social relation in modern society is exchange, defined as sacrifice in return for a gain (Simmel, 1971: 51) Every interaction has to be regarded as an exchange (Simmel, 1978: 89), and one of the most important conditions of exchange is trust.
40
traditional societies by establishing impersonal relationships. Modern
society is complex, and its functioning depends on a multitude of promises,
contracts and arrangements. Money is a promise that exchange will be
honoured and its function of substituting personal ties is assured by people
trusting the economic system. As it is impossible to know everybody and
verify everything (unpredictability), particularly in complex societies, in
order to interact with others we must trust their reliability. In this sense,
impersonal trust is based on the prediction or calculation of the reliability of
likely future events, which is a form of ‘inductive knowledge’ (Misztal,
1996: 51-2). But trust, as Simmel said, is ‘weak inductive knowledge’. In
fact, because of the unpredictability of social events, besides the calculation
of the reliability of likely future events, Simmel identifies a further element
within trust: a “socio-psychological quasi-religious faith”, which allows one
to overcome the impossibility of knowing everybody and verifying
everything. Simmel describes it as ‘believe in someone’ without calculation
in rational terms, a mental state which has nothing to do with knowledge. In
this perspective trust is seen as ‘weak inductive knowledge’, combining
rational calculation with faith. Following this direction, studies on trust in
medical relationships suggested that trust requires an optimistic acceptance
of vulnerability with certain positive expectations (Hall et al., 2001: 616).
In Simmel’s work (see Misztal, 1996: 50), the shift from trust as
confidence (personal trust) to trust as a weak form of inductive knowledge
(impersonal trust) consists of a shift from a relational quality of trust, based
on personal interaction between social actors, to the notion of trust as an
individual’s state of mind which makes exchanges possible with people or
institutions (such as an economic system), notwithstanding personal
knowledge.
In Luhmann, the relevance of trust is a consequence of two combined
processes: the unmanageable complexity of the modern world and the
41
increasing replacement of ‘danger’ by ‘risk’. Trust is a solution to the
complexity: its function is the reduction of social complexity by increasing
the tolerance of uncertainty, which is ever more present in modern society.
Furthermore, trust is different from confidence. Both concepts are modes of
asserting expectations, and refer to the likelihood that expectations may
lapse into disappointment (Luhmann, 1979). These are different because
trust presupposes a situation of risk, while confidence a situation of danger
(Luhmann, 2000). Risks emerge only as components of an individual’s
decision and action. Risk is created by an internal (individual) calculation
of external (situational) conditions. Conversely, danger happens without
our decisions or as result of previous behaviours24.
Confidence is a response to the danger, and consists of neglecting that
a danger may occur:
“You cannot live without forming expectations with respect to contingent events and you have to neglect, more or less, the possibility of disappointment. You neglect this because it is a very rare possibility, but also because you do not know what else to do. The alternative is to live in a state of permanent uncertainty” (Luhmann, 2000: 3)
The kind of confidence that our expectations will not be disappointed,
because it is part of our daily routine behaviour, does not need a continuous
state of thought. For instance, we have confidence in the purchasing power
of money and this feeling is based more on our familiarity with it rather
than on the effect of deciding each time whether to accept money or not. In
this sense, confidence is a sort of passive, pragmatic acceptance.
Trust, instead, presupposes a situation of risk:
24 Often, the difference between danger and risk is a situational and cultural issue: a dangerous event, such as a flood, may be considered as a risk if people think that public authorities may do things in order to avoid it, as danger if people think that ‘if it must happen, it will happen’ (see Luhman, 2000).
42
“You may or may not buy a used car which turns out to be a ‘lemon’. You may or may not hire a babysitter for the evening and leave him or her unsupervised in you apartment; he or she may also be a ‘lemon’. You can avoid taking the risk, but only if you are willing to waive the associated advantages […] The distinction between confidence and trust thus depends on perception and attribution. If you do not consider alternatives (every morning you leave the house without a weapon!) you are in a situation of confidence. If you choose one action in preference to others in spite of the possibility of being disappointed by the action of others, you define situation as one of trust.” (Luhmann, 2000: 3)
In Luhman’s view, modern societies are even more characterised by
risk, that is a situation that is potentially harmful due to individual and
institutional choices (Luhmann, 1991: 55). Therefore, trust, consisting of
choosing actions by calculating related risks, has become the normal way of
making decisions in modern societies.
Many other researchers have stressed the distinction between trust and
confidence, by attributing only rational aspects to trust (see Seligman,
1997). Most of them, mainly in economics but also in political and social
sciences, refer to rational choice theory, in which rational calculation is
crucial25. Rational choice scholars assume that ‘good reason’ will inevitably
produce trust. In other words, trust is given as a result of a making the
correct choice between several options. Coleman (1990: 115), in
Foundations of Social Theory, argued that the decision to place trust in
someone is based on an estimation of the probability of the trustee keeping
the trust, but also on the use of negative sanctions. Thus, in Coleman, as in
Elster (see Misztal, 1996: 80), rationality and social norms are determinants
of a trust relationship. Gambetta (1988: 217) defines trust as follows:
25 According to rational choice theory, social life is the result of all an individual’s rational choices aimed at producing the highest utility for each actor. This approach can be well explained by utilizing the game theory, in which each actor considers what others are likely to do and then
43
“a particular level of subjective probability with which an agent assesses that another agent or group of agents will perform a particular action, both before he can monitor such action (or independently of his capacity ever to be able to monitor it) and in a context in which it affects his own action.”
In this view, as Misztal (1996: 82) notes, a person is trustworthy when
we have evaluated that the probability of her or his behaving in a way that
is damaging to us is low. Hardin, another rational choice scholar, argued
that trust is a three-part relation, where A trusts B to do X, and it is
“eminently rational”. Therefore, as the author says, the best way to
understand trust is as an encapsulated interest, an account in which the
truster’s expectations of the trustee’s behaviour depend on rational
assessments of the trustee’s motivations. Trust applies only in conditional
situations, in which expectations are rationally expected to be fulfilled
given certain boundary conditions.
The importance of the rational choice approach to trust is linked to its
easy application to formal relationships in the worlds of economics and
politics. Furthermore, many rational choice scholars, considering the
importance of trust for cooperation, which is a basic condition for economic
and social development, were interested in searching for the conditions
which facilitate trust. Among them, reputation (Dasgupta, 1988: 63) and
experience (personal contacts) are mentioned as being critical for deciding
whether to trust or not (Misztal, 1996: 84).
Giddens retrieved and extended Simmel’s distinction between
personal and impersonal trust and Luhmann’s notion of ‘system trust’. In
Luhmann’s view, modern societies are characterised by the increased
importance of ‘system trust’, which is built upon the belief that others also
makes the best choice to achieve the ends, given the probable behaviour of others (see Misztal, 1996: 78)
44
trust (also called ‘trust in trust’). When we believe in the stability of the
value of money, we do not trust other persons, but the functional elements
of the system. Giddens agrees with Luhmann’s views on trust, and
distinguishes between trust in people and trust in “abstract systems”. In
particular, Giddens classified trust in modern societies in two connected
categories: trust in abstract systems, based on faceless-commitments, and
trust in persons, based on deliberately cultivated face-to-face relationships26.
He distinguished them from personal trust in pre-modern societies, based on
kinship, community, religion and tradition. The starting point of Giddens’
view of trust is the modernisation of society (see Misztal, 1996: 89-90):
modernity is a ‘risk culture’ as its tendencies towards globalisation have
extended and intensified risk environments, which are seen not as a result of
a natural hazard but as socially constructed (for example the risk of nuclear
war). Furthermore, globalisation tendencies have restructured social
relations, from a local context of interaction to undefined spans of time-
space (Giddens, 1990: 21). This situation leads to a new quest for trust.
Trust in pre-modern societies was based on kinship, community, religion
and tradition. This form of trust it is no longer adequate for societies where
risks are the result of the decisions made by ‘impersonal’ institutions and
systems (such as the economic system). Furthermore, it is not adequate for
societies where family and community are no longer privileged places for
interactions. Trust in modern societies, therefore, is first trust in abstract
systems, linked to ‘faceless commitments’. Facework commitments are
based on the trustworthiness of the other and concern only those who know
one another. Faceless commitments are linked to symbolic tokens
(interchange media, such as money) and to expert systems (systems of
26 In addition, Giddens speaks of another side of trust, that is the concept called ‘basic (or elementary) trust’. It is a basis of a ‘stable self identity’ and deals with a person’s ontological security.
45
technical and professional knowledge). However, Giddens suggests that
trust in abstract systems is not the only form of trust in modern societies. In
a period of high modernity the importance of personalised trust may grow.
But in modern societies trust is based on deliberately cultivated, face-to-
face relationships, rather than on kinship, community, religion and tradition.
Also trust in abstract systems is closely connected to this new form of
personalised trust. According to Giddens, an individual builds trust in a
particular abstract system when he or she encounters someone who
represents this system (Giddens, 1990: 83). Giddens calls the situations
where the trust relationships between persons build trust in abstract systems
‘access points’. Attitudes of trust or lack of trust, towards specific abstract
systems are, therefore, liable to be strongly influenced by experiences at
access points. Jalava (2001: 6) gives a good example of how personal and
abstract trust work together:
“When the patient goes to the doctor, he is quite often ignorant of the disease he has. The doctor represents the expert system, in which the patient has confidence. When doctor and patient encounter, the doctor can with his presence, either strengthen the patient’s confidence in the system or alternatively awake suspicious about his own abilities. Good treatment often strengthens a patient’s confidence, but bad treatment strengthens only mistrust and suspicions”.
Roniger (1992: 20-24) also addressed trust in institutions. In a
comparative study on trust in modern societies he characterised three forms
of trust: unconditional free trust, characteristic-based trust, and reciprocal
pristine trust. These are all forms of personal trust27. The author (1992: 25),
27 Unconditional free trust is present in the original group constituted by mother and son: psychologists showed that the lack of this trust in the first years of life, which generates an intimate relationships between mother and son has negative consequences on the development of a positive attitude towards society. A sort of unconditional trust is looked for in all the complex contexts and in all the institutional structures: characteristic-based trust is a form of trust that is granted on the basis of a recognition of certain fundamental characteristics, such as ethnic or religious membership, and reciprocal pristine trust is sought after in friendships and other informal relationships which exist within a modern social organization. This form of trust is based on
46
recognises that modern societies are characterised by a growing complexity
of interpersonal ties and institutional structures and identifies in them a
need to extend personal trust in two ways: generalising or focusing. Both of
them apply to persons and institutions. People trust in generalised terms
when they grant trust to the other on the basis of impersonal images of
reliability, that is they produce expectations regarding those they do not
know on the basis of what they see or hear about them. Reliability is a key
concept to understand the generalisation process of trust. Reliability may be
generated by belonging to an organisational structure and sharing its norms
and values or by recognising that certain authorities have certain
competences. People can also trust in focalised terms when they trust
someone or an institution by focusing on their own personal experience
with them. Therefore, political institutions, for instance, may be considered
trustworthy on the basis of the correspondence of the image they project
with what individuals think has to be done (reliability). At the same time,
political institutions may be considered trustworthy if people consider that
their representatives, with whom they had a contact, to be trustworthy.
Definition Of Trust In The Police
From this review of sociological literature some general indications on
what is trust may be drawn. Scholars agree on these points:
1. Trust is an individual’s state of mind.
Trust is an individual’s state of mind, which makes interactions with people
or institutions possible. It is a subjective phenomenon: a trust relationship
reciprocity and on a desire to have a close link with others, based on sharing interests, values and emotions.
47
between two people is in fact two trusts, one in each of the two people for
the other.
2. Trust is linked to people’s expectations.
In the all perspectives considered, trust means expecting that someone
will behave or something will occur in a certain way. Most of the authors
(Simmel, Luhmann, Giddens) stressed that trust involves an element of
vulnerability resulting from our inability to monitor the behaviour of others
or to have complete knowledge about other people’s motivations, and from
our inability to predict future events (see Misztal, 1996: 18). Therefore trust
deals with one’s expectations about the behaviour of others, and the
likelihood that expectations may be disappointed.
3. trust in people and trust in ‘abstract systems’ are two different
but related forms of trust.
Both in Giddens and Roninger’s views, trusting an ‘abstract system’ is
closely connected to trusting people. An individual builds trust in a
particular abstract system on the basis of his/her encounter with someone
who represents this system, or on the basis of what he/she sees or hears
about somebody else’s encounter.
Therefore, according to what it is suggested by sociological literature
on trust, trust in the police may be defined as a favourable state of mind
towards the police consisting of believing that what we expect from them is
likely to be fulfilled by what police effectively do.
Studies specifically addressing trust in the police reinforce the
appropriateness of this definition. Stoutland (2001: 233-250), for example,
defined trust in the police as residents’ positive expectations regarding the
future behaviour and performance of the police. Jacob (1971), after the
urban riots of the late 1906s, characterised the attitudes of residents in the
black inner-city neighbourhoods towards the police as marked by deep
hostility and distrust, and described this situation of distrust as the result of
48
a large gap between residents’ expectations and perception of actual police
behaviour. Cao and Hou (2001: 88) stated that whatever it is called –
confidence in the police, satisfaction with the police or trust in the police –
this concept taps the public’s global attitude towards the police as an
institution in society.
Furthermore, trust in the police is a form of trust in abstract systems.
Police may be considered trustworthy on the basis of the correspondence of
the image they project with what individuals think has to be done
(reliability). At the same time, police may be considered trustworthy if
people consider their representatives with whom they had contact
trustworthy (see Giddens’ definition of ‘access points’ as situations where
trust based on face-to-face relationships builds trust in abstract systems).
Although there is agreement about what trust in the police is, research
on trust and trust in the police does not tell us why people trust the police:
do they trust because they have a subjective inclination to do so or because
they have a positive perception of the police’s work?
Is Trusting Based On The Truster’s Inclination To Do So Or On The Truster-Trustee Relationship?
In human and social sciences, scholars do not agree on why people
trust someone. Assuming that trust is an individual’s mental state, what is
its origin? Does it come from the truster’s subjective characteristics, general
beliefs and life style? Or does it come from the truster’s assessment of the
trustee’s behaviour? In other words, people expect something from
someone because they have a particular position in social space (are male or
female, are younger or older, have or do not have a high level of education,
49
are rich or poor, have or do not have a proactive life-style, live in urban or
rural areas, and so on), which induce them to do so? Or is it because they
focus on the relationship with the trustee which provides inputs for trusting
or not?
In the first case, people trust someone because they have an
inclination to do so. Personality theorists, for example, conceptualised trust
as a belief, expectancy, or feeling that is deeply rooted in one’s personality
and has its origins in the individual’s early psychosocial development
(Lewicki and Bunker 1996: 115). Here, the tendency to trust is influenced
by an individual’s dispositional tendencies (Brockner and Siegel, 1996:
405); the relationship between truster and trustee is not crucial in
determining the decision to place trust in someone. This perspective
emerges also in the Simmel’s notion of trust as faith: someone trusts
another because he or she needs to do so. In his view, while confidence is
based on knowledge between individuals who know each other, trust
compensates the difficulty of possessing personal knowledge in modern
societies with a ‘socio-psychological quasi religious faith’, a sort of
optimistic acceptance that is not based on observation of what others do.
In the second case, people trust someone because the trustee’s conduct
persuades them to do so. Social psychologists, for example, focus on the
interpersonal transactions between individuals that create or destroy trust at
interpersonal and group levels. They note that trust is more than simple
expectations: it is expectations set within particular contextual parameters
and constraints (Lewicki and Bunker 1996: 116). Here, the antecedents of
trust reside within the situation (Brockner and Siegel, 1996: 405); the
particular relationship between truster and trustee provides the truster with
inputs for assessing the trustee’s behaviour. This perspective also emerges
in Luhmann’s notion of trust as a choice from several options, according to
which, people trust on the basis of a careful and conscious assessment of
50
the other’s conduct. In his view trust is the result of a choice from among
several alternatives, and differs from confidence, which is result of
aprioristic acceptance (Luhmann, 2000: 3). Similarly, rational choice
scholars suggest that the decision to place trust in someone is based on a
rational calculation of the probability of the trustee keeping the trust. So
before trusting, the truster carefully observes the object of trust (individual,
group of individuals or institution) in order to decide if the trust will be
kept. Like Luhmann, rational choice scholars believe that the decision to
trust or distrust depends more on the characteristics of the object of trust,
rather than on the characteristics of the subject who trusts.
Some authors attempted to theoretically join these two perspectives
together. They suggest that people trust because they have a general
inclination to do so and because they have a relationship with the trustee.
Boon and Holmes’s identified three elements that contribute to the level of
trust one has for another: an individual’s chronic disposition towards trust,
situational parameters and history of their relationship (see Lewicki and
Bunker 1996: 116). Möllering spoke of ‘interpretation’ and ‘suspension’ as
the two key-elements required to place trust in someone. In his view, trust is
a state of favourable expectation regarding other people’s actions and
intentions; therefore trusting is based on a careful observation and
interpretation of the other’s behaviour. But, as it is impossible, in modern
society, to possess complete knowledge regarding the behaviour and
intentions of others, trusting consists of suspending our awareness of the
unknown and transforming it into expectations. This suspension enables us
to trust. Möllering (2001: 414) describes it as follows:
“Suspension captures the ‘as if’ in Lewis and Weigert’s idea that ‘to trust is to live as if certain rationally possible futures will not occur […] Suspension can be defined as mechanism that brackets out uncertainty and ignorance, thus making interpretative knowledge momentarily
51
‘certain’ and enabling the leap to favourable (or unfavourable) expectation”.
Recently, Dibben (2000: 2), reviewing previous research on trust,
characterised three features of trust operating in interpersonal situations:
dispositional trust, the disposition of an individual to be trusting or not,
learnt trust, a general attitude to trust or not to trust another individual, and
situational trust, which is dependent on the situational cues that modify the
expression of generalised tendencies. In Dibben’s view, trust is a subjective
mental state:
“Trust is a subjective phenomenon […] A key implication of this is that the one trust that may be said to exist ‘between’ two people is in fact two trusts; they exist separately, one in each of the two people for (/of) the other”. (Dibben, 2000: 2)
But, at the same time, trust requires an experience:
“[…] interpersonal trust may therefore be seen to follow G.H. Mead’s explanation of a subjective experience, being that which resides in one individual to which the individual alone has a direct access, which requires another individual as stimulation for it, which may also be communicated in behaviour towards the society of individuals generating that atmosphere between them to which each responds, and which may be reflected upon by the individual as a separate experience of self-as-was a moment ago (learnt trust) and to which the self-as-now reacts (situational trust).” (Dibben, 2000: 2)
Thus, research in human and social sciences provide divergent
findings on why people trust someone else.
What is suggested by studies specifically addressing trust in the
police?
52
Studies tackling this issue are rare. In fact, frequently studies on
factors affecting people’s attitudes towards the police have considered
single independent variables with bivariate analysis, without simultaneously
controlling other theoretically relevant factors (Hale and Uglow, 1997).
Only a few recent studies (Hurst and Frank, 2000; Preist and Carter, 1999)
have analysed the influence of different groups of variables on trust in the
police, in order to find out which group affects trust more than others.
However, some of them do not consider variables regarding the police’s
work (see, for example, Cao et al., 1998).
Research findings also differ. Some authors suggest that a person
trusts the police when his or her personal values, emotions, beliefs and life-
style all converge in believing that his or her expectations will be fulfilled
by the police. Davis (2000), for example, maintains that while common
sense suggests that experience with the police is a key factor in determining
how citizens perceive the police, people trust in the police actually depends
much more on culturally transmitted norms and beliefs. Surveying a multi-
ethnic neighbourhood in a predominantly middle-class section of Jackson
Heights, New York, the author found that people’s views of the police are
largely derived from the ethnic community to which people belonged. The
people belonging to ethnic communities that experienced a low sense of
political empowerment were less likely than others to believe that the police
were effective and more likely to believe that the police engaged in
misconduct. Conversely, other authors suggest that the choice to trust or
distrust the police comes from careful observation of the police’s work. A
positive assessment of the police’s behaviour and performance leads a
person to believe that positive expectations will be fulfilled by future police
behaviour and performance. People may assess police behaviour and
performance when they have a face-to-face contact with police officers or
when they see or hear something about somebody else’s experience with
53
the police. Thus, people’s trust in the police may have its origins in face-to-
face contacts (direct relationship) between people and police officers, or in
contact based on what people see or hear about someone else’s experiences
with the police (indirect relationship). Cheurprakobkit (2000: 327), for
example, suggests that direct or indirect experiences with the police should
provide better predictive power of trust in the police than demographic
variables.
Thus, in the same way that trust in people or institutions is viewed
from two different perspectives, that based on the truster’s inclination or
that based on the truster-trustee relationship, trust in the police may also be
viewed from these two different perspectives.
The first maintains that people expect something from the police
because they have a particular position in social space (are male or female,
are younger or older, have or do not have a high level of education, are rich
or poor, have or do not have a proactive life-style, live in urban or rural
areas, and so on) that induces them to do so. In this case, trust in the police
depends on people’s subjective inclination to do so rather than on what
police do and how people assess what police do in direct or indirect
relations with them.
The second perspective argues that people expect something from the
police because they focus on their relationships with police, which provides
inputs for trusting them or not. In this case the relationship between people
and the police, and people’s assessment of what the police do in their
relationships with people, is crucial in determining the people’s decision to
place trust in the police.
Therefore, these different perspectives address trust in different ways:
on one hand, as the product of variables regarding the subjective
characteristics of people (individual variables); on the other, as the product
54
of variables regarding the people’s relationship with the police (relational
variables).
What are these variables? Which of them predict the level of trust in
the police? Do individual variables or relational variables have more effect
on trust in the police?
As seen above (chapter 1), knowing whether trust in the police is
determined more by the characteristics of the subject who trusts (people) or
more by characteristics of the object that is trusted (police), has important
implications for several criminological debates: on why people feel unsafe,
why people turn away from the law and on how to build policing programs
that are effective in tackling the issue of safety.
The next paragraph specifically address those variables related to trust
in the police that have already been studied by previous empirical research
into trust in the police. The purpose is to investigate which variables, and
which group of variables (individual or relational) are better able to predict
the levels of trust in the police.
2.2 Factors Affecting Trust In The Police That Have Been Suggested By Previous Studies
This paragraph reviews the body of empirical research on citizens’
attitudes towards the police, policing and police legitimacy, in order to learn
which variables have been studied in relation to trust in the police.
Factors affecting trust in the police may be classified in two types:
individual variables and relational variables. Individual variables consist of
55
variables based on an individual’s characteristics; relational variables
consist of variables based on situations in which citizens have a relationship
with police officers, personal (direct relation) or mediated by what they see
or hear about other people’s contact with police (indirect relation). 28
Individual Variables
Trust in the police is an individual’s state of mind which may be
affected by variables regarding the individual’s characteristics: socio-
demographic variables (such as age, gender, ethnicity, education),
attitudinal variables (such as political orientation, personal satisfaction with
life), and other variables regarding individual characteristics, such as
victimization and social integration in the neighbourhood.
Age. Research on citizens’ attitudes towards the police has stressed the
relationship between age and attitudes toward police. More specifically,
young people are less satisfied with police activity than adults (Hale and
Uglow, 1997). There are two possible explanations for this relationship.
Some authors have suggested that younger individuals often have a
more antagonistic attitude toward authority, and therefore possess negative
attitudes towards institutions in general, and the police in particular. As
people get older they tend to believe that the police play a legitimate role in
protecting the status quo (Hurst and Frank, 2000: 191).
Others suggest that the relationship between age and attitudes towards
the police is affected by prior negative experience. Recent studies focusing
28 A similar distinction is suggested by Correia, Reisig and Lovrich (Correia et al., 1996) and by Murphy and Worral (1999: 330), who separated individual variables from contextual-level variables. Murphy and Worral, however, also included community-level variables (such as neighbourhood disorder) and victimization in contextual factors.
56
on juveniles’ attitudes have suggested that a juvenile’s contact with the
police is generally associated with more negative attitudes towards them
(Griffiths and Winfree, 1982). This is because the police treat younger
individuals more unkindly than adults. Furthermore, younger people are
more likely to have contact with the police than adults. Research found that
younger people, especially those between eighteen and twenty-five years of
age, are more likely to be stopped by the police: they are responsible for a
disproportionate amount of crime and as a result, more likely to be targeted
by law enforcement officers (Reid Howie Associates, 2001).
Thus, although there appears to be reasonable empirical support for
the relationship between age and attitudes toward police, the difference
between juveniles and adults seems to be caused more by the likelihood of
having more negative contacts with police, rather than by age itself.
Race. Among the individual variables used to analyse perceptions of
police, race (or ethnicity) has consistently been shown to be a powerful
predictor (Correia et al, 1996).
The first U.S. National Crime Surveys (1972-73 and 1975) showed
that, although citizens’ attitudes towards police were positive, minorities’
attitudes were less favourable. Many later studies revealed that ‘non White’,
mainly Afro-Americans, citizens are less satisfied with the police than
‘White’ citizens and, therefore, more hostile towards them (Fustenberg and
Wellford, 1973: 405; Scaglion and Condon, 1980). Leiber and collegues
(Leiber et al., 1998) found that the race of respondents was the strongest
predictor of attitudes concerning police fairness and discrimination.
57
Although race is an important factor of attitudes towards the police29,
its influence may be more complex than commonly thought.
Some studies suggest that differences in attitudes on the basis of race
may result because ‘minorities’ are more likely to have negative or
involuntary contact with police than ‘whites’ (Murty et al. 1990; Fustenberg
and Wellford, 1973). Minorities are more likely to be stopped and arrested
on suspicion (Chandek, 1999) and also more likely to be badly treated and
discriminated against by police than ‘Whites’. One of the earliest studies on
citizens and the police, that of Bayley and Mendelsohn (1969), explored the
difference in citizen evaluations of police made by Black, White, and
Hispanic respondents living in Denver. They reported that minority
members of the community, especially those with Spanish surnames, were
consistently less positive in their attitudes toward police than were white
respondents.
“Twenty-seven percent of the Dominants said that the police did an excellent job in their neighbourhood; only 2% dissented. Among Negroes, 12 % said police did an excellent job and 7% said they did a bad job. Among the Spanish-named, 11% said the job done was excellent and 13% said it was bad” (Bayley and Mendelson, 1969: 111)
But they also pointed out that the amount of negative contact between
minority residents and the police was greater than that between Whites and
the police. A higher percentage of minority respondents indicated that they
or someone in their family had been badly treated by a police officer. A
lower proportion of minority respondents, compared to the proportion of
Whites, indicated that they were satisfied with what the police did for them
when called for help (Bayley and Mendelson, 1969: 117). Fustenberg and
29 Not all surveys revealed differences in race. Some surveys even found that ethnic minority respondents were more positive than white respondents about the police (see, for example, Ditton, 1999).
58
Wellford (1973) have confirmed that the persistent difference between
blacks and whites occurs primarily among those least satisfied with the
service they receive. In particular, when police take the time to explain
what they are doing respondents are generally more satisfied than when
police do not explain their actions: police officers were found to be less
disposed to explain what they are doing to minorities than they are to
‘Whites’. This is why minorities have less positive attitude.
Other studies have suggested that minorities’ unfavourable
evaluations of the police may be the consequence of unfulfilled
expectations. Since many ‘non-White’ people live in neighbourhoods
characterized by high levels of crime, they make more demands on police,
which police officers cannot fulfil. For example, Carter’s (1985) study on
the Latinos community in Texas suggested that the less favourable Latinos
attitude towards the police was the result of the interaction between high
expectations and a perception of poor police performance. Chandek (1999)
found that factors other than race were more important in determining crime
victims’ attitudes toward police. After controlling the effect of other
variables, ‘Police Officer Demeanour’ and ‘Expectation Fulfilment’ were
found to be the most influential determinants of crime victim satisfaction
with the police. As Cheurprakobkit (2000) suggested:
“the general perception developed during the course of police-citizen contact is far more important than race or the nature [citizen-initiated or police-initiated] of police contact is far more important than race or the nature of police contact in determining citizens’ attitudes toward the police”.
Thus, although there appears to be strong empirical support for the
relationship between race and attitudes toward police, the difference
between ‘White’ and ‘non-White’ in American literature seems to be
59
caused more by the likelihood of experiencing negative contact with police
or unfulfilled expectations rather than by race itself.
Education. Although education is widely considered, together with
income, as an important socio-demographic variable and it is commonly
included in analyses of public perceptions of the police, studies have so far
provided inconclusive findings on the impact of education on public
perceptions of the police (Correia et al., 1996).
Gender. Findings about the influence of gender on trust in the police
are inconsistent. Most research has found that, although some differences
between males and females exist, perception of the police tends to be very
similar (Hurst and Frank, 2000). However, some authors suggest that males
were slightly more critical of the police than females. A study involving
5,477 pre-high school students in eleven U.S. cities (Taylor et al., 2001)
found that girls consistently reported more favourable attitudes toward
police than boys; it also suggested an explanation:
“Males may be more likely to have adversarial run-ins with police due to disproportionate involvement in delinquent and criminal behaviour” (Taylor et al., 2001: 302).
On the contrary, a Correia, Reisig and Lovrich’s study (Correia et al.,
1996) on citizens’ perceptions of state policing organizations in U.S.A.
suggested that gender is a highly significant factor: females had a
significant likelihood of having less favourable perceptions of state police
than males. An Israeli study (Shoham, 2000) on battered wives’ perceptions
of the police suggested a possible explanation for the less favourable
attitudes of females:
60
“This study, similar to previous ones, demonstrates the gap between the expectations of the women who lodge complaints and those of the male police officers. The women expect support and an understanding mien, whereas the police officers view the situation from the legal point of view. The use of objective legal terms by the police is perceived by the women as demonstrating indifference or as siding with the husband. It is possible that most police officers, because of the predominantly male composition of the force, do react differently from what the women expect. […] They [women] perceived that police did not understand their situation, tended to be suspicious of their motives, and believe them to be seeking revenge or trying to exact some sort of profit”. (Shoham, 2000: 255)
Therefore, different attitudes towards police between males and
females, if there are any, may be caused by different fulfilment expectations
during contact with police officers (see also Wachholz and Miedema,
2000).
Victimisation. If there is not a consensus on the different attitudes
toward police between males and females, it seems there is no doubt on the
differences between victims and non victims. Many studies have addressed
the impact of criminal acts on attitudes toward police and found that
individuals who have been victimized have less positive attitudes toward
the police than those without similar experiences (Priest and Carter, 1999;
Dean, 1980). Furthermore, individuals who have been in contact with the
police for a crime incident have less positive attitudes towards the police
than those have had contact for other reasons (Mastrofsky, 1983).
This is often thought to result from the victims dissatisfaction with the
way in which police officers have serviced a call for assistance: too slow,
inefficient, unfair, not interested. For example, Mastrofsky’s (1983) study
on data collected in 1977 by the Police Service Study in three metropolitan
areas (Rochester, New York; St. Louis, Missouri; Tampa-St. Petersburg,
61
Florida) suggested that the police are more effective with non crime
problems: non crime problems are more tractable and citizen expectations
are more in line with what police are able to achieve. Coupe and Griffiths
(1999) studied the satisfaction of burglary victims with the service provided
by the UK police in the West Midlands. They indicated that victim
satisfaction depended on how well police actions and the outcomes of cases
met victims’ expectations. In particular, to a great extent, satisfaction
depended on the behaviour of the first officer to reach the burglary scene
and also on being kept informed about the outcome of investigations.
Chandek (1999: 675-695), using data obtained from a sample of crime
victims, showed that two variables affect a victim’s negative attitudes
towards police: police officer demeanour during the contact with the victim
after the criminal event, and the fulfilment of the victim’s expectations by
police officers (that is whether the police officers actually do what the
victim expects them to do).
Social Integration. Citizens’ trust in the police can also be affected by
their level of social integration. Social integration is for individuals what
social cohesion is for the community. The more individuals are integrated
with others, the more cohesive the community. Research on collective
efficacy, defined as cohesion among residents combined with shared
expectations for the social control in public space (Sampson and
Raudenbush 1999: 603), have suggested that the more people work together
and think that they are able to tackle criminal problems the more they trust
that the social control system (and therefore also the police) works.
Furthermore, social integration is part of the construct of social capital. The
most common definition of social capital regards it as features of social
organization, such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate
coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1992). Coleman
62
(1990) noted that personal relations and networks of relations are important
in generating social trust and enforcing norms. Trust in institutions, as a
form of social trust, may be viewed as an element of social capital, and so
highly interrelated with the other components of social capital (for the
relationship between networks and institutional trust see, for example,
Diani, 2000). In very recent studies (see Hope et al., 2002), trust in the
efficacy of the police is recognised as being linked to the availability of
social and cultural capital.
Other Individual Variables. Attitudinal variables such as political
orientation and satisfaction in one’s own life are rarely studied in relation to
trust in the police. Common sense suggests that people more oriented
towards the political left and less satisfied with their own lives are less
likely to be trustful of institutions, and, in particular, of the police. Cao et al.
(1998: 286) suggested that political conservatism and satisfaction with life
are positively related to confidence in the police, but the results of their
study indicated that they are not strong predictors.
Relational Variables
As the study of individual variables has suggested, trust in the police
may also be affected by variables regarding people’s relationship with the
police. The relationship between truster and police officers is direct when
based on face-to-face contact; it is indirect when based on what the truster
sees or hears about police or about other people’s contact with police.
63
Police-Citizen Contact. Therefore, having a face-to-face contact with
police officers is recognised as a factor affecting citizens’ attitudes toward
police (Jacob, 1971).
Some authors suggest that more contacts leads to a better knowledge
of police work, of their problems and difficulties, as without contact, people
have much less information on which to base their attitudes (Hurst and
Frank, 2000: 192). Others note the importance of police-citizen contacts by
suggesting that “police officers meld public attitudes” (Wirths, 1958). The
result is that the more contact you have with the police officers the more
you trust them.
However, this result is not well founded: some research findings show
that citizens who had contact with the police have more, and not less,
negative attitudes toward police than those who did not (Scaglion e
Condon, 1980: 491-493). Research on police elderly people interaction, for
example, has revealed that when compared to the elderly who had only
second-hand experiences with the police, the elderly with direct contact
tend to view the police less favourably (Arcuri, 1981). Carter (1985)
confirmed that as the number of contacts increased, public satisfaction
decreased.
The discrepancy in these research findings may be explained by
considering that not all police-citizen contacts are similar. Contacts may
differ in character: positive or negative, on one hand, voluntary or
involuntary, on the other. Contacts are positive if police officer behaviour
and performance during the contact are favourably assessed by citizens.
Voluntary contacts are those in which citizens mobilize the police, while
involuntary contacts are police-initiated and characterized by a measurable
increase in police use of legitimate authority. For this reason involuntary
contacts are more adverse in nature.
64
Police Officer Behaviour During The Contact. Thus, a significant
body of literature has suggested that the type of contact one has with the
police, rather than the contact itself, exerts a significant influence on
positive attitudes towards police. Positive or voluntary contacts are
generally associated with higher satisfaction levels, while lower levels of
satisfaction are reported by those who have experienced negative or
involuntary encounters with the police (Dean, 1980).
Cheurprakobkit (2000) examined the impact of police contacts and
language spoken on citizens’ attitudes toward police in Odessa and
Midland, Texas. It was found that citizens who initiated the contact
assessed the police’s work more favourably than those where the contact
was initiated by the police. Furthermore, positive police experience not only
yielded positive attitudes towards the police, but also neutralized or
ameliorated the negative attitudes of citizens involved in police-initiated
contacts.
Correia, Reisig and Lovrich (Correia et al., 1996) suggested that only
positive/negative contacts affect positive/negative attitudes toward police.
Findings from a study on citizen perception of state policing organizations
in the U.S.A. revealed that there is an important relationship between the
manner in which citizens are treated and positive perception of the police:
regardless of whether contact was voluntary or involuntary, an individual’s
perception of unsatisfactory or unfair treatment decreased the probability of
positive perceptions. Further, an unclear explanation by police concerning a
citation or warning also decreased the probability.
Hurst and Frank’s (2000) study on 852 high school students in and
around Cincinnati, Ohio, indicated that the students’ evaluation of
encounters with police officers is the major predictor of attitudes:
specifically those juveniles stopped or arrested by police and treated, in
their view, poorly or very poorly, were less positive in their attitudes. On
65
the other hand, juveniles who initiated contact with the police and viewed
the police behaviour in the encounter as good or very good were more
likely to hold favourable attitudes toward the police.
Similar research findings confirmed the result of the studies on
legitimacy in the criminal justice system. They suggested that when citizens
believe they are treated fairly, they tend to grant the police more legitimacy
and to be more likely to comply with police and law enforcement outcomes
(Tyler, 1990). In this view, citizens’ trust in law enforcement is based as
much (or more) on their perceptions of the way in which they are treated as
on the actual outcomes of law enforcement’s actions.
People assess an encounter with police as adverse or negative not only
when police conduct30 is unfair, incorrect or unfriendly, but also when
violence has been used during the contact. There are two cases of use of
violence: when excessive force has been used by police, and when citizens
used violence against police officers (citizens’ resistance)31. Concerning
police use of excessive physical force, Johnson argued that perceptions of
police brutality have been at the heart of citizen distrust of, and complaints
about, the police (Cao et al., 2000).32
30 Talking about police officers misconduct could lead one to think that it is an issue regarding only individual police officers and that, in order to solve the problem, it would be enough to control each individual officer’s behaviour. Actually, one of the most complete sociological theories on controlling police misconduct, the Lundman (1980) organizational product thesis, maintains that most police misconduct is a product of organizational deviance, so that what needs to be controlled is not an individual officer’s behaviour, but organizational climates. Cao et al. (2000) applied Lundman’s organizational product thesis when explaining citizen complaints against the police’s use of excessive physical force and found that this theory is only partially supported: both individual behaviour and organizational characteristics are important covariates of the complaint rate against police use of excessive physical force. 31 The likelihood of violence occurring in any interaction between police officers and citizens is critically dependent upon the behaviour of both participants. As regards as citizens’ resistance, two Australian reports found that the extent of resistance experienced could be linked to the officer’s preference for a specific set of conflict resolution tactics or to the officer’s difficulties experienced in controlling anger (Wilson et al., 1994; Wilson and Braithwaite, 1996). 32 Furthermore, the use of excessive force generates conflict between police and residents, and lowers officer morale (Cao et al., 2000).
66
Police Officer Performance During The Contact. Citizens’ positive
attitudes toward the police may be influenced not only by how much they
are fairly treated by the police during the contact, but also how much the
police’s activities fulfil their expectations during the contact.
The main findings of a recent study by Reisig and Chandek (2001)
confirmed that citizen satisfaction with police encounters is a product of the
congruence between individual expectations of service and the perception
of the actual service rendered. This finding persists for both voluntary
(citizens call police for service) and involuntary (police stop citizens) police
encounters. The authors achieved this result by applying the consumer-
oriented theory to the policing context: citizens who come into contact with
police may be considered as possessing expectations similar to those held
by a private sector consumer.
“One concept we believe is especially applicable to police-citizen encounters is expectancy disconfirmation. The expectancy disconfirmation model posits that consumer satisfaction is a response to the congruency between an individual’s expectations and the actual performance of a product. Applied to policing, satisfaction may be viewed as a function of the interrelationship between what citizens expect from the police and their perceptions of police performance (i.e. services rendered).” (Reisig and Chandek, 2001: 88)
Authors tested the expectancy disconfirmation model by using survey
data from citizens who recently had contact with police in a medium sized
midwestern U.S city. They found that increased disparity between
expectations of police performance33 and actual service inversely affects
citizen satisfaction with the way the police handle encounters.
33 In this case performance is defined not in the standard formulation, which tends to equate it with the outcome, effects, consequences of inputs, programs and strategies, but as the execution of work: to perform is simply to do, independent of the consequences (Wycoff and Manning, 1983).
67
The link between citizens’ expectations being fulfilled by police
performance and trust has been well documented in policing literature.
Several crime victim studies have documented that victim satisfaction with
the service provided by the police depended on how well police officers
actions met victim expectations (Chandek, 1999). Police officers’ manner,
levels of proficiency, concern shown towards the victim, how long they
spent at the scene and the outcome of the case are all aspects of the service
provided to victims by the police which can affect victim satisfaction.
A Coupe and Griffiths (1999) study, conducted in the West Midlands
region of England, found that a large number of police actions and the
victim’s perceptions about these actions were related to the victim’s
satisfaction with the service provided by the police.
“Findings indicate that the key police actions that were significant in influencing satisfaction were whether the victim felt reassured by the police officer who visited, and whether or not the case was solved. Respondents who received additional information on the progress or outcome of their investigations were also more likely to have been satisfied.” (Coupe and Griffiths, 1999: 427)
Citizen satisfaction with the police has mainly been found to be
related to their expectations and estimates of the time it took the police to
respond after being called. Percy (1980) was one of the first to examine the
impact of expectations on satisfaction with the police: his research strongly
suggested that victim satisfaction with the police is a function of the
disparity between a crime victim’s expectations and perceptions of police
response time:
“In the citizen survey data reported response time and variables which compare expected and reported response times were the strongest predictors of citizen satisfaction with police actions. […] Response time and citizens’ perceptions about it are factors which police agencies can
68
directly influence as they attempt to provide more satisfactory services to citizens.” (Percy, 1980: 66).
If police response time exceeded the citizen’s expectations, he tended
to be dissatisfied (Fustenberg and Wellford, 1983).
Attitudes towards the police may be influenced not only by direct
experience with police officers, but also by indirect experience with police,
based on what citizens see or hear about police or someone else’s contact
with police.
Police Visibility. Citizens’ perception regarding police visibility, that
is how much police officers are seen in the street, might influence their
attitudes toward the police. Several policing programs are based on the
assumption that high police visibility increases both positive attitudes
toward police and safety in the neighbourhood (Sherman, 1995). On the
other hand, public surveys about police practices show a strong citizen
request for a more visible police presence in their areas (Shapland and
Vagg, 1987: 54). An Australian study (Boni, 1995:14), for example
reviewed all the surveys on citizen attitudes toward police held in Australia,
and showed that the most frequent ways of improving the effectiveness of
police suggested by citizens was to increase the number of police officers
and police visibility.
Although citizens request greater police visibility, and several policing
programs are based on this request, research findings on the relationship
between police visibility and attitudes toward police, are however
contradictory. Recently, Hurst and Frank (2000: 197) found that both
visibility variables used in their study on juvenile attitudes toward police
(visibility outside and within the respondent’s neighbourhood) were not
significant in predicting attitudes. Also one of the most famous evaluations
69
of policing programs ever undertaken (Bayley, 1998b: 26), the Kansas City
Preventive Patrol Experiment (Kelling et al., 1974) found no relationship
between increased visibility of policing and positive attitudes toward police.
“[…] few significant differences and no consistent patterns of differences occurred across experimental conditions in terms of citizen attitudes toward police services”. (Kelling et al., 1974: 33)
Scholars suggest that the lack of effect34 of increased patrolling
activities in Kansas City was because the program was conducted by
automobile. Car patrols were too distant and impersonal. On the contrary,
police officers on foot, closer to citizens, might have a greater impact on
citizens’ attitudes toward police, apart from on crime, arrests and fear of
crime. Two studies tested this suggestion: The Police Foundation’s
evaluation study in Newark, NJ, 1980, and Robert Trojanowicz’s study in
Flint, MI, 1982. The Newark experiment (Police Foundation, 1980), found
that residents living in areas with foot patrols were more satisfied with
police services, and less fearful of crime. However, no impact was found on
crime rate: foot patrols are not more effective in deterring crime than
mobile ones. The Flint study found that the Neighbourhood Foot Patrol
Program was successful in increasing citizen satisfaction with police
services, besides reducing the crime rate (Payne and Trojanowicz, 1985;
Trojanowicz and Banas, 1985). Similar results are found in more recent
studies, that mainly evaluate community-policing programs. The impact
evaluation study on the Edmonton Neighbourhood Foot Patrol Program
(NFPP) found that the NFPP was successful in improving public
satisfaction and increasing police officer job satisfaction. Skogan and
colleagues (1997: 205-209), evaluating the Chicago Alternative Policing
34 The program was found to be ineffective not only in improving people’s satisfaction with the police, but also in decreasing the crime rate, and in reducing fear of crime.
70
Strategy, found that levels of satisfaction with the police were higher when
the police were more visible. The gap in satisfaction between respondents
remembering lower levels of police visibility and those remembering higher
levels was about 15 percentage points (see also Normandeau, 2000 on
Community Policing Program of Montreal, Canada; Liou and Savage, 1996
on Community Policing Program in City of West Palm Beach; Campbell
DeLong Resources Inc., 1996 on Portland Police Bureau). Therefore, unlike
the research in Kansas City and a few other studies, which suggested that
changing levels of police visibility does not make much of difference on
citizen satisfaction with police, studies on foot patrolling and community
policing found a relationship between police visibility and attitudes toward
police. Why are the findings so different?
The reason for this discrepancy might be the different ‘quality’ of the
police presence in the neighbourhoods, and not the ‘quantity’ itself. As
noted above, car patrolling and foot patrolling are different: citizens
perceive police officers in automobiles to be more distant than those on foot
and believe that having a contact with them is more difficult, while foot
patrols are closer and more approachable. Therefore, the problem is not
how many police officers you put on the street, but how. Furthermore, in
famous and successful35 community policing programs, what citizens see is
police officers involved in community member relations and working with
them in solving problems, and not simply police officers patrolling the
neighbourhood. Thus, it appears that when studies found a relationship
between police visibility and positive attitudes toward police, it is not the
35 In unsuccessful community policing programs, there is no doubt about the absence of the relationship between police visibility and citizens’ trust in the police. Skogan (1995: 2) reports that in a recent evaluation of community policing programs in eight cities, the Vera Institute found that, although they increased police’ visibility, all of them experienced great difficulty in establishing a solid relationship between the programs and neighbourhood residents. Distrust and fear of the police were rampant in many of the neighbourhoods where community policing was instituted. In
71
visibility itself which affect positive attitudes, but the ‘quality’ of the police
presence in the neighbourhoods. Police presence can reduce or even
increase people’s trust in the police, depending upon what police do.
Quality Of The Police Conduct. Police conduct is recognised as being
critical not only during face-to-face encounters (Hurst and Frank, 2000:
197). Extant literature suggests that persons knowing of police misconduct
experienced by others will have less positive attitudes toward police (Smith
and Hawkins, 1973). Vice versa, persons seeing and hearing of the
respectful conduct of police will have more positive attitudes towards the
police. A study on two precincts in the Bronx indicated that when police
treat residents with respect, they are less likely to be dissatisfied with police
actions. In fact, while in New York City the number of civilian complaints
against the police rose dramatically after 1993, two researchers from the
Vera Institute of Justice (Davis and Mateu-Gelabert, 1999) studied in detail
the only two precincts where, together with crime, civilian complaints also
decreased. They examined a variety of possible explanations for the decline
in civilian complaints, and concluded that the most likely explanation for
this decline was the particularly effective manner in which the precinct
commanders implemented departmental policies. The commanders
improved community relations and the way that precinct personnel were
trained and supervised, and in doing so created a more respectful police
force. This new way of policing greatly changed the community wide
perception of the police and decreased civilian complaints. Therefore,
citizens’ positive attitudes towards the police may be influenced by how
polite police conduct is perceived to be throughout the community.
these cases no relationship can be found between police visibility and citizen satisfaction with police.
72
Effectiveness Of The Police Activity. Citizen attitudes may be affected
by how effective in their work police are perceived in the neighbourhood.
As Hough (1987: 70) suggested:
“ ‘Effective’ tends to be used to mean ‘effective in dealing with crime’ […]. However, a now quite substantial body of research suggests only limited scope for the police either to catch more offenders or, more generally, to deter people from crime”
Several studies (Cumming et al., 1965: 276; Punch and Naylor, 1973:
359; Kelling, 1978: 174; Matrofsky, 1983: 33) have found that a large part
of the routine calls to the police involve demands for help and some form of
support for personal and interpersonal problems (non-crime problems), so
police work might be classified in two relatively different activities: ‘law
enforcement’ and ‘keeping peace’ (Bittner, 1967: 699). Therefore, effective
policing is policing that achieves multiple objectives, which correspond to
all of society’s demands. On the contrary, police have historically
prioritised criminal investigation activity, while under evaluating their tasks
in responding to non-crime problems (Mastrofski, 1983: 34). According to
Kelling (1978: 183):
“The police have developed strategies oriented around just one of their many functions. These strategies have not only failed to obtain their desired results, but have also led the police to ignore other important functions and have alienated citizens, whose support is vital in effective police performance”
Therefore, according to Kelling, the emphasis on crime-related
activities has failed to achieve crime reduction goals and, together with the
under evaluation of community demands for help for non-crime problems,
may have exacerbated citizen distrust in police and fear of crime.
73
By contrast, focusing on specific problems borne by the community,
both criminal and non-criminal, and improving police capacity to solve
them, may increase police effectiveness and improve the citizens view of
police work (Goldstein, 1979: 257). Based on this idea, several problem
oriented policing programs spread in North America (Scott, 2000: 36).
Studies evaluating these programs suggested that police activity has become
more effective and citizens, even those who had no direct contact with
police officers, were more satisfied with them (National Institute of Justice,
1999; National Institute of Justice, 2000).
2.3 Research Hypotheses. Does Trusting The Police Depend On How Police Work? In Particular, Does It Depend On How Fair, Polite And Effective The Police Are?
Summary Of Extant Literature
Why do people trust the police? Research findings suggest that trust in
the police is affected by variables regarding individual’s characteristics
(individual variables), and by variables regarding situations in which
citizens have a relationship with police officers, personally or mediated by
what they see or hear about someone else’s contact with police (relational
variables).
With regards individual variables, people may trust or distrust the
police because they are male or female, younger or older, ‘White’ or ‘non-
White’; because they have a higher or lower level of education or because
of their view on political matters or their level of general trust in
74
institutions; because they are or not victims of crime, and they are highly or
poorly integrated in the neighbourhood.
With regards relational variables, people may trust the police because
they have frequent contact with them, because they see often them in the
neighbourhood, because they positively assess police conduct and activity
on the basis of what they have experienced (direct relationship), or on the
basis of what they are see or hear (indirect relationship).
However, some studies suggest that relational variables have a major
explanatory power regarding trust in the police, compared to individual
variables. In fact, although there appears to be reasonable empirical support
for the relationship between most of the individual variables and positive
attitudes toward police, actually the difference in trust levels between
juveniles and adults, males and females, ‘non-Whites’ and ‘Whites’,
victims and non-victims, seems to be caused by the different likelihood of
having negative contact with the police. Therefore, juveniles may have less
trust in the police because they are stopped more often and more likely to
be badly treated by the police. Females may have a significant likelihood of
having less favourable attitudes towards the police than males because their
expectations are likely to be less fulfilled by police. ‘Non-Whites’ may
have less trust in the police because they are more likely to have negative
contact with the police: they are more likely to badly treated by police
officers, and their expectations are more likely to be not fulfilled by police
officers. A victim’s negative attitude toward the police may be often caused
by how police actions meet victim expectations. Therefore, if individual
and relational variables were analysed jointly, it may result that relational
variables have more predictive power on trust in the police.
But, not all the relational variables seems to have a similar
explanatory power: ‘police officer behaviour’ and ‘citizens’ expectations
75
fulfilled by police performance’ seems to be the two most important
predictors of trust in the police. In fact, although some authors state that
more citizen-police contacts leads to a more positive attitude towards
police, a significant body of literature has suggested that the type of contact
one has with the police, rather than the contact itself, exerts a significant
influence on positive attitudes toward police. Contacts may be positive or
negative. People assess a contact with police as negative when police
conduct is unfair, incorrect or unfriendly, but also when violence has been
used during the contact. Furthermore, contact may also be negative when
police activity was ineffective in fulfilling citizen expectations during the
contact. Positive contacts are generally associated with higher satisfaction
levels, while lower levels of satisfaction are reported by those who have
experienced negative encounters with the police.
Police conduct and activity are recognised as being crucial in
producing positive attitudes not only during face-to-face encounters, but
also during police encounters with other citizens where an individual
acquires information for assessing police conduct and activity. Research
findings suggest that the ‘quality’ and the ‘effectiveness’ of the police
presence on the neighbourhoods, more than quantity of the police presence
(visibility), affect positive attitudes toward police.
Research Hypotheses
Thus, the review of the literature on factors affecting trust in the
police seems to support the perspective according to which people trust the
police, not because they have a subjective inclination to do so, but because
they focus on their relationship with the police, which provides inputs
76
leading them to believe that what they expect from the police will be
fulfilled. So, according to this perspective:
Hypothesis 1: trust in the police depends more on relational variables
than on individual variables.
In particular, two points of view on why people trust the police seem
to be supported. In the first, trust in the police is influenced by the level of
fairness of the police’s behaviour. In the second, trust in the police is
influenced by the likelihood of correspondence between people’s
expectations and police’s activity.
Among others, Tyler (1990: 94-96) suggests that, in judgements
people make about their personal experience with the police, they consider
overall factors related to the fairness of the procedure, as having had a
chance to state their case and been treated with dignity and respect, more
than factors related to the outcomes.
So, according to this view:
Hypothesis 2: trust in the police depends on how fair and polite police
officers are perceived to be.
In the consumer-oriented theory, the expectancy disconfirmation
model argued that consumer satisfaction is a response to the congruency
between individual’s expectations and actual performance of a product or a
service. Applying this approach to the policing context, it is argued (Reisig
and Chandek, 2001) that citizen trust in the police is a product of the
congruence between his expectations of police service and his perception of
the actual service rendered.
77
So, according to the expectancy disconfirmation model:
Hypothesis 3: trust in the police depends on how effective in
performing citizens’ expectations police officers are perceived to be.
78
CHAPTER 3 TESTING THE HYPOTHESES: FINDINGS FROM THE TRENTINO SURVEY
This chapter intends to test the three hypotheses which arise from a
review of literature, these are: trust in the police depends more on relational
variables than on individual variables (H1); trust in the police depends on
how fair and polite police officers are perceived to be (H2); trust in the
police depends on how effective police officers are perceived to be in
performing the duties citizens expect of them (H3).
In order to test these hypotheses, the data from a survey of residents’
attitudes towards police in Trentino, a northern Italian province, are
analysed.
In the first paragraph general information is provided about the area
where the survey was conducted.
The second paragraph answers the methodological issues that arise
from the following questions: How did the survey collect data? How was
the sample selected? How was the data analysed to test the research
hypotheses? How were dependent and independent variables measured?
The third paragraph presents the main findings of the data analyses.
79
3.1 Overview Of Trentino
Before talking about how the Trentino survey was conducted, aspects
of the Trentino province, such as the demographic composition of the
population, crime rate, size of the police forces, feeling of security and level
of trust in the police, resulting from the last Italian Victimization Survey
held by Istat in 1997/1998 (see Istat, 1999), are briefly presented. These
aspects provide a better understanding of where the survey was conducted
and may also be important in the discussion of the research findings.
Demographic Composition Of The Population
At the beginning of the 2001, the population of Trentino was 477,859,
4,000 more than the year 2000. It represents 0.8% of the Italian population.
Females are in the majority (51.2%). The largest age group is adults from
25 to 45 years. In the period 1990-2000, the population increased by 28,109
residents. The reason is mainly the increase in immigration from abroad.
Non-EU citizens at 31.12.2000 were about 11,300, 3,000 more than in
1999. Trentino is an attractive area for immigrants because of the higher
levels of income and employment in comparison to Italy as a whole. The
average age of residents has increased: in 1961 was 35 years, while in 2001
was 41 years.36
36 For further information on socio-demographic composition of Trentino population see the reports of the Statistics Service of the Autonomous Province of Trento (see Bertozzi et al., 2001).
80
A Low Crime Rate
The recorded rate of crimes in Trentino in the period from 1990 to
2001 has remained quite stable, with a slight tendency to increase. On the
contrary, in the same period in Italy the crime rate has decreased.
Figure 2 - Crimes recorded by the police from1990 to 2001: comparison between province of Trento and Italy. (Rate per 100.000 inhabitants)
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Years
Crim
es p
er 1
00,0
00 in
habi
tant
s
Trento
Italia
Source: Transcrime elaborations on Istat data and Mininterno
Figure 3 - Crimes recorded by the police in 2000 and 2001: comparison between province of Trento, neighbouring provinces and Italy. (Rate per 100.000 inhabitants)
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
2.000 2.200 2.400 2.600 2.800 3.000 3.200 3.400 3.600 3.800 4.000
Crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2001
Crim
es p
er 1
00,0
00 in
habi
tant
s in
200
0
Trento
Bolzano
Verona
Vicenza Belluno
Italia
Brescia
Source: Transcrime elaborations on Istat data and Mininterno data
81
Nevertheless, the comparison of the crime rates in Trentino and in
Italy shows that criminality in Trentino is much lower than in Italy (Figure
2 ).
In the year 2001, in Trentino crimes recorded by the police were 2,181
per 100,000 inhabitants, while in Italy it was 3,652. The crime rate in
Trentino is also lower than that of neighbouring provinces (Figure 3 ).
A High Number Of Police Officers
Table 1 - Police officers per Region. Year 1996 (rate per 100.000 residents and variation from 1981)
Regions
Police Officers
per 100,000 residents % variation
(1981-1996)
Trentino-Alto Adige 609.1 1.1
Lombardia 298.2 32.3
Veneto 307.6 30.5
Italy 468.3 38.8
Source: Istat, 2000: 319
Compared to Italy and to neighbouring Regions, Trentino-Alto Adige
(which includes the two Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano) has
the highest ratio of police officers per 100,000 residents. It is more than
twice as much as that of Lombardia, almost twice as much as that of
Veneto, and much greater than the Italian average. But, if in Trentino from
1981 to 1996 the number of police officers per 100.000 residents rose by
1.1 %, in Italy, during the same period, it rose by 38.8%, in Lombardia by
32.2 % and in Veneto by 30.5% (table 1).
82
High Levels Of Personal Safety And Trust In The Police
Findings from the first Italian victimization survey indicate that,
compared to Italy and neighbouring regions, the level of insecurity in
Figure 4 - Feeling of insecurity for Regions years 1997-1998. (Percentage of respondents)
0 10 20 30
Trentino Alto Adige
Bolzano-Bozen
Trento
Lombardia
Veneto
Italia
Source: Transcrime elaborations on Istat data
Figure 5 - Trust in the police for Regions. Years 1997-98. (Percentage of respondents)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Piemonte
Valle D'Aosta
Lombardia
Bolzano
Trento
Veneto
Friuli Venezia G.
Liguria
Emilia Romagna
Toscana
Umbria
Marche
Lazio
Abruzzo
Molise
Campania
Puglia
Basilicata
Calabria
Sicilia
Sardegna
Source: Transcrime elaborations on Istat data
83
Trentino-Alto Adige is the lowest. Specifically, only 16% of residents in
Trentino stated they felt very or quite unsafe (Figure 4). The percentage of
people feeling unsafe is, however, lower in Alto Adige (province of
Bolzano).
Data from the first Italian victimization survey also indicated that in
Trentino the level of trust in the police is the highest in Italy (Figure 5).
3.2 Research Design And Methodology
In accordance with the research hypotheses, this study is correlational:
that is, it examines the extent to which changes in trust in the police are
associated to variations in other variables.
The method used for gathering data was a social survey. Data were
obtained through a telephone survey of residents’ attitudes towards the
police in Trentino. A computer-aided telephone system was used to carry
out the interviews. The survey was designed to examine the attitudes and
the reported behaviour of Trentino residents over the age of 14.
The multiple regression technique was employed to test the research
hypotheses. Two different multiple regression models were used. The first,
(Model A), was applied to the whole sample of the survey; the second
(Model B) was applied to a sub-sample of the survey which only included
respondents who had had face-to-face contact with police officers during
the past year.
A more detailed overview of data collection and sample selection
procedures, data analysis methods and the variables used in the analysis
follows.
84
Survey Of Public Attitudes Towards Police: An Introduction To The
Data Gathering Method
The method used for gathering data was a social survey.
Social surveys are means of primary data gathering which involves
asking a segment of the population about their attitudes or reported
behaviours. They are powerful tools for obtaining quantitative data for both
descriptive and analytic analyses and they are considered to be the best tool
for primary data gathering, when experiments cannot used (Hagan, 1997:
108).
Surveys have been extensively used in criminal justice to assess
several issues, such as victimisation and fear of crime, as well as attitudes
towards police (Hagan, 1997:109-110).
During the last two decades, mainly in United States37 and Great
Britain, politicians, social scientists and police administrators have become
increasingly concerned with the attitudes of citizens towards the police
(Brandl et al., 1997; Hurst and Frank, 2000; Davis, 2000). Therefore, a
supplement of the U.S. National Crime Victimisation Survey makes in
depth studies of police-public contacts and use of force during the contact
(see Langan et al., 2001). In a section of the British Crime Survey, people
are asked about contacts with the police and their assessment of police
performance (see Yeo and Budd, 2000). A section of the Scottish Crime
Survey deals with the public’s view of the police and contact with them (see
Hale and Uglow, 1997). Furthermore, several Governments finance surveys
on police stop and search (see, for example, the Scottish research on police
37 The U.S. Congress, through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 instructed the Attorney General to develop a national system for collecting data on police use of force. This led to a series of government studies designed to obtain information on the prevalence and nature of citizens’ encounters with the police.
85
stop held by Reid Howie Associates Ltd, 2001). Similar surveys are
periodically carried out in Canada, Australia and Netherlands.
Very often surveys of citizens have been incorporated into evaluations
of police strategy (see Collins, 1990). Several U.S. Police Departments
regularly survey citizens’ assessment of police performance, the data from
which are used to evaluate the success of policing programs. Examples are
the Community Assessment Survey of the Portland Police Bureau (see
Campbell De Long Resources Inc., 2000); the surveys of citizens’
perceptions of Chicago’s Alternative Policing Strategy (see Skogan and
Hartnett, 1997); the evaluation of the Dallas Police Department’s
Interactive Community Policing Program (see Mindel et al., 2000)
Surveys on citizens’ attitude towards the police are also used as tool to
democratise policing. According to Davis (2000: 7), one way to assess the
rate of the progress of policing is to conduct surveys that measure citizens’
experiences with the police and their opinion of the police. Ethnic and class
differences with respect to the level of confidence in the police and citizens’
assessment of the use of excessive force by police could serve as parameter
to evaluate whether policing is moving toward a democratic model.
The experience of conducting surveys, mainly in the United States and
Great Britain, showed that surveying public opinion towards the police is
important for at least three reasons. First, because the public is the
consumer of police services, it is vital to obtain their evaluation of the
service provided (see Fustenberg and Wellford, 1973: 393-394). Second,
positive images of the police are necessary for the police to function
effectively. Conversely, negative attitudes towards the police, result in
mutual ill feeling, lack of respect, disorder, and inefficient police
functioning (Cao et al., 1998: 280). Third, the information may yield
important insights not only into how much confidence citizens have in the
police, but also into correlates of their confidence: public opinion of the
86
police is a potential barometer of a culture’s contemporary view of
governmental institutions as a whole (Cao and Hou, 2001).
Although these benefits38 exist, surveys on citizens’ attitudes towards
the police are rare in Italy.
The lack of scientific knowledge of Italian police forces (Palidda,
2000: 17), and the Italian delay in using social surveys in criminal justice
system matters39 were, and still are, obstacles for carrying out social surveys
on citizens’ attitudes towards the police. Therefore there are no national
Italian surveys on public-police contacts, similar to those carried out in
Britain or the USA. Only a few issues regarding police activities and trust
in the police are included in local surveys that have addressed citizen safety
(see Sacchini, 2001: 69-74) or attitudes toward institutions (see La Valle,
2000).
Currently, the Trentino telephone survey on residents’ attitudes
toward the police is the first one to specifically address people’s attitudes
towards the police and contact with them in Italy (see Cornelli, 2002).
How were the data collected and the sample selected for this survey?
Data Collection And Sample Selection
Data for the analyses were obtained by a telephone survey of
residents’ attitudes toward the police in Trentino. This survey was designed
to examine the opinions and the experiences of residents over the age of 14
38 Social surveys is a method of data gathering which may suffer several problems, similar to those found in victim surveys. In particular the risks of false or mistaken reporting, telescoping and interviewer effect are also present in surveys on citizen attitudes towards the police (see Hagan, 1997: 184-189). 39 Although there are some previous studies on victimization, it is argued that the first complete victimization survey is that of 1997/98, held by Istat, the Italian National Institute of Statistics (see Barbagli, 1998)
87
in Trentino. The survey was carried out by Transcrime, Research Centre on
Transnational Crime of the University of Trento (Italy), in cooperation with
the Office of Statistics of the Province of Trento. Interviewing began on 17
April 2002, and was completed on 22 May 2002.
Structured interviews were conducted by administering a
questionnaire40 to a random sample of 1.300 residents over the age of 14.41
A computer-aided telephone system (CATI) was used for interviewing.
The sampling design considered two stages. Respondents were
located, first, by calling a random sample of Trentino residences; second,
by asking to speak to a person in the residence who was 14 years of age or
older. Quotas were established in order to ensure that the sample was
representative by sex and age42.
How were these data analysed to test the research hypotheses?
Method Of Analysis
To test the research hypotheses, this study employed the multiple
regression technique. Multiple regression is considered an important tool
40 The survey questionnaire was designed ad hoc, to test the research hypotheses of this study. It was divided into five separate sections. The first part asked for a variety of sociodemographic information (gender, age, education, job and citizenship of respondents). The second part was designed to illicit information about residents’ experience with the police and residents’ perceptions of police activity. The third part was designed to examine residents’ trust in the police. The fourth part focused on private and local police forces. The final part was designed to obtain information on residents’ feeling of safety, victimization experiences and social cohesion. The survey consisted of 34 questions. 41 The sample selection procedure was held in cooperation with the Statistics Service of the Autonomous Province of Trento. 42 The sample is representative of four age groups: 14-25 years old, 26-45 years old, 46-59 years old, over 60.
88
for social scientists in the analysis of non-experimental data (Hagan, 1997:
140)43.
Multiple regression is helpful in testing statements about a
relationship between a set of independent variables and a dependent
variable. It provides a multiple coefficient regarding the percentage of
variance assocated with the dependent variable explained by independent
variables considered in the model. In testing relationships, multiple
regression requires that the choice of variables included in statistical models
are guided by theoretical considerations (Jiao, 1998a: 169). Previous studies
suggested that two different sets of variables are related to trust in the
police: individual variables, regarding an individual’s subjective
characteristics, and relational variables, regarding the relationship between
public and police activity.
Therefore, multiple regression is used to test the hypothesis that trust
in the police depends more on relational variables than on individual
variables (H1).
Furthermore, multiple regression is also helpful in testing statements
about a single relationship between a single independent variable and a
dependent variable. In fact, multiple regression analysis not only provides a
multiple regression coefficient, but also coefficients that indicate the
relationship between each independent variable and the dependent variable.
A review of previous studies suggests that police officer behaviour
and performance are crucial in determining trust in the police. Therefore,
multiple regression is used to test the other two hypotheses: that trust in the
police depends on how fair and polite police officers are considered to be,
43 As will be seen below, most of the variables used in this study are either ordinal or dichotomous. Ordinal level variables and dichotomous variables can be used in multiple regression, even though the distances between the categories are not exactly equal (Jiao, 1998: 182). For an application of the multiple regression in studying people’ attitudes toward the police see Jiao (1998); Cao et al. (1998); Preist and Carter (1999); Skogan and Hartnett (1997: 208); Hale and Uglow (1997).
89
and that trust in the police depends on how effective police officers are
considered in performing citizens’ expectations.
For these purposes, two different multiple regression models were
used, the first (Model A) was applied to the whole sample of the survey; the
second (Model B) was applied to a sub-sample of the first, which only
included respondents who had had face-to-face contact with police officers.
With the multiple regression model B it is possible to estimate the
predictive power of a set of variables referring to the citizen’s assessment of
the police officers’ behaviour and performance during face-to-face contact.
Furthermore, using two models, on two different sample sizes with a
different number of variables included, avoids the risk of multicorrineality.
In a multiple regression analysis, the estimates of partial scope coefficients
are, by definition, affected by the presence and absence of other variables.
Entering a variable in a multiple regression equation can have a major
effect on the size of regression coefficients. There is multicorrineality when
two or more predictor variables are highly interrelated, so as they should be
considered as one. For this reason, they should be not included together in
the multiple regression equation. According to Jiao (1998a: 182), the
presence of multicorrineality can be detected by observing dramatic
changes in the size of coefficient estimates, when we switch samples,
change the indicators used to measure a variable in the regression model, or
delete or add a variable in the equation. In any case, in our study, no one
independent variable is highly correlated (r > .7) with others, so the risk of
collinearity can be excluded.
Both of the models have the same dependent variable, ‘trust in the
police’. In order to test the first hypothesis, that is trust in the police
depends on relational variables rather than individual variables, both of the
models were tested by two multivariate regression analyses. In the first case
(Model A1; Model B1), the overall effect of both relational variables and
90
individual variables on people’s trust in the police is examined. In the
second case (Model A2; Model B2) only the effect of relational variables is
considered. Comparing the capacity of the models to explain the dependent
variable’s variance in the first case (Model A1; Model B1) with that in the
second case (Model A2; Model B2) allows the independent influence of
relational variables on trust in the police to be estimated.
In order to test the other two hypotheses, that trust depends on how
fair and polite, and how effective in performing citizens’ expectations,
residents consider police officers to be, the effect of each variable on trust
in the police is examined by analysing the significance and value of the
standardised regression coefficients (beta) in each step of the analysis44.
An overview of the dependent and independent variables used in the
analysis follows.
The Dependent Variable
Both models (A and B) have the same dependent variable, trust in the
police45. Trust in the police46 is measured by the item: ‘Overall, are you
satisfied with the police in your neighbourhood?’. Respondents could
44 Standardised coefficients are analysed due to the different scale of the independent variables. In fact, while the "unstandardised" coefficient, b, states the change in Y that is due to a change of one unit of X. standardised coefficients, beta, states the change in Y that is due to a change of one standard deviation of X. 45 In this survey, the term ‘police’ refers to all the three Italian state police forces: Polizia di Stato, Arma dei Carabinieri, and Guardia di Finanza. 46 Literature recognises at least three possible meanings of distrust. The first is a low level or absence of trust. The second is the opposite of trust, that is having anxious or pessimistic views of expected results. The third is a more complex view of distrust under which it is possible to be both trustful and distrustful. In this perspective distrust is a complement to trust: distrust that generates caution and verification (“trust but verify”) can substitute trust or can enhance trust if initial experiences are positive (Hall et al., 2001: 618-619). In this study the first meaning of distrust is used: distrust is simply a low level of trust.
91
choose from 1= very satisfied, 2= quite satisfied, 3= not very satisfied, 4=
not at all satisfied.47
There may be two limitations in the use of this item.
The first is that the dependent variable in the survey was measured in
terms of a single item indicating a global attitude, rather than with a multi
item approach. In fact, like agencies that administer criminal law, the police
also have multiple goals (Whitaker and Phillips, 1983). The roles played by
Police officers in today’s democratic society are extremely important and
complex. Many scholars maintain that the job of law enforcement officers
is no longer limited to just crime fighting: officers have to broaden their
role and focus on the quality of life matters indicated by citizens (Kakar,
1998). Police officers are requested to not only be an investigator and
enforcer but a key-element in the process of spontaneous social control
exercised by the community. A study by the Australiasian Police Research
Institute compared public and police perceptions of the role of the police,
and confirmed that public would prefer the police to place higher priority
on a wide range of tasks. The public felt that the police should take a more
proactive role and place higher priority on community service tasks (Jiao,
1998b: 302; see also Boni and Packer, 1998). Therefore, the tasks of police
officers are not only the traditional ones of crime detection and restoring
order (Bayley, 1994), but also that of preventing crime and reducing
insecurity in a partnership with the community (see also Murphy and
Worral, 1999). The focus on a single item might ignore the fact that police
forces tend to have more than one goal (Wycoff and Manning, 1983: 23).
For these reasons, some studies use two types of satisfaction measures:
specific (satisfaction with a particular police activity), and global
(satisfaction with the police in general).
47 In the multiple regression analysis trust in the police was categorized as follows: 1= high trust in the police; 0 = low trust in the police.
92
The Trentino survey also used four different items to investigate the
level of satisfaction with the police in preventing crime, keeping order,
investigating criminals, and reducing insecurity.48 However, there were no
great differences in levels of satisfaction for each item (included that of
general satisfaction), and the items were highly correlated (see table 2).
Table 2 - Correlations between general and specific ‘satisfaction’ variables
Variables
global trust in the police
trust the police keep order
Trust the police prevent crime
trust the police reduce insecurity
trust the police arrest criminals
global trust in the police
1 0.555 0.540 0.544 0.471
trust the police keep order 0.555 1 0.644 0.626 0.554
trust the police prevent crime 0.540 0.644 1 0.723 0.657
trust the police reduce insecurity 0.544 0.626 0.723 1 0.668
trust the police arrest criminals
0.471 0.554 0.657 0.668 1
All relationships are significant (p<.001)
Other studies stated that global attitude measures have been reported
to be highly correlated with specific attitude measures (see Cao and Hou,
2001: 91). They are also found to be predictive of specific attitude measures
(see Cao et al., 1998: 283). Therefore the item on global attitudes may be
considered a reliable indicator of both general and specific satisfaction with
the police. It is for these reasons that only a single general item indicating a
global attitude toward the police was used in the analysis.
The second limitation may be that the concept of trust is in part
different from that of satisfaction (Hall et al., 2001: 617). Trust is linked to
expectations for the others’ future behaviour, while satisfaction is about the
48 Similar items were used by Skogan and Hartnett (1997: 207).
93
evaluation of others’ current behaviour. Furthermore, trust is considered
more stable, while satisfaction more ephemeral and subject to rapid
revision. Few studies, considering these differences, used an item as ‘How
much confidence do you have in the police?’ (Cao and Hou, 2001).
However, two reasons support the decision to use the item concerning
satisfaction. The first is that it is the most used indicator of citizens’
positive attitudes toward the police in social surveys, and it is normally
referred to either positive attitudes or to trust in the police (see Hale and
Uglow, 1997; Yeo, Budd, 2000; Istat, 1999: 44). Tyler (1990: 45-56) also
used items referring to satisfaction with the police and the courts. in order
to measure people’s opinion of the legitimacy of criminal justice system (a
concept very close to trust in the police).
The second reason is that, although trust and satisfaction may be to
some extent conceptually different, empirical data shows that the level of
positive attitudes toward police are about the same, irrespective of the focus
of the attitude question (people’s satisfaction with the police, people’s
opinion about whether the police do a good job, people’s confidence in the
police, etc.). The research findings of Hurst and Frank (2000: 195), and
Brandl et al. (1997) follow this direction.
The Independent Variables
In accordance with the research hypotheses, independent variables are
classified in two groups: individual variables and relational variables.
Among individual variables, both regression models consider gender,
age, education, victimisation and level of social integration49. All these
49 The sample size and the data collection procedure (telephone interviews) did not allow an adequate investigation of the attitudes of foreign born residents (non-Italian citizens). They are
94
variables are suggested by literature as factors of trust in the police (see
chapter 2).
Age was measured as the respondent’s actual age in years at the time
of the survey. For the analyses, age was categorised as follows: 14-25, 26-
45, 46-59, over 60.
Respondents’ gender was measured using a binary variable where 1 =
male and 0 = female.
Education was assessed with the available data in the survey where 1
= low (did not complete first school level) and 7 = high (graduate degree or
more).
Respondents were asked three questions about criminal victimisation.
The first question is about theft and burglary: ‘During the past three years,
has anyone stolen or attempted to steal something from you or someone in
your family’. The second question is about vandalism: ‘During the past
three years, has anyone deliberately damaged or destroyed your or your
family’s property?’. The third question is about assaults: ‘During the past
three years, has anyone attacked or assaulted you in a very frightening
manner?’. From the responses to these questions, a single ‘criminal
victimisation’ variable was created. If the respondent answered ‘yes’ to at
least one of the three questions, victimization = 1. If the respondent
answered ‘no’ to all the questions, victimization = 0.50
Respondents were asked two sets of items about their level of social
integration. Social integration is an individual variable and corresponds to
social cohesion, that is a community-level variable: the former applies to
only form a small part of the Trentino community and they often do not have a phone. The survey’s results shows that only 11 respondents were from abroad. Therefore, the variable ‘citizenship’, which in the Italian context may be considered as a proxy for race or ethnicity, cannot be included in the analyses. 50 Similar items were used by Hurst and Frank (2000: 194) and by Skogan and Hartnett (1997: 226),
95
individuals, while the last applies to community.51 Social integration is a
construct linked to that of mutual social support, part of that of collective
efficacy52, and overlapping that of social capital53; (see chapter 2); it has
been measured with items generally used to measure these related concepts.
Items refer, in particular, to two dimensions of social integration:
neighbourhood interactions, and involvement in the neighbourhood life.
Therefore the first set of items used is about interaction with
neighbours: ‘How often do you chat with your neighbours?’; ‘How often do
you exchange favours with your neighbours?’; ‘How often do you spend
your free time with your neighbours?’. A single ‘neighbourhood
interaction’ variable was created. If the respondent answered ‘often’ to at
least one of the three questions, interaction with neighbours = 1. If the
respondent answered ‘rarely or never’ to all the questions, interaction with
neighbours = 0.
The second set of items is about involvement in neighbourhood life.
‘Do you regularly go to one of the following places in your neighbourhood?
(There then followed a list of places such as sport associations, non-profit
associations, culture clubs, bars and so on)’. A single variable on
involvement in neighbourhood life was created. If the respondent answered
‘yes’ to at least one of these items, involvement in neighbourhood life = 1.
If the respondent answered ‘no’ to all the questions, involvement in
neighbourhood life = 0.
Among the relational variables, which are variables referring to
respondents’ relationship with police, both regression models consider
51 The distinction between social integration as an individual variable and social cohesion as a community-level variable is important because what it measured in the survey was an individual’s life-style (more or less integrated in the community), rather than a feature of social organization. 52 Sampson and Raudenbush (1999: 603) defined collective efficacy as cohesion among residents combined with shared expectations for social control in public space.
96
items referring to police visibility in the neighbourhood, quality of police
conduct in the neighbourhood, and the effectiveness of police activity in the
neighbourhood. They are all items regarding respondents’ indirect
experience with the police, that is what respondents see or hear about the
police, without focusing on potential face-to-face contact previously
experienced with some police officers.
Police visibility, which according to Skogan and Hartnett (1997: 201)
is the ‘quantity’ of policing activity that people observed around them, was
measured by asking respondents how often they see police officers in their
neighbourhood54. Respondents could choose from 1 = never, 2 = not very
often, 3 = quite often, 4= very often.
Quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood, that is how fair
people perceive police conduct in the neighbourhood to be on the basis of
what they see or hear about other people’s experience with the police, was
measured by asking respondents: ‘In your opinion, how fair are the police
in their relations with residents?’55. Respondents could choose from 1 =
unfair, 2 = not very fair, 3 = quite fair, 4 = very fair.
Effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood, that is how
effective in fulfilling the community’s expectations do people perceive the
police to be on the basis of what they see or hear about other people’s
experience with the police, was measured by asking respondents: ‘In your
opinion, how capable are the police of fulfilling residents’ expectations?’56.
Respondents could choose from 1 = not at all capable, 2 = not very capable,
3 = quite capable, 4 = very capable.
53 The most common definition of social capital regards it as features of social organization, such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995: 67). 54 Similar item was used in the survey on Criminal Victimization and Perceptions of Community Safety in 12 Cities, 1998, held by the U.S. Department of Justice (see Smith et al., 1999: 24). 55 Similar item was used by Stoutland (2001: 237-238). 56 Similar item was used by Stoutland (2001: 233).
97
Besides these variables, regression model A also considered police-
residents contact measures. Respondents were asked a set of questions
about whether during the past year they had experienced face-to-face
contact with a police officers as a result of being stopped while on the street
or driving or riding in a car, being involved in a car accident, asking for
information or help, informing the police about a neighbourhood problem,
informing police about suspect people, having been a victim of crime,
having been involved in a crime event as an offender or witness, talking to
an officer for work, or other reasons.57 For each question, if the respondent
answered ‘yes’, contact = 1 (had a contact); if the respondent answered ‘no’
contact = 0 (no contact).
Regression model B, as mentioned above, was tested on the sub-
sample that only consisted of respondents who had a face-to-face contact
with police officers. Apart from police visibility, quality of police conduct
in the neighbourhood and effectiveness of police activity in the
neighbourhood, model B also considers relational variables regarding the
quality of police officer behaviour and the effectiveness of police officer
performance during the face-to-face contact.
Respondents who had a contact with police officers were asked three
questions about the quality of the police officer’s behaviour. The first, ‘Did
the police officers treat you fairly?’ regards the variable ‘fair treatment’; the
second ‘Did police officers keep you informed or give you useful advice?’
regards the variable ‘polite treatment’.58 For both questions, if the
respondent answered ‘yes’, fair or polite treatment = 1; if the respondent
answered ‘no’, fair or polite treatment = 0. The third question, ‘Did police
57 Similar items were used in the Police Public Contact Survey, supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey 1999, held by U.S. Department of Justice (see Langan et al., 2001) and in the Scottish Crime Surveys (see Hale and Uglow, 1997). 58 Similar items were used by Chandek (1999: 680-681), and in the section of the British Crime Survey referring to public-police contacts (see Yeo and Budd, 2000).
98
officers use physical force against you?’, refers to ‘use of force’ variable.59
If the respondent answered ‘no’, use of force = 1; if the respondent
answered ‘yes’, use of force = 0.60
Respondents who had a contact with police officers were asked three
questions about the effectiveness of the police officer’s performance61. The
first, ‘Were police officers quick in responding?’ refers to the ‘response
time’ variable; the second, ‘Did police officers were capable to solve the
problem?’ refers to ‘capacity of response’ variable; the third ‘Did police
officers do all they could in order to solve the problem?’ refers to ‘efforts in
responding’ variable.62 For each question, if the respondent answered ‘yes’,
response time/capacity of response/efforts in responding = 1; if the
respondent answered ‘no’, response time/capacity of response/efforts in
responding = 0.
Table 3 summarises the variables used in the multivariate analyses
(both Model A and Model B), and how they were measured.
59 Similar item was used in the Police Public Contact Survey, supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey 1999, held by U.S. Department of Justice (see Langan et al., 2001). 60 Considering that only one respondent answered ‘yes’ to this question, the variable ‘use of force’ is not analysed in the multiple regression models. 61 In this study, police are effective during the face-to-face contact when police officer performance meets the respondent’s expectations; that is when respondents positively assess police officer performance. The usefulness of citizens’ opinions to assess police effectiveness is confirmed by several studies: in democratic societies, where police have to achieve multiple goals and traditional measures based on arrests are inadequate, surveying citizens is crucial to assess police performance and to reform police structure and actions (see Gary, 1976; Whitaker and Phillips, 1983; Kakar, 1998; Davis, 2001) It is important to note that, although performance and effectiveness are often considered synonymous, they are actually two separate concepts: As Wycoff and Manning (1983) reported, performance is an execution of work, and effectiveness the outcome of this work. Measuring effectiveness is measuring the output or outcome of an activity or strategies (input), measuring performance is measuring the activity itself. What has been measured in this study is not police performance, but the outcome of police activity, that is whether police achieved the goal of meeting people’s expectations of police activity (effectiveness). An example highlights this distinction: in the case of ‘response time’, measuring police performance based on time of response is measuring how much time police officers take to respond to calls; measuring effectiveness, however, is measuring whether this performance adequately responds to what society expects (goals). This adequacy may be measured objectively (by, for example, the number of criminals caught red-handed) or subjectively (by, for example, citizens’ satisfaction with police response time).
99
Table 3 - Variables used in the multivariate analyses
Variables
Measurement
Dependent variable
trust in the police
‘Overall, are you satisfied with the police in your neighbourhood?’ 1= not at all satisfied; 2= not very satisfied; 3= quite satisfied; 4= very satisfied
Independent variable
Individual variables Gender 1= male; 0= female age 1=14-25; 2= 26-45; 3=46-59; 4= over 60
education From 1 = low (did not completed first school level) to 7= high (graduate degree or more)
victimisation 1= yes (was a victim of crime); 0= no (was not a victim of crime)
neighbourhood interaction 1= yes (has relations with neighbours); 0= no (has no relations with neighbours)
involvement in the neighbourhood life 1= yes (regularly involved in neighbourhood life); 0= no (not involved in neighbourhood life)
Relational variables
police visibility How often do you see police officers in your neighbourhood' 1= never; 2= not very often; 3= quite often; 4= very often
quality of the police conduct in the neighbourhood
How fair and polite are police in their relations with residents?’ 1= unfair; 2= not very fair; 3= quite fair; 4= very fair
effectiveness of the police activity in the neighbourhood
How capable are the police of fulfilling residents’ expectations ?’ 1= not at all capable; 2= not very capable; 3= quite capable; 4= very capable
Only for Model 1 contact: being stopped 1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact) contact: being involved in a car accident 1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact) contact: asking for information or help 1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact) contact: informing the police about a neighbourhood problem 1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact)
contact: informing the police about suspect people 1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact)
contact: having been a victim of crime 1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact) contact: having been involved in a crime event
1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact)
62 Similar items were used in the in the section of the British Crime Survey referring to public-police contacts (see Yeo and Budd, 2000)
100
Table 3 - Variables used in the multivariate analyses – continued
contact: talking to an officer for work reasons 1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact)
contact: other reasons 1= yes (had contact); 0= no (no contact)
Only for Model 2
response time ‘Were police officers quick in responding?’ 1= yes; 0= no
capacity of response ‘Did police officers were capable to solve the problem?’ 1= yes; 0= no
efforts in responding ‘Did police officers do all they could in to solve the problem?’ 1= yes; 0= no
polite treatment ‘Did police officers keep you informed?’ 1= yes; 0= no
fair treatment ‘Did police officers treat you fairly?’ 1= yes; 0= no
use of force ‘Did police officers use physical force against you?’ 1= no; 0= yes
3.3 Findings
Some Preliminary Results
Before discussing the results of the multiple regression analyses the
following tables are presented: a table showing the percentages for the
variables used in multivariate analyses; several tables showing the
percentages for the independent variables with ‘trust in police’. Chi-square
is analysed to gain preliminary information about the significance of the
relationship between each independent variable and trust in the police. The
categories used for the variables correspond to those used in the
multivariate models discussed in the next section, with the exception of the
variables referring to direct contacts. To simplify the presentation of the
101
preliminary results, three variables were created: a ‘contact’ variable, a
‘quality of police officer’s behaviour’ variable, and an ‘effectiveness of the
police officer’s performance’ variable.
In the questions regarding contacts, if the respondent answered ‘yes’
to at least one of the questions, contact = 1 (had a contact); if the respondent
answered ‘no’ to all the questions, contact = 0 (had no contact).
In the questions about quality of police officer’s behaviour during the
face-to-face contact (fair treatment, polite treatment and use of excessive
force), if the respondent answered ‘yes’ to all the questions, quality = 1
(high quality); if the respondents answered ‘no’ to at least one of the three
questions, quality = 0 (low quality).
In the questions about effectiveness of police officer’s performance
during the face-to-face contact (response time, capacity of response, efforts
in responding), if the respondent answered ‘yes’ to all the questions,
effectiveness = 1 (high effectiveness); if the respondents answered ‘no’ to at
least one of the three questions, effectiveness = 0 (low effectiveness).
102
Table 4 - Percentages of the variables used in the multivariate analyses.
Variables Coding scheme
Distribution
%
N
Dependent Variable
trust in the police 1= high 90 1247 0= low 10 Independent variables
gender 1= male 46.3 1300 0= female 53.7
age
1= 14-25 12.6 1300 2= 26-45 35.4 3= 46-59 24.5 4= over 60 27.5
education
1= low 0.1 1297 2 18.7 3 35.3 4 11.3 5 28 6 0.7 7= high 5.9
victimisation 1= yes 16.5 1300 0= no 83.5
neighbourhood interaction 1= yes 76.5 1300 0= no 23.5
involvement in neighbourhood life 1= yes 93.5 1300 0= no 6.5
police visibility
1= never 15.2 1291 2= not very often 43.5 3= quite often 31.5 4= very often 9.8
quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood
1= unfair 33 1175 2= not very fair 60.7 3= quite fair 5.1 4= very fair 1.2
effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood
1= not at all capable 21.7 1214 2= not very capable 63.4 3= quite capable 13.2 4= very capable 1.7
contact: being stopped 1= yes 26.1 1300 0= no 73.8
contact: being involved in a car accident 1= yes 1.5 1300 0= no 98.5
contact: asking for information or help 1= yes 5.3 1300 0= no 94.7
contact: informing the police about a problem 1= yes 3.2 1300 0= no 96.8
contact: informing the police about suspectpeople 1= yes 3.2 1300 0= no 96.8
103
Table 4 - Percentages of the variables used in the multivariate analyses - continued
contact: having been a victim of crime 1= yes 3.5 1300 0= no 96.5
contact: having been involved in a crime event 1= yes 0.5 1300 0= no 99.5
contact: talking to an officer for work reasons 1= yes 6.1 1300 0= no 93.9
contact: other reasons 1= yes 2.5 1300 0= no 97.5
.
response time 1= yes 85.3 191 0= no 14.7
capacity of response 1= yes 81.1 190 0= no 18.9
efforts in responding 1= yes 86.5 193 0= no 13.5
polite treatment 1= yes 73.6 201 0= no 26.4
Fair treatment 1= yes 94.6 203 0= no 5.4
use of force 1= no 99.5 205 0= yes 0.5
The vast majority of the respondents (90%) say that they are satisfied
or very satisfied with the police (see table 4 ).
Face-to-face contact between citizens and the police are rare. About 1
in 3 respondents say they had contact of some kind with the police over the
past 12 years. Why did they have a face-to-face contact? About 1 in 4
repondents has been stopped for document checks by police officers while
they were in a car; about 5% of the respondents asked a police officer for
information; and about 6% of the respondents had contact for work reason.
How have respondents who had a contact evaluated police officer
behaviour and performance? With respect to behaviour, about 3 in 4
repondents say that police officers gave information or useful advice (polite
treatment), and about 95% said that they were failry treated by police
officers. With respect to performance, 85% of the respondents say that
police officers were quick in responding, about 4 in 5 respondents say that
104
police officers were able to solve the problem, and 86% of the respondents
say that police officers did all they could in order to solve the problem.
Although few citizens have face-to-face contact with police officers,
the majority of them (58%) often see police officers in the neighourhood.
On the basis of what they see or hear about somebody else’s experience
with police officers (indirect relationship), respondents were asked to judge
police conduct and activity in the neighbourhood. The vast majority of the
respondents say that police are fair (94%) and able to fulfill citizens’
expectations (85%).
How does the level of trust in the police vary in relation to the
variations of the independent variables?
Table 5 - Trust in the police by age. Percentage.
age
trust in the police
14-25
26-45 46-59 over 60
high
82.2 90.7 90.4 92.4
low
17.8 9.3 9.6 7.6
χ2(DF=3, N=1247)=13,424, p<.05
Table 6 - Trust in the police by gender. Percentage.
gender
trust in the police
male
female
high
90.3 89.7
low
9.7 10.3
χ2(DF=1, N=1247)=0,108, p>.05
105
Table 5 shows that, compared to adults, juveniles (14-25 years) are
somewhat less likely to be satisfied with the police.
The level of trust in the police does not vary significantly in relation to
the difference in gender: the percentage of males who said that are satisfied
with the police is about the same as that of the females (table 6).
Table 7 - Trust in the police by education. Percentage.
education
trust in the police 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
high
100 92.0 89.3 87.1 90.1 88.9 92.0
low
- 8.0 10.7 12.9 9.9 11.1 8.0
χ2(DF=6, N=1244)=3,031, p>.05
The level of trust in the police does not vary in relation to the level of
education.
Table 8 - Trust in the police by victimisation. Percentage.
victimization
trust in the police
yes
no
high
79.2 92.1
low
20.8 7.9
χ2(DF=1, N=1247)=30,989, p<.05
In contrast, residents who had been a victim of crime are less likely
than others to say they are satisfied with the police.
106
Table 9 - Trust in the police by neighbourhood interaction. Percentage.
neighbourhood interaction
trust in the police
yes
no
high
90.9 87.0
low
9.1 13.0
χ2(DF=6, N=1247)=3,680, p>.05
Table 10 - Trust in the police by involvement in neighbourhood life. Percentage.
involvement in neighbourhood
life
trust in the police
yes
no
high
89.8 92.6
low
10.2 7.4
χ2(DF=1, N=1247)=0,658, p>.05
Neither neighbourhood interaction nor involvement in the
neighbourhood life are significantly related to trust in the police. Persons
who are well integrated in the neighbourhood (that is, those who often have
contact with neighbours and are involved in neighbourhood life) and
persons who are not integrated have about the same level of satisfaction
with the police.
107
Table 11 - Trust in the police by police visibility. Percentage.
police visibility
trust in the police
very often
quite often not very often never
high
94.2 94.7 84.5 80.3
low
5.8 5.3 15.5 19.7
χ2(DF=3, N=1239)=42,425, p<.05
Persons who often see police officers in the neighbourhood are more
likely than others to be satisfied with the police.
Table 12 - Trust in the police by quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood. Percentage.
quali ty of the
police conduct in the neighbourhood
trust in the police
very fair
quite fair not very fair unfair
high
97.6 91.8 53.6 -
low
2.4 8.2 46.4 100.0
χ2(DF=3, N=1142)=227,668, p<.05
Residents who perceive that police are fair in their relations with
citizens are more likely to be satisfied with the police than others.
108
Table 13 - Trust in the police by effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood. Percentage.
effectiveness of police activity in
the neighbourhood
trust in the police
very capable
quite capable not very
capable not at all capable
high
98.1 96.7 56.1 9.5
low
1.9 3.3 43.9 90.5
χ2(DF=3, N=1176)=406,887, p<.05
Also residents who perceive that police are able to fulfill citizens
expecations are more likely to be satisfied with the police than others.
Table 14 - Trust in the police by face-to-face contact with the police officers. Percentage.
face-to-face contact
trust in the police
yes
no
high
88.7 90.7
low
11.3 9.3
χ2(DF=1, N=1247)=1,306, p>.05.
The level of trust in the police does not vary in relation to having or
not having had a face-to-face contact with police officers.
109
Table 15 - Trust in the police by quality of police officer’ behaviour during face-to-face contact. Percentage.
quality of the
police officers’ behaviour
trust in the police
high quality
low quality
high
90.4 86.6
low
9.6 13.4
χ2(DF=1, N=441)=1,613, p>.05
Among residents who have had a face-to-face contact with police
officers, those who assess positively the quality of the police officers’
behaviour during the contact are more likely to trust the police than others.
Table 16 - Trust in the police by effectiveness of the police officers’ performance during the face-to-face contact. Percentage.
effectiveness of the
police officers’ performance
trust in the police
high effectiveness
low effectiveness
high
91.5 69.1
low
8.5 30.9
χ2(DF=1, N=441)=23,943, p<.05
Among residents who have had a face-to-face contact with police
officers, those who assess that police officers were effective are more likely
to trust the police than others.
110
What is clear from these tables is that, among the variables that might
affect trust in the police many relational variables and some individual
variables have a significant relationship with trust in the police.
In particular, the tables show that trust in the police varies with age,
victimisation, police visibility, quality of police conduct in the
neighbourhood, effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood and
effectiveness of police officer performance during a face-to-face contact.
But, which of these variables are able to explain (and predict) the
levels of the trust in the police? Are they individual variables, or relational
variables? Which of these two groups have a major predictive power of
trust in the police?
Testing The Research Hypotheses
As mentioned above, in order to test the research hypotheses two
different multiple regression models were used: Model A on the whole
sample of the survey; Model B on a sub-sample of the first, which only
included respondents who had had a face-to-face contact with police
officers. Both models have the same dependent variable, trust in the police.
Among the independent variables, both models consider individual
variables and the relational variables referring to respondents’ indirect
experience with the police: police visibility, quality of police conduct in the
neighbourhood and effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood.
Model A also considers police-residents contact variables, while Model B
also considers variables regarding the quality of police officer behaviour
and effectiveness of the police officer performance during contact. Both
models were tested by two multivariate regression analyses. In the first case
111
(Model A1 e B1) all the independent variables are included. In the second
case (Model A2 e B2) only relational variables are included.
Table 17 - Multivariate regression analysis of trust in the police. Model A1.
Independent variables
B Beta
(Constant) 0.105 gender -0.003 -0.005 age 0.009 0.033 education 0.008 0.037 victimisation -0.084 *** -0.109 neighbourhood interaction 0.003 0.004 involvement in the neighbourhood life -0.024 -0.020 police visibility 0.028 ** 0.082 quality of the police conduct in the neighbourhood 0.073 *** 0.153 effectiveness of the police activity in the neighbourhood 0.151 *** 0.338 contact: being stopped 0.008 0.014 contact: being involved in a car accident -0.102 -0.044 contact: asking for information or help 0.041 0.033 contact: informing the police about a neighbourhood problem -0.052 -0.034 contact: informing the police about suspect people 0.056 0.036 contact: having been a victim of crime -0.011 -0.007 contact: having been involved in a crime event -0.172 -0.045 contact: talking to an officer for work reasons -0.016 -0.014 contact: other reasons -0.037 -0,022
R2 = .244
Adjusted R2 = .232
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
Model A1 explains a quota of the variance associated with the
dependent variable significantly different from zero, that is 24% (R2 = .24).
112
Table 18 - Multivariate regression analysis of trust in the police. Model A2.
Independent variables
B Beta
(Constant) 0.105 police visibility 0.026 ** 0.075 quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood 0.076 *** 0.160 effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood 0.158 *** 0.354 contact: being stopped 0.004 0.007 contact: being involved in a car accident -0.116 -0.050 contact: asking for information or help 0.046 0.037 contact: informing the police about a neighbourhood problem -0.062 -0.040 contact: informing the police about suspect people 0.047 0.031 contact: having been a victim of crime -0.060 -0.039 contact: having been involved in a crime event -0.163 -0.042 contact: talking to an officer for work reasons -0.022 -0.019 contact: other reasons -0.044 -0.026
R2 = .232 Adjusted R2 = .223
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
In the second analysis, individual variables are not included in order to
see if the multiple regression coefficient (R2) for the model, that is the
variance associated with the dependent variable explained by the model,
remains similar to the first analysis. As can be seen in table 18 model A2
explains 23% of the variance associated with trust in the police (R2 = .23).
So, the comparison between multiple regression coefficients (R2) for model
A1 and Model A2 shows that including individual variables in the model
explaining trust in the police does not increase the quota of variance
explained by only relational variables in a relevant way.
113
Among the individual variables, considered in the first analysis, only
victimisation is a predictor that is significantly related to trust in the police
(p<.001), with a negative value of beta (beta = - .1). Therefore, having been
a victim of crime decreases trust the police.
Among the relational variables, the following are significant
predictors of trust in the police: police visibility (p<.01), quality of police
conduct in the neighbourhood (p<.001), effectiveness of police activity in
the neighbourhood (p<.001). Police visibility has a very low capacity of
predicting trust in the police in both of the analyses (in Model A1, beta =
.08; in Model A2, beta = .07).
No contact measure is statistically significant in predicting trust in the
police. These variables remain non significant also in the second analysis.
Table 19 - Multivariate regression analysis of trust in the police. Model A including only ‘quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood’ and ‘effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood’.
Independent variables
B Beta
(Constant) 0.155 *** quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood 0.078 *** 0.162 effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood 0.163 *** 0.365
R2 = .217 Adjusted R2 = .215 * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
The results indicate, instead, that respondents’ perceptions concerning
the fairness of police conduct in the neighbourhood (in Model A1, beta =
.15; in model A2, beta = .16) and the effectiveness of police activity in
fulfilling the community’s expectations (in Model A1, beta = .33; in Model
114
A2, beta = .35) have a stronger effect on their feeling of trust in the police.
As can be seen in table 19, only these two variables explains 22% of the
variance associated with trust in the police (R2 = .22).
Changing the sample does not change the results in a relevant manner:
similar results emerge from the analyses of the sub-sample which only
included respondents who had had a face-to-face contact with police
officers (Model B).
Table 20 - Multivariate regression analysis of trust in the police. Model B1.
Independent variables
B Beta
(Constant) -0.127 gender -0.021 -0.032 age -0.056 * -0.148 education -0.003 -0.013 victimisation -0.055 -0.082 neighbourhood interaction -0.001 -0.001 involvement in neighbourhood life -0.056 -0.014 police visibility 0.047 0.109 quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood 0.116 ** 0.219 effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood 0.142 *** 0.301 response time 0.222 ** 0.237 capacity of response -0.033 -0.040 efforts in responding 0.104 0.106 polite treatment 0.033 0.044 fair treatment 0.008 0.005
R2 = .451 Adjusted R2 = .395 * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
115
Model B1 explains 45% of the variance associated with the dependent
variable (R2 = .45).
Table 21 - Multivariate regression analysis of trust in the police. Model B2.
Independent variables
B Beta
(Constant) -0.308 police visibility 0.047 0.109 quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood 0.097 * 0.183 effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood 0.136 *** 0.289 response time 0.234 *** 0.249 capacity of response -0.002 -0.003 efforts in responding 0.116 0.119 polite treatment 0.018 0.023 fair treatment 0.007 0.005
R2 = .426 Adjusted R2 = .392 * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
In the second analysis (model B2), individual variables are not
included: the variance associated with the dependent variable explained by
the model remains similar to the first analysis. In fact, as can be seen in
table 21, model B2 explains 43% of the variance associated with trust in the
police (R2 = .43). Therefore, also in Model B, the comparison between
multiple regression coefficients (R2) for the first analysis (Model B1) and
the second analysis (Model B2) shows that including individual variables in
the model explaining trust in the police does not increase the quota of
variance explained by the relational variables in any significant way.
116
Among the individual variables considered in the first analysis, age is
the only significant predictor related to trust in the police (p<.05), with a
negative value of beta (beta = - .14). Therefore, the younger you are, the
more likely you are to distrust the police.
As in Model A the relational variables that remain significant
predictors of trust in the police are: quality of police conduct in the
neighbourhood (p<.01), effectiveness of police activity in the
neighbourhood (p<.001). The ‘response time’ variable is also a significant
predictor of trust in the police (p.<01).
These results confirmed that the respondents’ perceptions about the
fairness of police conduct in the neighbourhood (in Model B1, beta = .22;
in Model B2, beta = .18) and about effectiveness of police activity in
fulfilling the community’s expectations (in Model B1, beta = .30; in Model
B2, beta = .29) have a greater effect on their feeling of trust in the police.
These results also indicate that the respondents’ assessment of the police
officers rapidity in responding to calls influences trust in the police (in
model B1, beta = .24; in model B2, beta = .25).
To which variables are these three main predictors related? This
question allows an evaluation as to whether these predictors are affected in
turn by individual variables or relational variables. In facts, the results of
the multiple regression analyses does not supply any statement concerning
the causal connections between the independent variables included in the
regression equations. It may be the case that, while the relational variables
are the major causative factor for trust in the police, they are strongly
influenced by individual variables, so therefore the importance of relational
variables in predicting trust in the police would be in some way reduced.
Analysis of the correlation (r of Pearson) of each of these three
variables with the other independent variables used in previous regression
models shows that:
117
- ‘quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood’ is positively related
(r>.20; p<.05) to the following variables: ‘effectiveness of police activity in
fulfilling the community’s expectations’ (r = .47); ‘polite treatment’ (r =
.28); ‘efforts in responding’ (r = .24); ‘response time’ (r = .20).
- ‘effectiveness of police activity in fulfilling the community’s
expectations’, besides ‘quality of police conduct in the neighbourhood’, is
positively related (r >20; p<.05) to: ‘efforts in responding’ (r = .28); ‘polite
treatment’ (r = .25); ‘response time’ (r = .22); ‘capacity of response’ (r =
.20).
- ‘response time’, besides ‘effectiveness of police activity in fulfilling
the community’s expectations’ and ‘quality of police conduct in the
neighbourhood’, is positively related (r>.20; p<.05) to: ‘efforts in
responding’ (r = .52); ‘capacity of response’ (r = .33); ‘polite treatment’ (r
= .27); ‘fair treatment’ (r = .22).
Therefore, the three most important predictors of trust in the police are
only significantly related to relational variables. Although some individual
variables are significant (p<.05), the value of the correlation coefficient, in
each case, is much too low (r < .2).
Neither contact measures nor police visibility are significantly related
to the three predictors. Among the relational variables, only those referring
to quality and effectiveness of police work, in direct or indirect experiences,
are significant. In fact, respondents’ perceptions regarding the fairness of
police conduct in the neighbourhood, their perception regarding the
effectiveness of police activity in fulfilling the community’s expectations
and their assessment of police officers’ rapidity in responding to calls for
help are related to each other. Furthermore, they are influenced by
respondents’ assessment of whether police officers did all that they could in
order to solve the problem, if they were quick in responding to the call for
help and if they were polite. Respondents’ perception regarding the
118
effectiveness of police activity is also influenced by whether police officers
were able to deal with the problem, while respondents’ assessment of police
officers rapidity of response is also influenced by whether police officers
were fair or not.
Summary Of The Findings
Two-way tables showing the percentage of trust in the police for each
of the independent variables indicated that almost all the relational
variables, and some of the individual variables have a significant
relationship with trust in the police.
But which of these two groups of variables – individual or relational -
have a major predictive power of trust in the police?
The results of the multiple regression analyses demonstrated that
relational variables are able to explain a significant quota of the variance
associated with trust in the police, while individual variables explain a
negligible quota. In fact, in both of the models, the variance associated with
the dependent variables explained by the model remains similar,
notwithstanding the inclusion or exclusion of individual variables.
Considering the single variables, although victimisation (in Model A)
and age (in Model B) are found to be significant predictors of trust in the
police, the standardised regression coefficients (beta) indicated that ‘police
conduct in the neighbourhood’, ‘police effectiveness in fulfilling
community expectations’ and ‘response time in face-to-face contact’ are the
three major predictors of trust in the police. Therefore, the more people
perceive the police to be fair and polite in their relations with residents, the
more people perceive the police able to fulfil community’s expectations,
119
and the more people who call the police consider they were quick in
responding, the higher is their level of trust in the police.
Analysis of the correlation of each of these three variables with the
other independent variables used in the regression model showed that only
the relational variables referring to quality and effectiveness of police work,
in direct or indirect experiences, are significantly related to the three
predictors of trust in the police.
The Figure 6 summarises these results. Only the three major
predictors of trust in the police and only significant correlations (p<.5; r
>.2) are considered.
The implications of these findings will be discussed in the next
chapter.
120
Beta= .15 (Model A1) Beta= .22 (Model B1)
Beta= .33 (Model A1) Beta= .30 (Model B1)
Beta= .24 (Model B1)
r= .20
r= .22
r= .47
r= .24
r= .28
r= .28
r= .25
r= .20
r= .27 r= .52
r= .33
r= .22
Figure 6 - Summary of the findings
QUALITY OF THE POLICE
CONDUCT IN THE
NEIGHBOURHOOD
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
POLICE ACTIVITY IN
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
RESPONSE TIME
TRUST IN THE POLICE
EFFORTS IN RESPONDING
POLITE TREATMENT
CAPACITY OF RESPONSE
FAIR TREATMENT
121
123
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this thesis was to investigate why people trust the
police, in order to know ‘if’ and ‘how’ police’ work may influence people’s
trust in the police. This issue has several implications in terms of the
appropriateness and effectiveness of recent policing strategies focused on
increasing people’s trust in the police.
In extant literature on trust and trust in the police two perspectives
contrast: in the first, people trust the police because they have a subjective
inclination to do so; in the second, people trust the police because they
perceive the police’s work positively. These two perspectives address the
issue of why people trust the police in different ways. On one hand, trust is
viewed as the product of variables regarding the subjective characteristics
of people (individual variables); on the other, trust is viewed as the product
of variables regarding people’s relationship with the police (relational
variables).
Studies specifically dealing with trust in the police do not tell us
which perspective is empirically supported. They are rare and often the
conditions under which trust in the police is produced are only partially
124
analysed. Therefore, empirical-driven studies have produced contradictory
research findings: trust in the police is found to be related to both individual
and relational variables.
However, studies comparing the effect of different sets of variables on
the levels of trust in the police suggest that relational variables may have a
greater explanatory power regarding trust in the police in comparison to
individual variables. In particular, among the relational variables, variables
regarding police fairness and capacity to fulfil people’s expectations are
suggested be highly significant (see chapter 2).
From these suggestions, this thesis has formulated three research
hypotheses: trust in the police depends more on relational variables than on
individual variables (H1); trust in the police depends on how fair and polite
police officers are perceived to be (H2); trust in the police depends on how
effective in performing citizens’ expectations police officers are perceived
to be (H3).
The hypotheses were tested by using data from a survey on residents’
attitudes toward the police held in Trentino, a Northern Italian province.
The results of the multiple regression analyses have shown that the
relational variables considered in the survey are able to explain a significant
quota of the variance associated with trust in the police, while individual
variables a negligible quota. The results also showed that the three major
predictors of respondents’ trust in the police are: the respondents’
perception of police’s capacity to fulfil citizens’ expectations, the
respondents’ perception of police fairness in relations with citizens, and the
respondents’ assessment of the police response time to calls for help.
What do these findings mean with respect to the research hypotheses?
What implications do they have?
125
4.1 Residents Trust The Police Because They Evaluate Positively What The Police Do
Empirical Support For All Three Research Hypotheses
The results of the Trentino study indicate that the police’s work
matters: people trust the police because they evaluate that police conduct is
fair and the police activity is in line with people’s expectations. All three
research hypotheses are supported.
In respect to the first hypothesis, although some scholars suggest that
people trust the police because they have a particular ‘position in social
space’ (being male or female, being younger or older, having a high level of
education or not, being rich or poor, having a proactive life-style or not,
living in urban or rural areas, and so on) which induce them to do so
(general inclination), findings from the Trentino study indicate, instead, that
they trust mainly because they focus on the inputs provided by the police.
The Trentino study disagrees with the perspective according to which
people trust the police regardless of how patrol officers behave.
In respect to the second and the third hypotheses, although some
authors and several policy makers suggest that trust in the police depends
on the ‘quantity’ of police in the neighbourhood (that is people trust the
police because they often see police in the neighbourhood and because they
have frequent contact with them), findings from the Trentino study indicate,
instead, that it depends on the ‘quality’ and the ‘effectiveness’ of the
police’s work. ‘Quality’ has been defined as ‘fairness and politeness of
police officer conduct’, while ‘effectiveness’ has been defined as ‘police
capacity to fulfil citizens’ expectations’. Therefore, on one hand, people
trust the police because they perceive police officers to be fair in their
126
relations with residents (H1), on the other, people trust the police because
they perceive police officers as able to fulfil residents’ expectations, and
quick in responding to calls (H2).
Residents Trust The Police On The Basis Of What They See Or Hear About The Police’s Work
The Trentino study considered two different sets of items for
measuring both police quality and police effectiveness. The first items refer
to respondents’ indirect experience with the police, that is what respondents
see or hear about the police’s work in the neighbourhood. The second items
refer to respondents’ direct experience with the police, that is how
respondents, who had recently experienced a face-to-face contact with a
police officer, assess the police officer’s behaviour and performance.
The findings of the Trentino study indicate that residents trust the
police on the basis of what they see or hear about police’s work, rather than
on the basis of what they have directly experienced. In fact, both of the
variables focused on indirect experience (‘quality of police conduct in the
neighbourhood’, ‘effectiveness of police activity in the neighbourhood’) are
found to be significant predictors of trust in the police, while among the
variables focused on the assessment of police officer behaviour and
performance during face-to-face contacts, only ‘response time’ is found to
be a significant predictor of trust in the police.
However, variables focused on the assessment of police officer
behaviour and performance during face-to-face contacts (such as the
respondent’s assessment of the police officer’s capacity of response to calls,
of efforts made by the police officer in responding, of polite and fair police
officer behaviour) are indirectly relevant. In fact, while they are not found
127
to be predictors of trust in the police, they are significantly related to
variables referring to indirect experiences with the police. Thus, although it
needs to be kept in mind that ‘correlation is not causation’, it seems,
however, that respondents evaluate the fairness of police conduct and
effectiveness of police activity not only on the basis of what they see or
hear about someone else’s experience with the police, but also, at least in
part, on the basis of what they have directly experienced.
4.2 Limitations Of The Study
Before possible implications of these findings are discussed, it is
important to note a few limitations of this study. These limitations induce
one to be cautious when discussing implications.
First, this study only examined attitudes of people living in Trentino, a
Northern Italian Province. Compared to the other Italian regions, Trentino
is the area with the highest level of trust in the police, one of the lowest
crime rates, a low level of insecurity and with a high ratio of police officers
per resident (see chapter 3). Findings from the Trentino study may be
influenced by some of these characteristics, therefore the results may be
different in areas with a high crime rate, low ratio of police officers per
resident, where residents have a low level of trust in the police or a high
level of insecurity. Consequently, broad inferences should be drawn with
caution.
Secondly, this study examined people’s attitudes only towards Italian
state police forces, that is the Polizia di Stato, Arma dei Carabinieri and
Guardia di Finanza. Actually, in Italy, local police forces (Polizia
128
Municipale) also have functions in providing security. So, the results may
differ if people’s attitudes towards the local police were also considered, or
as an alternative.
Thirdly, this study only examined attitudes, that is the opinions and
reported behaviour, of respondents. All the independent variables are
measured on what residents in Trentino think or report. The results may be
different by also considering, or alternatively, variables measured at
neighbourhood-level, such as rate of employment, level of social cohesion,
ratio of police officers, presence of police stations, and so on (see, for
example, Dunham and Alpert, 1988). The relational variables, regarding the
relationship between citizens and police are analysed from the subjective
point of view of citizens. In particular variables regarding police fairness
and effectiveness are measured by how respondents perceive or assess
them.
Fourthly, since the variables used in this study were adapted mainly
from English-speaking research focusing on local policing agencies, it is
possible that some important variables were inadvertently omitted. Race
(or, rather for Italy, the difference between Italians and non-Italians) was
not included in the analyses because of the sample selection procedure,
based on telephone numbers. Italy is a country that has only recently been
affected by immigration from abroad. Therefore, most immigrants are still
not well settled in Italy, they often do not have a fixed residence, and,
therefore, they often do not have a telephone. In the Trentino survey, only
11 respondents of 1300 were non-Italians. Other individual variables, not
included in the Trentino survey, might be, theoretically, predictors of trust
in the police, such as political orientation and sense of satisfaction with
own’s life (see Cao et al., 1998).
In conclusion, another limitation regards the results of the multivariate
analyses: both of the regression models only explain a part (never more
129
than 45%) of the variance of trust in the police. There is a need to increase
the explicative capacity of the models by adding other variables.
Keeping in mind these limitations, the findings from the Trentino
study indicate a strong tendency to consider the police’s work, and in
particular how people perceive the ‘quality’ of police conduct and
‘effectiveness’ of police activity, crucial in determining trust in the police.
What implications do these results have?
4.3 Implications And Directions For Future Research
Although what people perceive may not correspond to what police
actually do, the results of the Trentino study, however, seem to support the
belief that the police’s work influence people’s trust.63 Therefore, the main
implications of the findings of the Trentino study regard the behavioural
style of police officers in the neighbourhood, that is whether they are fair
with citizens and effective in their work, and the structure of the police, that
is whether the police’s organization and culture make it easy for police
63 The Trentino study measured the police’s fairness and effectiveness subjectively, by surveying how respondents perceive or assess them, rather than objectively, by directly observing how police act in the neighbourhood. Therefore, further studies on trust in the police should analyse not only the influence on trust in the police of the image that people have of the police, but also the influence of the police’s work itself. But, in any case, even if there was not a perfect correspondence between what people perceive and what police do, at least in part people’s perception is influenced by what police actually do. Studies on perception of a different topic, risk, confirmed this perspective. Even if they indicate that when persons make estimates of risk they do not merely calculate on the basis of statistical information, thus risk perception is different from risk itself, they also recognised that the knowledge about the characteristics of the risk is a crucial factor in determining the type of perception (for a brief review of the research on risk perception see Boholm, 1998; Renn, 1998). Similar results are suggested by social psychologists: although perceptions and facts are two different things, the characteristics of facts influence how people perceive them. Therefore, although the Trentino study surveyed how respondents perceive or assess the police’s work, their results, however, seem to give some support for believing that the police’s work itself may influence people’s trust.
130
officers to behave fairly and effectively. These implications open other
paths for research on trust in the police.
The Need To Study Which Police Officer Behavioural Styles Increase People’s Trust In The Police.
The fairer and more effective police officers are, the more people trust
them. This, keeping in mind the limitations discussed above, seems to be
the major implication of the results of the Trentino study. Therefore,
different behavioural styles of police officers when patrolling the
neighbourhood and handling contacts with citizens may produce different
levels of trust in the police.
Different police officer behavioural styles have been studied in
research, conducted mainly in the U.S.A. and Australia, addressing the
problems of the excessive use of force by the police and civilian complaints
against the police (see, for example, Terril and McCluskey, 2002; Wilson et
al., 1994; Wilson and Braithwhite, 1996; Cooper, 1997). In order to build
effective policing strategies, future research, also in Italy, should study why
police officers behave in different ways under different circumstances, and
the influence of these behavioural styles on people’s trust in the police.
The Need To Study Which Policing Models Increase People’s Trust In The Police
According to the Lundman theory on police misconduct (see Cao et
al., 2000), named the ‘organizational product thesis’, it could be that police
officer behaviours are partially the result of the specific organizational
model adopted by the police. Police officer behaviour might reflect the
131
police culture existing in a particular police organization. Building upon the
previous works of Bittner, Reiss, Sherman, Lundman argues that police
misconduct is organizational deviance when actions violate external
expectations for what the department should do. Simultaneously, the actions
must conform with internal operating norms, and supported by
socialization, peers, and the administrative personnel of the department.
Therefore, police-officer behaviour may not only be a problem regarding
individuals in the police, but mainly a problem regarding the police’s
structure, that includes law aspects, general organizational aspects and
organizational climate aspects in each department. Therefore, what needs to
be controlled is not each individual officer’s behaviour, but the
organizational climate. The importance of organizational aspects on a single
police officer’s behaviour has been pointed out by other scholars (see Boni
and Wilson, 1994). Grennan (1999), for example, states that the presence of
women officers on the force may act to reduce the likelihood of violence in
police-citizen encounters. Fyfe (2000), Dunham and Alpert (1988) suggests
that pre-service psychological examination, competent training officer
programs and supervision of officer behaviour decrease the likelihood of
police use of excessive force. More recently, Cao et al., in a study
comparing the rate of citizen complaints against the police in different U.S.
departments, provides some support for the Lundman theory: there is
evidence that both organizational characteristics and organizational
behaviour are important in predicting the complaint rate (Cao et al., 2000).
Therefore, not only different police officer behavioural styles, but also
different policing models (regarding law aspects, organizational aspects,
and climate aspects) may have a different influence on the levels of
people’s trust in the police.
Scholars have identified and compared different policing models (see,
for example ‘policing styles’ in Della Porta and Reiter, 1998: 3-5; Smith
132
and Klein, 1983: 66-69; Jiao, 1998b) In order to build effective policing
strategies, future studies should analyse the influence of these models on
people’s trust in the police.
The Need To Study More Specifically Why People Distrust The Police
The Trentino study also suggested that distrusting the police might be
an important social function. Trust in the police depends on how fair and
effective police work is in the neighbourhood. These features of the police’s
work (fair conduct and effective activity) are widely recognised as elements
of democratic policing strategies (see Bayley, 2001). Therefore, on one
hand, a low level of trust in the police may be considered to be an indicator
of a low level of democracy in policing; on the other, knowing why people
(and specific groups of people, such as juveniles, immigrants, victims of
crime) distrust the police may provide important cues in order to build
democratic policing strategies. Indeed, the Trentino study has considered
only why people trust the police, and not why people distrust them. In the
Trentino study ‘distrust’ is simply a low level of trust. Extant literature,
however, recognised at least three possible meanings of distrust. The first is
a low level or absence of trust. The second is the opposite of trust, that is
having anxious or pessimistic views of expected results. The third is a more
complex view of distrust under which it is possible to be both trustful and
distrustful. In this last perspective distrust is a complement to trust: distrust
that generates caution and verification (“trust but verify”) can substitute
trust or can enhance trust if initial experiences are positive (Hall et al.,
2001: 618-619). Future studies should focus more specifically on distrust
not only as the absence of trust, but also as a feeling that is opposite or
133
complementary to trust. This may provide cues in order to develop
democratic policing strategies.
Other Directions For Future Research
Besides those discussed above, other directions for future research
arise from the limitations of the Trentino study.
Because the research hypotheses were tested only by data from a
survey held in Trentino, they need to be tested in other contexts with
features (for instance, crime rate, level of insecurity, social cohesion, etc.)
that differ from those of Trentino. Studies should also be comparative.
Therefore, because the variables included in the multiple regression
models explained only a part of the variance associated to trust in the
police, future studies should focus on improving the explanation capacity of
the models by adding other independent theoretically relevant variables. In
particular, because all the independent variables are measured only on what
residents in Trentino think or report, without considering variables
regarding the social structure of the neighbourhood, future studies should
also analyse the effect of variables measured at a neighbourhood-level, such
as the rate of employment, level of social cohesion, ratio of police officers,
crime rate and presence of police stations.
134
4.4 Conclusions
This thesis began by noting that the police, facing a crisis in public
security and the new trends in policing, risk losing their legitimacy. It also
noted that police are reacting to this crisis situation by developing
strategies, around the idea of Community Policing and Police de Proximité,
aimed at increasing people’s trust in them. The most important initiative
that has been taken is to increase the number of police officers in the
neighbourhood. Although the call for developing and sustaining these
strategies has been loud, it has been recognised that we need to know ‘if’
and ‘how’ police’ work may affect people’s trust in the police.
This thesis tackled this issue in two steps: by reviewing extant
literature on trust and trust in the police in order to understand why people
trust the police, and by analysing original data from a survey of residents’
attitudes towards police in an Italian province. The review of literature
showed that there is no consensus on why people trust the police. The
Trentino study, however, gave support to the perspective that argues that
people trust the police because they focus on what police do, rather than
because they have a subjective inclination to do so. If police officers are fair
in their relations with citizens and effective in performing the duties citizens
expect of them, people are more likely to trust the police. Thus, the
Trentino study indicates that the police’s work may play a crucial role in
determining people’s trust in the police. Furthermore, it indicates that, in
order to increase trust in the police there is no use in increasing police
visibility in the neighbourhood or the frequency of police-citizen contacts;
instead it is necessary to concentrate efforts on considerably improving the
way in which police act in their day-to-day relationships with citizens.
135
Therefore, the main implications of the results of the Trentino study
regard the behavioural styles of police officers in the neighbourhood and
the structure of the police. Trust in the police depends on how fair and
effective police officers are. Different behavioural styles of police officers
and different policing models may have a different effect on police fairness
and effectiveness, and, therefore, on trust in the police. Studying which
styles and models may increase police fairness and effectiveness may be
useful to build effective policing strategies.
In conclusion the Trentino study highlights that distrusting the police
migh have an important social function. In fact, trust in the police depends
on how fairly and effectively police work in the neighbourhood. These
features of police work (fairness and effectiveness in fulfil citizens’
expectations) are widely recognised as elements of democratic policing
strategies. Therefore, on one hand, a high level of distrust in the police may
be an indicator of a low democracy level in policing; on the other knowing
why people (and specific groups of people, such as juveniles, immigrants
and victims of crime) distrust the police may provide important cues in
order to build democratic policing strategies.
136
137
REFERENCES
Arcuri A., 1981, “The Police And The Elderly”, in Lester D. (edited by),
The Elderly Victim Of Crime, Charles C. Thomas Publishers, Springfield, 106-
128, cit. in Cheurprakobkit S., 2000, “Police-Citizen Contact And Police
Performance. Attitudinal Differences Between Hispanics And Non-Hispanics”,
Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 28, 325-336.
Bahn C., 1974, “The Reassurance Factor In Police Patrol”, Criminology,
Vol. 12, No 3, 338-345.
Baker M.H., Nienstedt B.C., Everett R.S., McCleary R., 1983, “The Impact
Of A Crime Wave: Perceptions, Fear, And Confidence In The Police”, Law and
Society Review, Vol. 17, No 2, 319-336.
Barbagli M., 2002, “La Paura Della Criminalità”, in Barbagli M., Gatti U.
(edited by), La Criminalità In Italia, Società Editrice Il Mulino, Bologna, 205-
212.
138
Bayley D.H., 2001, Democratizing The Police Abroad: What To Do And
How To Do It, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Washington DC.
Bayley D.H., 1998a, “Policing In America: Assessment And Prospects”,
Ideas In American Policing, Police Foundation, February 1998.
Bayley D.H., 1998b, What Works In Policing, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Bayley D.H., 1994, Police For The Future, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Bayley D.H., Mendelson H., 1969, Minorities And The Police, Free Press,
New York, cit. in Ostrom E., 1983, “Equity In Police Services”, in Whitaker G.P.,
Phillips C.D. (edited by), Evaluating Performance Of Criminal Justice Agencies,
Sage, Beverly Hills, 111.
Bayley D.H., Shearing C.D., 2001, The New Structure Of Policing:
Description, Conceptualization, And Research Agenda, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington D.C.
Bertozzi V., Novello N., Covi L., Frisanco M., 2001, Rapporto Sulla
Situazione Economica E Sociale Del Trentino, Provincia Autonoma di Trento–
Servizio Statistica, Trento.
Beyer L.R., 1990, “The Logic And The Possibilities Of Wholistic
Community Policing”, paper presented at the Conference on The Police And The
Community In The Era 1990s, Canberra, 23-25 October 1990.
139
Bittner E., 1967, “The Police On Skid-Row: A Study Of Peace Keeping”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, No 5, 699-715, reprinted in Reiner R.
(edited by), 1996, Policing, The International Library of Criminology, Criminal
Justice & Penology, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, 383-
399.
Boholm A., 1998, “Comparative Studies On Risk Perception: A Review Of
Twenty Years Of Research”, Journal Of Risk Research, Vol. 1, No 2, 135-163.
Bond C.E., Gow D.J., 1997, “Policing The Beat: The Experience In
Toowoomba, Queensland”, in Homel R. (edited by), Policing For Prevention:
Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication And Injury, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol.
7, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York, U.S.A..
Boni N., Wilson C., 1995, Perceptions Of Police And Policing: A Review Of
Public And Police Surveys, Australasian Center For Policing Research (National
Police Research Unit), Report Series No 126, Payneham (Sa).
Boni N., Packer J., 1998, The Police Role Survey: A Tool Form Comparing
Public And Police Percpetions Of The Police Role, Australasian Center For
Policing Research (National Police Research Unit), Report Series No 126.1,
Payneham (Sa).
Borooah V.K., Carcach C.A., 1997, “Crime And Fear. Evidence From
Australia”, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 37, No 4, 635-657.
Box S., Hale C., Andrews G., 1988, “Explaining Fear Of Crime”, The
British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 28, No. 3, 340-356.
Brandl S., Frank J., Wooldredge J., Watkins R.C., 1997, “On The
Measurement Of Public Support For The Police: A Research Note”, Policing. An
140
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 20, No 3, 473-
480.
Brockner J., Siegel P., 1996, “Understanding The Interaction Between
Procedural And Distributive Justice“,in Kramer R.M., Tyler T.R. (edited by),
Trust In Organizations. Frontiers Of Theory And Research, Sage Publications,
Thousands Oaks, 390-413.
Bruggeman W., 2001, “International Law Enforcement Co-operation: A
Critical Assessment”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, No 9,
283-290.
Campbell De Long Resources Inc., 2000, Community Assessment Survey,
City of Portland Bureau of Police, Portland.
Cao L., Deng X., Barton S., 2000, “A Test Of Lundman’s Organizational
Product Thesis With Data On Citizen Complaints”, Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, 356-373.
Cao L., Hou C., 2001, “A Comparison Of Confidence In The Police In
China And In The United States”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29, 87-99.
Cao L., Stack S., Sun Y., 1998, “Public Attitudes Toward The Police: A
Comparative Study Between Japan And America”, Journal of Criminal Justice,
Vol. 26, No. 4, 279-289.
Carter D.L., 1985, “Hispanic Perception Of Police Performance: An
Empirical Assessment”, Journal Of Criminal Justice System, Vol. 13, n. 6.
141
Chandek M. S., 1999, “Race, Expectations And Evaluations Of Police
Performance. An Empirical Assessment”, Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, 675-695.
Cheurprakobkit S., 2000, “Police-Citizen Contact And Police Performance.
Attitudinal Differences Between Hispanics And Non-Hispanics”, Journal of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 28, 325-336.
Coleman J.S., 1990, Foundations Of Social Theory, Belknap Press, Harvard.
Collins D., 1990, “Community Response And Fear Of Crime Implications
For Community Policing”, paper presented at the conference on The Police And
The Community In The Era 1990s, Canberra, 23-25 October 1990.
Community Policing Consortium, 1994, Understanding Community
Policing. A Framework For Action, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC.
Cooper C., 1997, “Patrol Police Officer Conflicy Resolution Processes”,
Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 25, No 2, 87-101.
Cornelli R., 2002, “L’atteggiamento Dei Trentini Verso Le Forze
Dell’ordine”, in Savona E.U. (edited by), Quarto Rapporto Sulla Sicurezza Nel
Trentino 2002, Giunta della Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Trento, in press.
Cornelli R., Castellan S., 2001, “La Percezione D’Insicurezza: Le
Preoccupazioni Dei Trentini”, in Savona E.U., Bianchi F. (edited by), Terzo
Rapporto Sulla Sicurezza Nel Trentino 2000/2001, Giunta della Provincia
Autonoma di Trento, Trento.
142
Correia M.E., Reisig M.D., Lovrich N.P., 1996, “Public Perceptions Of
State Police: An Analysis Of Individual-Level And Contextual Variables”,
Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, No. 1, 17-28.
Coupe T., Griffiths M., 1999, “The Influence Of Police Actions On Victim
Satisfaction In Burglary Investigations”, International Journal of the Sociology of
Law, Vol. 27, 413-431.
Cumming E., Cumming I., Edell L., 1965, “Policeman As Philosopher,
Guide And Friend”, Social Problem, 12, 276-286, reprinted in Reiner R. (edited
by), 1996, Policing, The International Library of Criminology, Criminal Justice &
Penology, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, 139-150.
Dasgupta P., 1988, “Trust As Commodity”, in Gambetta D. (edited by),
Trust: Making And Breaking Cooperative Relations, Blackwell, New York, 49-
71.
Davis R. C., 2000, The Use Of Citizen Surveys As A Tool For Police
Reform, Vera Institute of Justice, Washington D.C.
Dean D., 1980, “Citizen Ratings Of The Police: The Difference Police
Contact Makes”, Law and Policy Quarterly, 2, 445-471.
Della Porta, D. Reiter H., 1998, Policing Protest. The Control Of Mass
Demonstration In Western Democracies, University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.
Davis R.C, Mateu-Gelarbert P., 1999, Respectful And Effective Policing:
Two Examples In The South Bronx, Vera Institute of Justice, New York.
143
Diani M., “Associations Do Matter: An Empirical Assessment Of The
Social Capital-Trust-Voluntary Action Link”, in Prakash S. and Selle P. (edited
by), Investigating Social Capital, Kluver, Norwell.
Dibben M.R., 2000, Exploring Interpersonal Trust in the Entrepreneurial
Venture, MacMillian, London.
Ditton J., 1999, “Attitudes Towards Crime, Victimisation And Th Police In
Scotland: A Comparison Of White And Ethnic Minority Views”, Crime and
Criminal Justice Research Findings, No. 28.
Dunham R.G., Alpert G.P., 1988, “Neighborhood Differences In Attitudes
Toward Policing: Evidence For A Mixed-Strategy Model Of Policing In A Multi-
Ethnic Setting”, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 79, No 2, 504-
523.
Finn P., 2001, Citizen Review Of Police, U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, Washington DC.
Fishman G., Mesch G.S., 1996, “Fear Of Crime In Israel: A
Multidimensional Approach”, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 77, No 1, 76-89.
Fukuyama F., 1995, Fiducia (orig. Trust), Rizzoli, Milano
Fustenberg F.F., Wellford C.F., 1973, “Calling The Police: The Evaluation
Of Police Service”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 7, No 3, 393-406.
Gambetta D., 1988, Trust: Making And Breaking Cooperative Relations,
Blackwell, New York.
144
Garofalo J., 1981, “The Fear Of Crime: Causes And Consequences”, The
Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology, Vol. 77, No 2, 839-857.
Gatti U., Tremblay R., 2000, “La Comunità Civica Come Fattore Di
Contenimento Dei Reato Violenti. Uno Studio Criminologico Sulle Regioni E Le
Provincie Italiane”, Polis, No 2, 279-300.
Giddens A., 1990, The Consequences Of Modernity, Polity Press,
Cambridge,.
Giordano P.C., “The Sense Of Injustice. An Analysis Of Juveniles’
Reactions To The Justice System”, Criminology, Vol. 14, No 1, 93-109.
Goldstein H., 1979, “Improving Policing: A Problem Oriented Approach”,
Crime And Delinquency, 25, 236-258, reprinted in Reiner R. (edited by), 1996,
Policing, The International Library of Criminology, Criminal Justice & Penology,
Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, 183-206.
Griffiths C.T., Winfree L.T., 1982, “Attitudes Toward The Police: A
Comparison Of Canadian And American Adolescents”, International Journal
Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 2, 127-141, cit. in Hurst Y. G., Frank
J., 2000, “How Kids View Cops. The Nature Of Juvenile Attitudes Toward The
Police”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 28, 193.
Guynes R., McEwen T., 1998, “Regression Analysis To Local Correctional
Systems”, in Dantzker M.L., Lurigio A.J., Seng M.J., Sinacore J.M. (edited by),
Practical Applications For Criminal Justice Statistics, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Boston, 149-168.
Hagan F.E., 1997, Research Methods In Criminal Justice And Criminology,
4th edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
145
Hale D.C., 1983, Quality Of Life, Fear Of Crime, And Implications Of Foot
Patrol Policing, Ph.D. Dissertation, Mighigan State University.
Hale C., 1996, “Fear of Crime: A Review of the Literature” International
Review of Victimology, 4, 79-150.
Hale C., Uglow S., 1997, “The Police And Public In Scotland: An Analysis
Of Data From The British And Scottish Crime Survey 1982-1996”, Crime and
Criminal Justice Research Findings No. 33, Scottish Executive Central Research
Unit, Edinburg.
Hall M. A., Dugan E., Zheng B., Mishra A. K., 2001, “Trust In Physicians
And Medical Institutions: What Is It, Can Be Measured, And Does It Matter?”,
The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 4, 613-639.
Halpern D., 2001, “Moral Values, Social Trust And Inequality”, British
Journal of Criminology, 41, 236-251.
Hayes D., Lofthouse M., 1997, “Postmodern Police Training”, Security
Journal, 9, 159-161.
Herbert S., 1999, “The End Of The Territorially-Sovereign State? The Case
Of Crime Control In The United States”, Political Geography, Vol. 18, 149-172.
Hessing R.H., 1997, “The Practice Of Community Policing In The
Rotterdam-Rijnmond Region”, in Hoogenboom A.B., Meiboom M.J., Schoneveld
D.C.M., Stoop J.W.M. (edited by), Policing The Future, Kluwer Law
International, The Hague, 47-55.
146
Hickman M.J., Reaves B.A., 2001, Community Policing In Local Police
Departments. Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Washington DC.
Hollis M., 1998, Trust Within Reason, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Holmes M.D., 2000, “Minority Threat And Police Brutality: Determinants
Of Civil Rights Criminal Complaints In U.S. Municipalities”, Criminology, Vol.
38, No 2, 343-359.
Hope T., Karstedt S., Farral S., 2002, “Tolerance of Disorder and the
Invocation of Police Authority: Community Efficacy and Social Capital”, paper
presented at the 2002 British Society of Criminology Conference, Keele, July 17-
20, 2002.
Hough M., 1987, “Thinking About Effectiveness”, British Journal of
Criminology, Vol. 27, No 1, 70-81, reprinted in Reiner R. (edited by), Policing,
The International Library of Criminology, Criminal Justice & Penology,
Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, 289-300.
Hurst Y. G., Frank J., 2000, “How Kids View Cops. The Nature Of Juvenile
Attitudes Toward The Police”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 28, 189-202.
Istat, 1999, “La Sicurezza Dei Cittadini. Reati, Vittime, Percezione Della
Sicurezza e Sistemi Di Protezione”, Informazioni, No 26.
Istat, 2000, Rapporto Annuale. La Situazione Nel Paese 2000, Istituto
Nazionale di Statistica, Roma.
147
Jacob H., 1971, “Black And White Perceptions Of Justice In The City”, Law
and Society Review, Vol. 6, No 1, 69-90.
Jalava J., 2001, “Trust Or Confidence? Comparing Luhmann’s And
Giddens’s Views Of Trust”, paper presented at the 5th Conference of the European
Sociological Association on Visions And Divisions, August 28 – September 1,
2001, Helsinki, Finland.
Jiao A.Y., 1998a, “Community Policing In The Eye Of The Beholdre:
Perceptions Of The Community-Oriented Model”, in Dantzker M.L., Lurigio A.J.,
Seng M.J., Sinacore J.M. (edited by), Practical Applications For Criminal Justice
Statistics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 169-193.
Jiao A.Y., 1998b, “Matching Police-Community Expectations: A Method of
Determining Policing Models”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 26, No 4, 291-
306.
Johnston L., 1996, “What is vigilantism?”, British Journal of Criminology,
Vol. 36, No 2, 220-236.
Kakar S., “Self Evaluation Of Police Performances”, Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 21, No 4, 1998.
Kelling G.L., 1978, “Police Field Services And Crime: The Presumed
Effects Of A Capacity”, Crime and Delinquency, 2, 173-184, reprinted in Reiner
R. (edited by), 1996, Policing, The International Library of Criminology,
Criminal Justice & Penology, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,
Aldershot, 267-278.
Kelling G.L., Pate T., Dieckman D., Brown C.E., 1974, The Kansas City
Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report, Police Foundation,
148
Whashington D.C., reprinted in Bayley D.H. (edited by), 1998, What Works In
Policing, Oxford University Press, New York, 31-50.
Kessler D.A., 1999, “The Effects of Community Policing on Complaints
Against Officers”, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 15, No 3, 333-372.
King W.R., 2000, “Measuring Police Innovation: Issues and Measurement”,
Policing. An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 23,
No 3, 303-317.
Kydd A., 2000, “Overcoming Mistust”, Rationality and Society, Vol. 12, No
4, 397-424.
Krahn H., Kennedy L. W., 1985, “Production Personal Safety: The Effects
Of Crime Rates, Police Force Size, And Fear Of Crime”, Criminology, Vol. 23,
No. 4, 697-710.
Kumar K.S., 1998, “International Police Cooperation – Obstacles”, Security
Journal, 11, 155-158.
La Free, 1998, Losing Legitimacy: Street Crime And The Decline Of Social
Institutions In America, Westview Press, Boulder, cit. in Gatti U., Tremblay R.,
2000, “La Comunità Civica Come Fattore Di Contenimento Dei Reato Violenti.
Uno Studio Criminologico Sulle Regioni E Le Provincie Italiane”, Polis, No 2,
281.
La Valle, 2000, “La Fiducia Nelle Istituzioni”, in Essere Giovani, Oggi.
Quinto Rapporto IARD Sulla Condizione Giovanile In Italia, IARD, Milano.
149
Lagranhe R.L., Ferraro K.F., 1989, “Assessing Age And Gender
Differences In Perceived Risk And Fear Of Crime”, Criminology, Vol. 27, No 4,
697-718.
Lane R., “Urban Police And Crime In Nineteenth-Century America”, in
Tonry M., Morris N. (edited by), “Modern Policing”, Crime and Justice, Vol. 15,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1-50.
Langan P.A., Greenfeld L.A., Smith S.K., Durose M.R., Levin D.J., 2001,
Contacts Between Police And The Public: Findings From The 1999 National
Survey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington.
Leiber L.G., Nalla M.K., Farnworth M., 1998, “Explaining Juveniles’
Attitudes Toward The Police, Justice Quarterly, cit. in Hurst Y. G., Frank J.,
2000, “How Kids View Cops. The Nature Of Juvenile Attitudes Toward The
Police”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 28, 190.
Lewicki R.J., Bunker B.B., 1996, “Developing And Maintaining Trust In
Work Relationship”, in Kramer R.M., Tyler T.R. (edited by), Trust In
Organizations. Frontiers Of Theory And Research, Sage Publications, Thousands
Oaks, 114-139.
Lianos M., Douglas M., 2000, “Dangerization And The End Of Deviance”,
British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 40, 261-278.
Liou K.T., Savage E.G., 1996, “Citizen Perception of Community Policing
Impact”, Public Administration Review, available on the web-site :
www.hbg.psu.edu/Faculty/jxr11/liou1.html
Loader I., 2000, “Plural Policing And Democratic Governance”, Social &
Legal Studies, 9, 3, 323-345.
150
Loftin C., McDowall D., 1982, “The Police, Crime, and Economic Theory:
An assessment”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 47, 393-401, reprinted in
Bayley D.H. (edited by), 1998, What Works In Policing, Oxford University Press,
New York, 10-25.
Luhmann N., 2000, “Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems And
Alternatives”, in Gambetta D. (edited by), Trust: Making And Breaking
Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of
Oxford, Chpater 6, 94-107, available on the web-site:
www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/luhmann94-107.pdf
Luhmann N., 1991, Soziologie des Risikos, Berlin / New York: De Gruyter
(Italian version: Luhmann N 1996, Sociologia del rischio, Milano, Bruno
Mondadori).
Luhmann N., 1979, Trust And Power, Chichester, Wiley.
Lundman .J., 1980, Police And Policing. An Introduction, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York, cit. in Cao L., Deng X., Barton S., 2000, “A Test Of
Lundman’s Organizational Product Thesis With Data On Citizen Complaints”,
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 23,
No. 3, 360.
Lynes D.A., 1996, “Cultural Diversity And Social Order”, Journal of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, No 6, 491-502.
Marenin O., 1982, “Parking Tickets And Class Repression: The Concept Of
Policing In Critical Thoeries Of Criminal Justice”, Contemporary Crises, 6, 241-
266, reprinted in Reiner R. (edited by), 1996, Policing, The International Library
151
of Criminology, Criminal Justice & Penology, Dartmouth Publishing Company
Limited, Aldershot, 207-232.
Marx G.T., 1976, “Alternative Measures Of Police Performance”, in E.
Viano (edited by), Research In Criminal Justice, available on the web-site :
www.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/alt.html
Mastrofski S.D., 1999, “ Policing For People”, Ideas in American Policing,
Police Foundation, March 1999.
Mastrofski S.D., 1983, “The Police And Noncrime Services”, in Whitaker
G.P., Phillips C.D. (edited by), Evaluating Performance Of Criminal Justice
Agencies, Sage, London.
Mindel C., Dangel R.F., Carson W., Mays M.L., 2000, An Evaluation Of
The Dallas Police Departments Interactive Community Policing Program 1995-
1999: Final Report, Center for Research, Evaluation And Technology, University
of Texas at Arlington, Arlington.
Ministero dell’Interno, 2001, Rapporto Del Ministero Dell’interno Sullo
Stato Della Sicurezza In Italia (Roma, 9 Febbraio 2001), Società Editrice Il
Mulino, Bologna.
Misztal B.A., 1996, Trust In Modern Societies, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Möllering G., 2001, “The Nature Of Trust: From Georg Simmel To A
Theory Of Expectation, Interpretation And Suspension”, Sociology, Vol. 35, No 2,
403-420.
152
Monkkonen E.H., 1992, “History Of Urban Police”, in Tonry M., Morris N.
(edited by), “Modern Policing”, Crime and Justice, Vol. 15, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 547-580.
Morenoff J.D., Sampson R.J., Raudenbush S.W., 2001, Neighborhood
Inequality, Collective Efficacy, And The Spatial Dynamics Of Urban Violence,
Report No. 00-451, Population Studies Center at the Institute of Social Research,
University of Michigan.
Murphy D. W., Worral J. L., 1999, “Residency Requirements And Public
Perceptions Of The Police In Large Municipalities”, Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, 327-342.
Murthy K., Roebuck J., Smith J., 1990, “The Image Of The Police In Black
Atlanta Communities”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17, 4, 250-
257.
National Institute of Justice, 1999, Excellence in Problem-Oriented
Policing, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
National Institute of Justice, 2000, Excellence in Problem-Oriented
Policing, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
Normandeau A., 2000, “Community policing In Canada: An Evaluation For
Montreal”, paper presented at the 2000 American Society of Criminology
Conference 2000, Los Angeles, November 14-18, 2000.
Novak N.J., Frank J., Smith B.W., Engel R.S., 2002, “Revisiting The
Decision To Arrest: Comparing Beat And Community Officers”, Crime And
Delinquency, Vol. 48, n. 1.
153
Nuttall C., Goldblatt P., Lewis C., 1999, Reducing Offending: An
Assessment Of Research Evidence On Ways Of Dealing With Offending
Behaviour, Home Office Research Study 187, Home Office, London.
Ostrom E., 1983, “Equity In Police Services”, in Whitaker G.P., Phillips
C.D. (a cura di), Evaluating Performance Of Criminal Justice Agencies, Sage,
Beverly Hills, 99-125.
Palidda S., 2000, Polizia Postmoderna. Etnografia Del Nuovo Controllo
Sociale, Feltrinelli, Milano.
Payne D.M., Trojanowicz, 1985, Performance Profiles Of Foot Versus
Motor Officers, The National Center for Community Policing, Michigan State
University.
Pavarini M., 1994, “Bisogni Di Sicurezza E Questione Criminale”,
Rassegna Italiana di Criminologia, Vol. 4, 435-462.
Percy S., 1980, “Response Time And Citizen Evaluation Of Police”,
Journal Of Police Science And Administration, Vol. 8, No 1, 75-86, reprinted in
Bayley D.H. (edited by), 1998, What Works In Policing, Oxford University Press,
New York, 51-70.
Pino N.W., 2001, “Community Policing And Social Capital”, Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 24, No 2, 200-
215.
Police Foundation, 1980, The Newak Foot Patrol Experiment, Whashington
D.C., synthesis available on the web-site :
www.policefoundation.org/docs/newark.html
154
Preist T.B., Carter D.B., 1999, “Evaluations Of Police Performance In An
African American Sample”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 27, No. 5, 457-465.
Punch M., Naylor T., 1973, “The Police: A Social Service”, New Society,
17, 358-361, reprinted in Reiner R. (edited by), 1996, Policing, The International
Library of Criminology, Criminal Justice & Penology, Dartmouth Publishing
Company Limited, Aldershot, 151-154.
Putnam R.D., 2000, Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American
Community, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Putnam R.D., Leonardi R., Nanetti R., 1992, Making Democracy Work:
Civic Traditions In Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Quinney R., 1979, Criminology, Little Brown and Company, Boston, cit. in
M.J. Lynch, “Percezione del reato da parte del pubblico”, in F. Ferracuti (edited
by), 1991, Trattato di criminologia, medicina criminologica e psichiatria forense,
Vol. IV, Giuffrè Editore, Milano, 208.
Recasens I Brunet A., 2000, “Policing The New Europe”, in Council of
Europe (edited by), Crime and Criminal Justice in Europe, Council of Europe
Publishing, Strasbourg.
Reid Howie Associates Ltd, 2001, Police Stop And Search Among White
And Minority Ethnic Young People In Scotland, Crime and Criminal Justice
Research Findings No. 28, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Edinburg.
Reiner R., 1997, “Policing And The Police”, in Maguire M., Morgan R.,
Reiner R. (edited by), The Oxford Hanbook Of Criminology, Second Edition,
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
155
Reiner R., 1996, “Introduction. Cops, Crime And Control: Analysing The
Police Function”, in Reiner R. (edited by), Policing, The International Library of
Criminology, Criminal Justice & Penology, Dartmouth Publishing Company
Limited, Aldershot.
Reiner R., 1992, “Police Research In United Kingdom: A Critical Review”,
in Tonry M., Morris N. (edited by), “Modern Policing”, Crime and Justice, Vol.
15, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 435-508.
Reisig M.D., Chandek M. S., 2001, “The Effects Of Expectancy
Disconfirmation On Outcome Satisfaction In Police-Citizen Encounters”,
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 24,
No. 1, 88-99.
Reiss A.J., 1992, “Police Organization In The Twentieth Centuries”, in
Tonry M., Morris N. (edited by), “Modern Policing”, Crime and Justice, Vol. 15,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 51-98.
Renn O., 1998, “Three Decades Of Risk Research. Accomplishments And
New Challenges”, Journal of risk research, 1 (1), 49-71.
Robinson C.D., Scaglion R., 1987, “The Origin And Evolution Of The
Police Function In Society: Notes Toward A Theory”, Law and Society Review,
21, 109-153, reprinted in Reiner R. (edited by), 1996, Policing, The International
Library of Criminology, Criminal Justice & Penology, Dartmouth Publishing
Company Limited, Aldershot, 3-48.
Roniger L., 1992, La Fiducia Nelle Società Moderne. Un Approccio
Comparativo, Rubbettino Editore, Messina.
156
Sacchini G., 2001, “Le Opinioni Dei Cittadini”, Quaderni di Città Sicure,
No 22, Regione Emilia-Romagna.
Sampson R.J., Raudenbush S.W., 1999, “Systamatic Social Observation Of
Public Spaces: A New Look At Disorder In Urban Neighborhoods”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105, No 3, 603-51.
Sampson R.J., Raudenbush S.W., 2001, “Disorder In Urban Neighborhoods.
Does It Lead To Crime?”, Research In Brief, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice.
Scaglion R., Condon R.G., “Determinants Of Attitudes Toward City
Police”, Criminology, Vol. 17, No 4, 485-494.
Scott M.S., 2000, Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections On The First 20
Years, US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, Washington DC.
Seligman A.B., 1997, The Problem of Trust, Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
Shapland J., Vagg J., 1987, “Using The Police”, British Journal of
Criminology, 27, 54-63, reprinted in Reiner R. (edited by), 1996, Policing, The
International Library of Criminology, Criminal Justice & Penology, Dartmouth
Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, 233-242.
Shearing C.D., 1992, “The Relation Between Public And Private Policing”,
in Tonry M., Morris N. (edited by), “Modern Policing”, Crime and Justice, Vol.
15, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 547-580.
157
Sherman L.W., 1998a, “American Policing”, in Tonry M. (edited by), The
Handbook Of Crime & Punishment, Oxford University Press, New York, 429-
456.
Sherman L.W., 1998b, “Policing For Crime Prevention”, in Sherman L.W.,
Gottfredson D., MacKenzie D., Eck J., Reuter P., Bushway S. (edited by),
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Sherman L.W., 1995, “The Police”, in Wilson J.Q., Petersilia J., (edited by),
Crime, Institute of Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco.
Sherman L.W., Berk R.A., 1984, “The Specific Deterrent Effects Of Arrest
For Domestic Assault”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 28, No 2, reprinted in
Bayley D.H. (edited by), 1998, What Works In Policing, Oxford University Press,
New York, 227-245.
Shoham E., 2000, “The Battered Wife’s Perception Of The Characteristics
Of Her Encounter With The Police”, International Journal Of Offender Therapy
And Comparative Criminology, Vol. 44, 242-257.
Simmel G., 1950, The Sociologie Of Georg Simmel, trans. and ed. by K.H.
Wolff, Free Press, New York.
Simmel G., 1971, Georg Simmel On Individuality And Social Forms, edited
by Levine D.N., Chicago University Press, Chicago, cit. in Misztal B.A., 1996,
Trust In Modern Societies, Polity Press, Cambridge, 49-54.
Simmel, 1978, The philosophy of money, Routledge, London.
158
Smith P.E., Hawkins R.O., 1973, “Victimization, Types Of Citizen-Police
Contacts, And Attitudes Toward The Police”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 8, No
1, 135-152.
Smith D.A., Klein J.R., 1983, “Police Agency Characteristics And Arrest
Decisions“,in Whitaker G.P., Phillips C.D. (a cura di), Evaluating Performance
Of Criminal Justice Agencies, Sage, Beverly Hills, 63-97.
Smith S.K., Steadman G.W., Minton T.D., Towsend M., 1999, Criminal
Victimization And Perceptions Of Community Safety In 12 Cities, 1998, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington.
Skogan W. G., 1996, Evaluating Problem Solving Policing: The Chicago
Experience, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston.
Skogan W. G., 1995, Community Participation And Community Policing,
Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston.
Skogan W.G., Hartnett S.M., 1997, Community Policing. Chicago Style,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Skogan W.G., Hartnett S.M., Dubois J., Comey J.T., Kaise M., Lovig J.H.,
2000, Problem Solving In Practice: Implementing Community Policing In
Chicago, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute Of Justice, Washington
DC.
Stockdale J.E., Whitehead C.M.E., Gresham P.J., 1999, “Applying
Economic Evaluation To Policing Activity”, Police Research Series, Home
Office, London.
159
Stoutland S., 2001, “The Multiple Dimensions Of Trust In Resident/Police
Relations In Boston”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 38, No
3, 226-256.
Sutka S., 1997, “The Community Police Model In Hajdù Bihar County”, in
Hoogenboom A.B., Meiboom M.J., Schoneveld D.C.M., Stoop J.W.M. (edited
by), Policing The Future, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 57-67.
Taylor R.B., 1999, “Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline: A Longitudinal
Look”, Research In Brief, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of
Justice.
Taylor R.B., Hale M., 1986, “Testing Alternative Models Of Fear Of
Crime”, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 77, No 1, 151-189.
Taylor T.J., Turner K.B., Esbensen F., Winfree L.T., 2001, “Coppin An
Attitude. Attitudinal Differences Among Juveniles Toward Police”, Journal Of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 29.
Terril W., McCluskey J., 2002, “Citizen Complaints And Problem Officers.
Examining Officer Behaviour”, Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 143-155.
Tyler T., 1990, Why People Obey The Law, Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Tonry M., Petersilia J., 1999, “Prisons Research At The Beginning Of The
21st Century”, Prisons. Crime and Justice: A Review Of Research, Vol. 26,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Torres S., Vogel R. E., 2001, “Pre And Post-Test Differences Between
Vietnamese And Latino Residents Involved In A Community Policing
160
Experiment. Reducing Fear Of Crime And Improving Attitudes Towards The
Police”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,
Vol. 24, No. 1, 40-55.
Trojanowicz R.C., Banas W.D., 1985, The Impact Of Foot Patrol On Black
And White Perceptions Of Policing, The National Center For Community
Policing, Michigan State University, available on the web-site :
www.cj.msu.edu/people/cp/impact.html
Trojanowicz R.C., Harden A.H., 1985, The Status of Contemporary
Community Policing Programs, The National Center For Community Policing,
Michigan State University, available on the web-site :
www.ssc.msu.edu/~cj/cp/status.html
Tulloch J., 1998, Fear Of Crime. Introduction, Commonwealth of australia,
Canberra.
Vourc’h C., Marcus M., 1996, Police Forces In Europe & Urban Safety,
Security & Democracy, European Forum for Urban Security, Saint Denis.
Wachholz S., Miedema B., 2000, “Risk, Fear, Harm: Immigrant Women’s
Perceptions Of The «Policing Solution» To Woman Abuse”, Crime, Law & Social
Change, Vol. 34, 301-317.
Warr M., 2000, “Fear of Crime in the United States: Avenues for Research
and Policy”, Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, U.S. Department of
Justice, Vol. 4, 451-489.
Wells C.V., Kipnis D., 2001, “Trust, Dependency, And Control In The
Contemporary Organization”, Journal of Business and Psycology, 15, 4, 593-
7603.
161
Weisburd & Greenspan, 1997, Preventing Crime And Increasing Justice
Through Policing, Police Foundation, Washington D.C.
Whitaker G.P., Phillips C.D., 1983 (edited by), Evaluating Performance Of
Criminal Justice Agencies. Introduction, Sage, London, 15-31.
White M.D., 2001, “Controlling Police Decisions To Use Deadly Force:
Reexamining The Importance Of Administrative Policy”, Crime and
Delinquancy, Vol. 47, No 1, 131-151.
Wirths C., 1958, “The Development Of Attitudes Toward Law
Enforcement”, Police, 3, 50-52, cit. in Correia M. E., Reisig M. D., Lovrich N. P.,
1996, “Public Perceptions Of State Police: An Analysis Of Individual-Level And
Contextual Variables”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, No. 1, 18.
Wilcox Rountree P., 1998, “A Reexamination Of The Crime-Fear Linkage”,
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,Vol. 35, No 3.
Williams F.P., McShane M.D., Akers R.L, 2000, “Worry About
Victimization: An Alternative And Reliable Measure For Fear Of Crime”,
Western Criminology Review, 2.
Wilson C., Braithwaite H., 1996, Police Officer Behaviour During
Interactions, Australasian Center For Policing Research, National Police Research
Unit, Report Series No 117.3, Payneham (Sa).
Wilson C., Gross P., Beck K., 1996, Managing The Risk Of Patrol,
Australasian Center For Policing Research, National Police Research Unit, Report
Series No 117.2, Payneham (Sa).
162
Wilson J.Q., Kelling G.L., 1982, “Broken Windows: The Police And
Neighbourhood Safety”, The Atlantic Monthly, 243, 29-36, reprinted in Reiner R.
(edited by), 1996, Policing, The International Library of Criminology, Criminal
Justice & Penology, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, 279-
288.
Wycoff M.A., Manning P.K., 1983, “The Police and Crime Control”, in
Whitaker G.P., Phillips C.D. (edited by), Evaluating Performance Of Criminal
Justice Agencies, Sage, London, 15-31.
Yeo H., Budd T., 2000, Policing And The Public: Findings From The 1998
British Crime Survey, Home Office Research, Research Findings No 113,
London, Home Office.
Zhao J., Lovrich N.P., Robinson T.H., 2001, “Community Policing. Is It
Changing The Basic Function Of Policing? Findings Form A Longitudinal Study
Of 200+ Municipal Police Agencies”, Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 365-377.
163
APPENDIX SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
