drug corruption in undercover agents: measuring the risk

Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 9,361-370 (1991)

Drug Corruption in Undercover Agents: Measuring the Risk Michel Girodo, Ph.D.

Drug corruption is more likely among law enforcement officers who use undercover investigative methods. Cur- rent views of police corruption attribute drug corruption either to flaws in character or to the corrupting criminal environment where investigations are carried out. This article presents a pragmatic approach to the interaction between personality and situational causes, and findings from an assessment of a large group of undercover agents. Greater druglalcohol abuse and disciplinary problems were linked to amount of undercover work. For the majority of agents, the risk for drug corruption was related to either poor impulse control, Neuroticism, or a desire to experiment with new experiences. Agents assessed as having a Disciplined Self-Image presented a lower risk for drug corruption while also showing risk taking and motivational qualities required for successful undercover performances. Certain personality traits of interest may only manifest themselves as disciplined or undisciplined conduct when given the opportunity by an instigating environment.

Virtue has no greater ally Than the lack of opportunity (Anon.)

The increase in trafficking of illegal drugs in North America has resulted in an expansion of law enforcement efforts for fighting crime connected with drugs. These events, however, have also heralded an increase in the risk of drug corruption among the very people entrusted to investigate these offenses. What enforcement activities are associated with drug corruption? What kind of person is prone to corruption in these situations? Answers to these questions may emerge by bringing together knowledge of police work and personality traits into a framework which should promise both a better understanding of the causes of drug corruption and practical methods for its reduction.

INTRODUCTION

The heightened emphasis on drug enforcement has been accompanied by a note- worthy expansion in the undercover operation as a method of investigation. Whether

* Requests for reprints should be sent to h4ichel Girodo, Ph.D., School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5.

0735-393619 11030361-10$05.00 0 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

362 M.Girodo

examined in terms of annual dollar appropriations, number of investigations, or number of persons using this technique (cf., Marx, 1988, pp 4-15), undercover investigations have shown a remarkable increase in popularity over the past 15 years. Today, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glenco, Georgia provides intensive training in undercover methods to federal agents in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Internal Revenue Service, and many other Federal services. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Customs Service conduct their own specialized undercover training.

Undercover techniques require unusual talent for misrepresentation of identity and motives, courage to face targets in their criminal milieu, and considerable risk of physical harm, psychological stress, and corruption. In an FBI survey of its own undercover agents (US Department of Justice, 1978), long term undercover projects were found to be associated with a gradual erosion of the agent’s value system, increased sympathy with the criminal elements, and a questioning of the necessity of certain laws. Elsewhere, Farkas (1986) surveyed 82 current and former Honolulu undercover officers and found police corruption associated with the friendshipAoyalty which developed with the criminal group, with drug abuse prior to working undercover, and characterized by actual criminal activity while working undercover. And, recently, Mam (1 988), has reported on a wide range of unintended behavioral, antisocial, and criminal consequences associated with the use of these methods.

Although drug use is forbidden for police, it is not uncommon among undercover investigators. This presents a unique aspect of corruption with legal, medical, and ethical overtones. Only under a threat to life can drug use by police not prejudice a case or lead to departmental censure. The criminal community is increasingly aware of police regulations and undercover tactics for simulating and avoiding drug participation. Criminals know to test the veracity of a proffered (false) identity by gauging the reaction to an invitation for drug use. In response, some police intent on making a case, and with the knowledge they may be tested this way, dispense with an attempted dissimulation and pre-empt the targets tactic and gain credibility by being the ones to initiate and use drugs. Given the wide availability and accessibi- lity of illicit drugs in the criminal environment, if an officer is not responsive to opportunities for trying drugs even “experimentally’’, commendations and other rewards for making more or bigger cases are always incentives to do so.

TRADITIONAL POLICE VIEWS OF CORRUPTION

When an officer is found to be corrupt, traditional explanations for this conduct generally follow one of two views. The “rotten apple” theory, on the one hand, accounts for police misconduct by attributing it to a defect in character. The “rotten barrel” theory, on the other, holds the environment largely responsible for misbeha- vior. This environment includes contact with older, disgruntled, deprecating, and cynical role models in the police department who provide socializing experiences that erode the ideals and values inculcated in training.

Each point of view is illustrated by two incidents of large scale police corruption. In the Miami River Cops scandal, over 80 police officers were charged and convicted of various criminal offenses ranging from murder, robbery, extortion, and other

Corruption in undercover agents 363

crimes related to drug investigations. The causes of this extensive criminal behavior were linked to the revelation that the majority of officers involved in corruption joined the police around the same time the department experienced a large increase in manpower. Hiring practices did not encourage a close examination of applicants, but favored a response to immediate needs regarding under-represented groups in the force. The failure to use proper screening methods and information from background checks allowed the entry of applicants with a previous criminal record, a history of drug abuse and, it is presumed, with character traits like those typically found in “bad apples”.

A study of police corruption in New York City 20 years ago, whether examined from the official point of view of the Knapp Commission Inquiry Report (1973), or the popularized equivalents, Prince of the City (Daley, 1981), and more recently, Cop Hunter (Murano, 1990), testifies to the aptness of the “rotten barrel” explana- tion. These accounts express the beliefthat a deterioration in the honesty and integrity of police officers was largely facilitated by the adulteration of principles, rules, and probity of the department. This environment, together with the small percentage of officers who aggressively misused their police powers for personal gain, and who were protected by the police code of silence, created conditions which eroded the ideals of those policemen who were subsequently found to have also engaged in corrupt activities.

Approaching police drug corruption by locating its cause either in characterological flaws or a denatured environment oversimplifies what is a more complex interaction between personality traits and the situations which evoke the behavior. Moreover, these doctrines help perpetuate two beliefs: first, that police departments are generally free of corruption and that “bad apples” are the exception; and second, that the criminal milieu is basically sick and amoral, and that you can “catch something” if you are exposed to it for too long. Importantly, in insisting on the search of one cause, both doctrines shape an attitude which closes the door on asking new questions, finding new facts, and testing new ideas regarding corruption.

CURRENT POLICE VIEWS OF DRUG CORRUPTION

Working in drug law enforcement, especially with undercover methods, increases the risk for a breach of public trust, dishonesty, and wrongful gain and benefit. Today, this greater risk is believed to be as much due to the character of the person as it is to the opportunities for misconduct occasioned by this involvement. This belief is supported by the conclusions of the International Association of Chiefs of Police in a recent report of their examination of the problem of drug corruption (IACP, 1989). Two factors were singled out as independent causes of police drug corruption: the character of police applicants in general, and the criminal environment in which undercover officers, specifically, carry out investigations.

The IACP reported on the findings of a study of prior drug use among police applicants. A pattern of drug use was thought to reflect poor judgement and possible dispositions to other counter-nonnative conduct. This reasoning was confirmed from questionnaire data collected among police applicants in nine enforcement agencies across the country. Applicants were informed that their answers might be verified through background checks and/or a polygraph exam. The results showed that 64%

364 M.Girodo

of applicants admitted to having used marijuana at least once, and 12% to having used it 20 or more times. Among the latter, nearly half admitted to a history of delinquency, felony arrests, criminal, or to counter-normative “critical behaviors” which would normally disqualify them as police candidates. Regarding cocaine use, 16% had used cocaine at least once. Among those who had used cocaine once or twice, 25% reported “critical behaviors” consistent with a decision to reject them as police candidates, while 60% of those reporting having used cocaine three or more times would be similarly disqualified.

Some departments regard any illicit drug use as the basis for disqualification from police work: others tolerate past admissions of marijuana but not cocaine use. Still other agencies acknowledge the normative nature of drug use in their part of the country and, lest they turn away an important segment of applicants, adopt a limiting criterion of “no prior drug use in the past 12 months” (IACP, 1989).

By linking a certain level or type of drug use to past unacceptable conduct, prior drug habits can serve to screen out applicants who might pose a significant risk for misconduct. This reasoning is applicable principally for entry-level decisions, and for officers who will work in conventional policing. It is not stringent enough, however, for undercover drug officers. Opportunity and availability are strong deter- minants of drug use in the general population. Greater risks for corruption exist when undercover officers live in a criminal environment where drug abuse is the norm and substances are available. And, having had any prior personal experience with drugs increases the risk significantly.

After considering the hazards of drug investigations, and the conditions that bring officers into prolonged contact with informants and criminals, the IACP (1989) observed that undercover environments hold considerable potential for corruption, and stated:

. . . officers who do come into continuous contact with criminals while in an undercover capacity are more vulnerable to temptation. In most cases, long- term undercover assignments, in which the officer is in the company of traffickers more than with fellow officers, are not worthwhile, considering the jeo- pardy to an officer’s well-being (pp. 74-75).

With this assertion, the boundaries of the “rotten barrel” now encompass the criminal environment of undercover drug investigations. Consistent with the doctrine, the IACP locate the corrupting factors of this environment in the opportunities occasioned by the behavior of the traffickers, the wealth they flaunt, and the gifts they bestow onto those in their company. But this picture is incomplete. Knowledge of how opportunities instigate corruption needs to be combined with an understanding of the character of the person who chooses to respond to these opportunities. A behavioral science approach would favor an enquiry into how some personality traits only emerge in an environment which can facilitate their expression. Rejecting this approach allows for only one option: ban all officers from long-term undercover work.

Over the last decade, our research with undercover agents has sought to discover the dynamic interaction between personality traits and work situations which contri- butes to mental health problems and to a risk for drug corruption. We expect this kind of interaction especially in undercover agents, in part because undercover situa-


tions are unstructured, informal, reactive, and tend to “pull for” personality traits or individual styles of responding (cf., Buss, 1989).

This kind of interaction between people and their work is clearly represented in the general Person-Environment (P-E) fit model where the joint influence of abilities and job demands is linked to stress on the job (French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982). In a recent application of this P-E fit model to a large group of undercover agents (Girodo, 199 1), a trait combination of Extraversion with Emotional Stability represented the best P-E fit, whereas a combination of Introversion and Neuroticism made the worst P-E for mental health and job dissatisfaction from undercover work.

Recently, additional data were gathered from these agents with a view to answering the following questions: (1) Can such a combination of personality traits in undercover agents also be associated with a risk for drug corruption?; and (2) Given that success in undercover projects often hinges on risk-taking ability and motivational factors (Girodo, 1985a, 1985b), what is the role ofthese dispositions in predicting risk for drug corruption?

METHOD

In this agency sponsored study, informed consent was obtained from undercover agents who volunteered their confidential participation and completed psychometric tests and questionnaires. They were employed by a Federal (U.S.) department man- dated to investigate a wide range of criminal activities and noncompliance with federal regulations. The use of undercover methods was voluntary but encouraged as an effective means for meeting investigative objectives. Agents had considerable freedom in formulating and personally carrying out their undercover projects.

Sample From a computer generated random sample of 350 agents, 271 agreed to participate and supplied all information requested. They represented every state and territory of the U.S., but most were working in the Pacific and southeast regions. The sample comprised 82% whites, 15% nonwhites, and 3% who did not indicate their race. Overall, 93% were male. Their ages varied from 24 to 54 years with a mean of 34.2 years.

Agents were asked to report their overall career exposure to undercover work by indicating: (a) the total number of investigations in which they had assumed an active undercover role; and (b) the total amount of time in months in undercover work. They also completed the following inventories.

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck G, Eysenck, 1975)

This extensively researched and widely validated instrument measures two basic personality dimensions of interest. “Introversion-Extraversion”: Extraverts are outgo- ing, sociable, talkative, carefree, and tend to act on the spur of the moment. Introverts are described as quiet, cautious, serious, reliable, calm and reserved. “Emotional Stability-Neuroticism”: High scores on this scale are described as anxious, worried, temperamental, over-reacting, and filled with psychosomatic complaints.

366 M.Girodo

Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scales (Zuckerman, 1979) People vary in their need for stimulation and in the activities they seek to satisfy these needs. Three subscales assess these preferences, and were of particular interest for studying agent motivation and conduct in undercover assignments. The first, “Thrill and Adventure Seeking” (TAS), measures the extent to which a person is inclined to seek out exciting, dangerous or high risk activities. The second scale, “Experience Seeking” (ES), was of particular relevance in that it assesses the degree to which a person is curious about novel sensations, (tastes, sex) and has or would like to experiment with drugs such as hallucinogens and marijuana. The third scale, “Disinhibition” (Dis), examines the tendency to act on impulse, to be uninhibited in reaction, and generally to show poor impulse control.

Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (1 6PF) (Cattell, 1970) Responses to the 43 scale of the 16PF were obtained. The 43 scale measures the personality dimension defined as Undisciplined Self-Image vs. Disciplined Self- Image. A low score is associated with carelessness of social rules, following own urges and being lax. A high score is found in persons who are internally guided, socially precise, perfectionistic, and whose conduct follows their self-image.

In previous unreported research of undercover agents in another agency, we had obtained a behavioral validation of the Q3 scale relevant to observed discipline and misconduct in the field. In that work, more than 60 agents participating in operational undercover training were studied. Over a 3-week period, trainers and covermen reported their direct, on line observations of drug undercover trainees practicing actual street-level “buy-and-bust’’ techniques. Important job criterion-related behavioral observations summarized on rating scales were associated with “Disciplined Self-Image” and, in turn, tied to global evaluations of personal suitability.

Hilson Career Satisfaction Index (Inwald, 1989) This instrument, developed, validated, and normed on various law enforcement personnel, was used to gather information on the following critical behaviors that indexed a risk for drug corruption: (a) “Drug and Alcohol Abuse” (DA), items on this scale assess any history of substance abuse and the tendency to abuse drugs and/or alcohol either on or off the job; and (b) “Disciplinary History” (DH), this scale measures the extent of disciplinary infractions and reprimands received on the job.

RESULTS

Career exposure to undercover investigations varied from 1 day to 20 years. Agents reported having taken active undercover roles in an average of 7.93 investigations (SD = 22.84), with a mean total of 7.34 months spent undercover (SD = 22.97). A composite index of Undercover Experience was obtained by combining the standard (z) scores of the number of undercover assignments with the z scores of the total months spent undercover.

The results confirmed a connection between Undercover Experience and risk


Table 1. Means and standard deviations of principal measures for extraversion/neuroticism subgroups

Trait combination subgroups Worst P-E fit Best P-E fit

Low Extraversion- Low Extraversion- High Extraversion- High Extraversion- Low Neuroticism High Neuroticism Low Neuroticism High Neuroticism

N = 5 0 N = 7 5 N = 8 8 N = 5 8 ~ ~~~~~

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Corruption risk factors Drug & alcohol

Disciplinary abuse 0.74, (1.01) 1.67, (1.90) 1.12 (1.28) 1.66, (1.57)

history 1.08, (1.38) 1.51 (1.43) 0.98, (1.25) 2.01, (1.78)

Thrili&adventure 7.14 (2.31) 6.05, (2.77) 7.71, (2.34) 7.11 (2.37) Experience

seeking 3.98 (1.50) 3.28, (1.68) 4.38, (1.13) 4.79, (1.80) Disinhibition 2.61, (1.60) 3.29, (1.95) 4.26, (2.30) 4.01,, (1.97) Disciplined image 14.09 (2.25) 12.81, (2.64) 14.28, (2.22) 12.86, (2.81)

Means with different subscripts across groups on the same variable are significantly different from each other (p < .01).

Predictor variables

for drug corruption. The two principal indices, admissions of DA, and disciplinary infractions (DH), were found to be positively correlated with Undercover Experience, .30 and .25, p < .01 respectively. Since age was also correlated with DA (.19), and since simple career time with the agency might artificially inflate DH scores, partial correlations controlling for age were carried out on these variables. These did not significantly alter the coefficients. Thus, DA and DH wre linked directly to amount of Undercover Experience. From another perspective, a median split of Undercover Experience scores revealed that agents above the median had significantly higher DA (F(1,270) = 5.83, p < .Ol) and higher DH (F(1,270) = 13.34, p < .Ol) scores compared with agents below the median.

Personality traits were cross-cut to form four independent groups. This procedure is in line with a conceptual approach to personality research which seeks to understand people in terms of combinations of traits (Buss, 1989), and supported by findings that trait combinations can indeed be better predictors of behavior than single traits alone (e.g., Cheek & Buss, 1981). Consistent with the treatment of personality data in previous research (Girodo, 199 l), Extraversion and Neuroticism scores were each split at the median. Next, agents were assigned to one of the four groups arising from the 2 x 2 combinations of high and low trait scores.

Analyses of variance were carried out between groups on each of the dependent variables. Groups were not found to differ on the composite index of Undercover Experience, nor in terms of their separate components. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and Scheffe test differences across groups for each variable yielding a significant F. Also, headings indicate the trait combinations previously identified (Girodo, 1991) as belonging to the worst P-E fit, and the best P-E fit combination of Extraversion and Neuroticism for stress in undercover work.

We can summarize the findings in Table 1 as follows: (a) elevations in DA and DH scores were found principally in the two groups with high Neuroticism scores; (b) high TAS scores were found mainly among agents in the best P-E fit group; (c) generally, the highest Dis and ES scores were located in the Extraverted-Neurotic

368 M.Girodo

group, and unexpectedly, in the best P-E fit group as well; and (d) the best P-E fit agents reported the highest Disciplined Self-Image scores.

The significance of these findings is best understood in the context of analyses designed to determine which personality and/or interest variable(s) could best predict corruption risk. For these, Standard Multiple Regression analyses were performed on each of the four groups with the help of the SPSS program Regression (SPSS Inc, 1988). For these analyses, an overall index of corruption risk was derived by combining the products of the transformed DA and DH z scores, and this measure served as the dependent variable in the regression equations. The independent variables entered in a block were: Extraversion, Neuroticism, TAS, ES, Dis, and Q3.

For the first group in Table 1, agents with a Low Extraversion-Low Neuroticism Combination, a significant R for regression F(6,43) = 2.96, p < .03 was obtained with Dis emerging as the only independent variable contributing to the variance of risk for Corruption r = .29, R2 = .18. These same results were obtained for the agents characterized as having the worst P-E fit; Low Extraversion-High Neuroticism group: Rforregression F(6,68) = 3 . 5 5 , ~ < .004; Dis r = .35, R2 = .27.

Agents representing the best P-E fit combination of High Extraversion-Low Neur- oticism yielded a significant R for regression F(6,81) = 2.51, p < .03. For these agents, 43 emerged as the only independent variable to predict risk for corruption, R2 = .19, with a negative r = - .3 1. The last group, representing the High Extraver- sion-High Neuroticism combination obtained a significant R for regression F(6,5 1) = 3.98, p < .002; Here, two independent variables arose as significant predictors: Neuroticism ( r = .46) and Experience Seeking ( r = .32); R2 = .35.

Thus, Disinhibition was the significant predictor of risk for corruption in nearly half of the agents, including those with the most undesirable job-related combination of traits, i.e., Introversion and Neuroticism. Disinhibition, however, did not predict risk for corruption among the best P-E fit agents notwithstanding their obtaining the highest Dis scores of all. Their risk for corruption, while not particularly high, was best accounted for inversely by scores on the trait of Disciplined Self-Image. Finally, the High Extraversion-High Neuroticism agents produced the largest risk for corruption index; their higher scores on Experience Seeking and Neuroticism, would appear to be a poor combination.

DISCUSSION

In this study, drug and alcohol abuse and disciplinary problems were linked directly to Undercover Experience. This finding adds to the accumulating evidence connect- ing social-role problems (Girodo, 1984a; 1984b), adverse psychological health (Gir- odo, 1985a), behavioral maladjustment (Girodo, 1985b), and job dissatisfaction (Girodo, 199 1) to accumulated experience in undercover assignments.

What is it about undercover work that leads to substance abuse? Based on the mean DA scores in Table 1 , and the Multiple Regression results of the High Extraver- sion-High Neuroticism group it appears as if Neuroticism may underlie this tendency. While these results could be interpreted as stress-produced alcohol abuse among the more emotionally reactive agents, recall that Disinhibition was the predictor of this behavior in low Extraversion-High Neuroticism (worst P-E fit) agents. Thus, impulse control as a cause would also seem to be implicated.


The natural social contexts in which agents carry out their evidence gathering involve liberal exposure to alcohol use. It is a normative and expected social behavior in the process of meeting, becoming accepted, and establishing credibility with the criminal community. Alcohol consumption is accepted as a requisite behavior for meeting tactical objectives. It is condoned and reinforced when an agency reimburses the agent for all alcohol consumed on the job. Given these considerations, an explana- tion which allows that substance abuse is more likely in people who are less inhibited when the drug is freely available is consistent with the data and the demands of the job. This view is consistent with Pendergrass and Ostrove (1986), who found no connection between stressful work conditions and increased alcohol consumption in police officers. A connection was found, however, with shifts in work settings which changed opportunities for socialization and consumption.

As a group, the best P-E fit agents showed the highest Disinhibition scores: yet, these scores did not co-vary with risk for corruption, in contrast with the two Low Extraversion groups. Conceivably, high scores on “Disciplined Self-Image” may have an overarching or dominant influence, and shape the expression of other personality styles.

Behavioral science research of this kind aims at helping to predict who can get the job done, keep their head together, and their nose clean. For the majority of cases, a good profile of an agent is one that can include, as a desirable characteristic, the motivational feature of Thrill and Adventure Seeking. We should caution, however, that should the components which underlie risk taking and good undercover performance not also be accompanied by a Disciplined Self-Image, then we may have stumbled across a mold from which the proverbial “bad apple” will emerge.

A connection between undercover work and risk for corruption had been suggested in earlier retrospective surveys (e.g., Farkas, 1986; U.S. Department of Justice, 1978), and recently in an IACP (1989) report. The present study provided confirma- tion of this connection by showing that drug and alcohol abuse, and disciplinary problems are directly related to the amount of undercover work accumulated by an agent. It also identified personality traits which make this connection more likely.

The personality traits associated with corruption risk were impulsivity, emotiona- lity, and undisciplined self-image. When these were found together, as in the Extra- verted-Neurotic, we also found an increased risk for drug/alcohol abuse and disciplinary problems. Agents can show considerable talent and motivation for undercover work and still be able to maintain a professional identity as those with a disciplined self-image testify.

Assessing personal suitability for undercover work involves using information for selecting in as well as screening out candidates. In addition to isolating some (negative) traits which might be associated with an increased risk for corruption, this research has pointed to a (positive) trait which, while describing a generally important feature of police integrity, also appears to militate against the expression of negative characteristics in situations where it would be most required.

In practical terms, a profile similar to the one describing the best P-E fit cannot usually be derived from entry-level assessment data. Departments not in a position to use psychometric data to aid in the screening of high-risk officers may want to consider another effective option. Specific observations of behavioral characteristics related to personality traits, such as those found associated with the 4 3 scale, can be made of candidates undergoing undercover training. Identifying and observing

370 M.Girodo

criterion behaviors in open-field undercover training, or similar exercises, can provide equivalent indicators of important future behavior in similar settings.

REFERENCES

Buss, A. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, 1378-1388. Cattell, H. B. (1989). The 16PF: Personality in depth. Champaign, I L Institute for personality and Ability

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970) Handbook for the 16PF. Champaign, I L Institute

Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,

Daley, R. (1981). Prince of the city. New York Berkeley. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S . B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego:

Farkas, G . M. (1986). Stress in undercover policing. In J.T. Reese & H.A. Goldstein (eds.), Psychological

French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. B., & Harrison, R. V. (1 982). The mechanisms ofjob stress and strain. London:

Girodo, M. (1984a). Entry and re-entry strain in undercover agents. In V. L. Allen & E. van de Vliert

Girodo, M. (1984b July). Undercover identity: A social-self in search of an audience. Paper presented at

Girodo, M. (1985a). Health and legal issues in undercover narcotics investigations: Misrepresented evi-

Girodo, M. (1 985b). Psychological factors in undercover narcotics investigations. The Narcotics Oficer,

Girodo, M. (1991). Personality, job stress, and mental health in undercover agents: A structural equation

International Association of Chiefs of Police. (1989). Buircling integrity and reducing drug corruption in

Inwald, R. E. (1 989). The Hilson Career Satisfaction Index: Technical manual. New York: Hilson Research

Knapp Commission Report on Police Corruption. (1973). Commission to investigate allegations of police

Man, G. T. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Murano, V. (1990). Cop hunter. New York Simon and Schuster. Pendergass, V. E., & Ostrove, N. M. (1986). Correlates of alcohol use by police personnel. In J. T.

Reese & H. A. Goldstein (eds.), Psychological services for law enforcement, (pp. 489-495). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Testing.

for personality and Ability Testing.

41,330-339.

Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

services for law enforcement (pp. 433-440). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wiley.

(eds.), Role transitions: Explorations and explanations, (pp. 169-1 79). New York Plenum.

the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Self and Identity, University College, Cardiff.

dence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 3,299-308.

1, 59-62.

analysis. 30urnal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6,375-390.

police departments. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Washington, DC.

I n C .

corruption and the city’s anti-corruption procedures. New York Braziller.

SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSS-Xuser’sguide. Chicago; SPSS Inc. U.S. Department of Justice. (1 978). The special agent in undercover investigations. (Summary). Washington,

Zuckerman, M. (1 979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level ofarousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

drug corruption in undercover agents: measuring the risk

Documents