GOOD COP, BAD COP: COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION,

PERCEPTION, AND TRUST IN LAW

ENFORCEMENT-SUSPECT

ENCOUNTERS

by

ANDY C. KWON

CAROL B. MILLS, COMMITTEE CHAIR JANE STUART BAKER

REBECCA HOWELL

A THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in the

Department of Communication in the Graduate School of

The University of Alabama

TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

2012

Copyright Andy C. Kwon 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

ABSTRACT

Since the 1980s, community policing has been embraced as the dominant police

strategy. Thompson (1983) estimates that 97% of an officer’s time is spent

communicatively interacting with the public, which indicates a strong incentive to study

how communication affects those involved in police interaction. Utilizing

Communication Accommodation Theory as a theoretical framework, this study examines

the relationship between communication accommodation, perception, and trust and poses

the following question: How does a police officer’s communication accommodation

affect the communicative relationship between a police officer and his or her suspect?

An online questionnaire was distributed to 257 students at a large, southeastern

University, and their responses were analyzed. The data indicates that accommodative

behavior can lead suspects to be more trusting of the police, but did not have a significant

effect on police perception. Overall, this study helps fill a significant research gap in the

police communication literature and provides pragmatic implications to improve the

police-suspect interaction.

iii

DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my family. The hardships I have experienced

throughout the process of writing this thesis pales in comparison to the work, sacrifice,

and commitment you all have made to give me opportunities you never had. To my

grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, and brother, there are no words to describe the

important role you all have in my life. The strongest people I have ever known, I love

you all very much.

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

α Alpha, level of acceptable significance; in statistical hypothesis testing,

the probability of making a Type I error; Cronbach’s index of internal

consistency (a form of reliability)

ATP Attitudes toward police

β Beta, Standardized Coefficient; in statistical hypothesis testing, the

probability of making a Type II error

B Beta, Unstandardized Coefficient

BAC Blood alcohol content

CAS Communication Accommodation Scale

CAT Communication Accommodation Theory

DUI Driving under the influence

F F distribution, Fisher’s F ratio

FIPS Faith in People Scale

ITS Individualized Trust Scale

M Sample mean, arithmetic average

n Sample size; number of cases

NCIS Naval Criminal Investigative Service (television show)

p Probability associated with the occurrence under the null hypothesis of a

value as extreme as or more extreme than the observed value

v

r r statistic or r value; estimate of the Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient

r2 r2 statistic or r2 value : coefficient of determination; measure of strength of

relationship; estimate of the Pearson product-moment correlation squared

SAT Speech Accommodation Theory

SD Standard deviation

SE B Standard Error

Sig. Significance

UCR Uniformed Crime Reporting Program

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several people who I owe a tremendous debt for their help in

completing this thesis. First, thank you to the Department of Communication Studies, Dr.

Beth S. Bennett, and my committee for giving me this opportunity. To Dr. Carol B. Mills,

thank you for the encouraging words and countless lunches where you refused to let me

pay. I greatly appreciate the time you took to meet, teach, and feed me. To Dr. Jane Stuart

Baker, whose door was always open to discuss research, school applications, and other

procrastinatory topics, I am truly thankful. To Dr. Rebecca Howell, who provided

valuable insight on descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and linear regressions,

thank you for giving me a crash course on the exciting world of statistics. The perfect

combination of mentorship, wisdom, and character, I am extremely honored to have been

led through this journey by all of you. Second, although not officially affiliated with this

project, I thank Dr. Meredith M. Bagley, who gives value to the word teacher. I am

grateful for your insight, cheerful support, and for teaching me that on defense,

everybody should pick up a person, not a man. To Diane Luong, who sat next to me the

entire time acting like you were also studying, and to my good friend Daniel Turner,

whose high level of character has no match, thank you for being the best parts of me.

Finally, to Elbert Denina, Jeff Sonza, Karen Manio, Angeles Burke, and Alexandria

Smith: though some of you are thousands of miles away and will never read this

document, thank you for providing laughs, love, and support – the most critical

ingredients in completing this project.

vii

CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………...……ii 2. DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………...……iii 3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS …………………………………….iv 4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………….....…vi 5. LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….ix 6. Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION.…………………………………………………..……1 7. Chapter 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………7 a. Communication Accommodation Theory………………………...……………7 b. Basic Principles of CAT………………………………………….……………8 c. Convergence…………………………………………………………..………10 d. Divergence……………………………………………………………………14 e. Shaping Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement…………….…………..………15 f. The Media……………………………………………………………………..16 g. Personal Experiences……………………………….…………………………17 h. Sociodemographic Factors…………………………………….………………19 i. Communication and Law Enforcement………………………………….……21 j. Perception and Law Enforcement………………………………………..……22 k. Hypothesis 1..……………………………………………………………..…..24 l. Trust and Law Enforcement………………………………..…………………24

m. Hypothesis 2………………………………………...…………………....….25

viii

8. Chapter 3 - METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………26 a. Recruitment……………………………………………………………...……28 b. Participants……………………………………………………………………29 c. Instruments...…………………………………………………………….……30 d. Measures...…………………………………………………………….……...31 9. Chapter 4 – RESULTS………………………………………………….…………….36 a. Descriptive Statistics………………………………….………………………36 b. Bivariate Correlations…………………………………………...……………37 c. Data Analysis……………..……………………………..……………………40 10. Chapter 5 – DISCUSSION……………………………………………………….…43

a. Summary of Study……………………………………………….……………43

b. Implications……………………………………………………………...……44

c. Limitations and Future Research Directions...…………………..……………47

d. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………50

11. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………...………52

12. APPENDIX A: Institutional Review Board Certification………..…………………62

13. APPENDIX B: Email Invitation Manuscript…………………………….………….66

14. APPENDIX C: Subject Questionnaire………………………………………………68

ix

LIST OF TABLES

a. Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics for Hypothetical Contexts……...……………………38 b. Table 2 – Bivariate Correlations (n = 257).………………...…………………………39 c. Table 3 – Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between

Communication Accommodation and Perception (n = 257)……….……….41 d. Table 4 – Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between

Communication Accommodation and Trust (n = 257)…………………..…42

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

In the late 20th century, the law enforcement philosophy saw a gradual shift from

“professional policing” toward “community policing” (Stoutland, 2001). Moore (1999)

writes that the primary goal of “professional policing” was to reduce crime through

making arrests; that is, the arrests made through three key operational tactics including

patrols, rapid response to calls for service, and retrospective investigations. Initially, this

type of law enforcement strategy enjoyed generalized support from the community until

the 1960s when it became evident that the ideas behind “professional policing” was

unsuccessful in reducing crime and fear. As a result, numerous police chiefs and local

police departments experimented with new and different policing philosophies and

tactics. This led to what is now employed as the modern strategy of law enforcement, or

“community policing.”

Community policing, also known as community-oriented policing, community-

based policing, and problem oriented policing (Leighton, 1991), has been embraced as

the dominant police strategy since the 1980s. Cordner (2005) writes, “community

policing has evolved from a few small foot patrol studies to the pre-eminent reform

agenda of modern policing” (p. 45). Although several scholars attribute different

definitions of community policing (Glaser & Denhardt, 2010), community policing can

be explained in the broadest sense as a law enforcement style where the police are close

with the public, are aware of community concerns through constant contact, and act on

2

those concerns aligned with the community’s wishes (Fielding, 2005). Additionally,

Morabito (2010) outlines the common elements of community policing that have been

identified by scholars in the past: it has a problem solving orientation, involves

collaboration with key stakeholders in the community, and encourages modification of

the police agencies organizational structures to promote community participation in

public safety.

Community policing centers around the idea of community building, where

officers have the potential to create an environment that not only improves public safety

but encourages citizens to become personally involved with the policing effort (Glaser &

Denhardt, 2010). In doing so, the collaborative effort between citizens and local

government to combat crime promotes the idea of a unified purpose as well as

strengthens the bond between these two groups. Nalbandian (2005) argues that one of

the most important roles of local government is to provide “opportunities to build trusting

relationships in a world where relationships have become fragile and temporary” (p. 313).

It is clear that the ideas of trust and community building have claimed a

permanent stake within the community policing culture. If law enforcement officials and

members of the community hope to work together, the level of communication and trust

between them must function at a high level. Tyler (2005) reinforces this notion and

found that cooperation with the police derives from the trust and confidence that citizens

place in them. Furthermore, Scheider, Chapman, and Shapiro (2009) identify trust as a

critical element for an effective relationship, whether the relationship stems from two

friends, among customers and a company, or between a public service agency and its

citizens. If citizens do not effectively trust the police, they are less likely to report

3

information about crime or help generate solutions for community problems. The

democratic format of public society empowers citizens as the ones who provide

legitimacy and authority to the police, who in turn must develop and maintain the trust in

their relationships. Thus, it is important for law enforcement officials to be

knowledgeable and familiarized with how to create such trusting relationships with those

that they serve.

The foundation of trust, between any people, can be found within the

communicative element of a relationship. Numerous studies in the past have supported

the notion that communication plays a critical role in developing and maintaining trust

(Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 2001; Ruppel & Harrington, 2000).

Furthermore, increased levels of trust and communication have been found to enhance

job performance in the workplace (Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman, 2009) as well as improve

levels of group cooperation (Dirks, 1999). In the strategy of community policing, one

basic principle is that law enforcement officials and community members must work

together, essentially as a group, to address community concerns where an increased level

of trust should lead to an increased level of cooperation. The most effective way to

develop trust in a relationship is through regular communication where information about

parties’ preferences, values, and approaches to problems are exchanged, which in turn

can lead to the development of trust grounded in knowledge and information (Lewicki &

Bunker, 1996).

Many scholars also understand the importance of communication within the law

enforcement field. Womack and Finley (1986) assert that communication is “the central

most important commodity that the officer has at his (or her) disposal” (p. 14) while

4

Thompson (1983) estimates that 97% of an officer’s time is spent communicatively

interacting with the public. Considering the important role communication has in

policing, it is surprising to discover the limited research that has been conducted within

the law enforcement context. Generally speaking, the law enforcement world comprises

of three basic groups of people: the protector (police/law enforcement), the civilian

(community members), and the suspect/criminal. The extant literature reveals that some

studies have investigated the role communication accommodation plays in the interaction

between police and civilians (Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al., 2008b; Hajek et al., 2006;

Giles et al., 2006, Giles et al., 2007). However, in an effort to extend the literature

examining communication in law enforcement, this study will focus on the interaction

between police and potential criminals, or suspects.

Specifically, this research will examine the role communication plays in the

police-suspect encounter. Although the idea of community policing stresses the

importance of trust and communication between police and community members, this

study suggests that the trust and communication between police and suspects are equally

important. Establishing a more trustful experience between an officer and a suspect

could lead to decreasing risks of physical safety, for both the officer and suspect, and

may provide a more effective and efficient law enforcement environment. According to

the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, a yearly publication of annual crime

statistics by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, over 13 million police-suspect

encounters led to a direct arrest in the year 2010 alone (Federal Bureau of Investigation,

2010), not including those encounters that did not lead to an arrest. Thus, it is clear that

police-suspect encounters play an equally significant, if not more significant than that of

5

a civilian, role within the concept of community policing. The objective of this study is

to learn how the different elements of communication, specifically accommodation, can

lead to a more effective experience between police and suspects. The past literature

surrounding communication accommodation shows that there is a common contention

that complimenting or accommodating to another’s communicative behaviors, leads to

further collaboration as well as a positive attitude toward individuals who are engaging in

accommodating communicative behaviors (Ball, Giles, & Hewstone, 1985). This study

applies this same idea to the context of police-suspect encounters and poses the following

question: How does a police officer’s communication accommodation affect the

communicative relationship between a police officer and his or her suspect?

This study contributes to the communication discipline at both theoretical and

pragmatic levels. Theoretically, this study aims to further explore a communicative

context that has been minimally studied. The law enforcement context heavily involves

communication and can serve as another practical field for the application of

communication theory. At a pragmatic level, this study highlights significant

implications that can be directly applied to the law enforcement culture. Learning

important communicative strategies can help the police, as well as suspects, avoid

violence or wasted time in their interactions, which may lead to a more effective style of

community policing.

In order to accomplish these goals, the following chapter will assess the literature

that is relevant to the current study. The review will summarize important and basic

principles of Communication Accommodation Theory and will be followed by a review

of literature surrounding communication and law enforcement. This analysis serves as

6

the foundation for the formulation of the study’s hypotheses. The third chapter provides

a detailed synopsis of the methods used in conducting the study for this particular

research. The findings of the study are then presented in the fourth chapter. Finally,

chapter five discusses the significant findings and delves into the important theoretical

and pragmatic implications of study for the communication discipline and in the practical

law enforcement context.

7

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Communication Accommodation Theory

Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) predicts and explains many of

the communicative modifications individuals make in creating, maintaining, or

decreasing social distance in interactions (Giles & Ogay, 2007). It explores the different

manners and methods people accommodate their communication, what motivates

accommodation, and possible consequences among various organizational and social

contexts. According to the theory, communicative behavior occurs as a result of

indicating their attitudes toward each other and serves to measure the level of social

distance between interactants. This constant changing of communicative behavior as a

strategy to move toward and away from each other, is called accommodation (Giles et al.,

2006).

First called Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT), the theory originally focused

on exploring accents and bilingual shifts in interactions (Giles et al., 2006), specifically in

initial job interviewing contexts (Giles, 1973). Giles found that those interviewees who

utilized accent mobility with their interviewers were most successful at obtaining a

second interview, which led to further studies by Giles, Taylor and Bourhis (1973) and

Giles and Powesland (1975), who found individuals would modify their communication

depending on who they were interacting with. Hence, SAT primarily focused on

discovering what type of social factors and variables affected people’s perceptions of

8

themselves and behaviors within different communicative contexts (Giles, 1973) to

explain why people engaged in speech shifts during social interactions and what type of

possible consequences could result from those communicative actions.

Eventually, conceptual gaps within SAT led Giles, Mulac, Bradac, and Johnson

(1987) to address such weaknesses. First, the theory only addressed the linguistic

features of convergence and divergence and failed to mention nonverbal factors. Second,

the theory presented a limited dichotomy of convergent behaviors as accommodating and

divergent behaviors as non-accommodating, which did not fully represent the large range

of communication strategies used by individuals. Third, the theory failed to explain how

to actually generate convergent and divergent behaviors; it lacked specific steps on how

to perform these concepts. As a result, CAT was developed with the purpose of

specifically addressing these three areas.

Basic Principles of CAT

CAT can be described through four main tenets. First, “communication is

influenced not only by features of the immediate situation and participants’ initial

orientations to it, but also by the socio-historical context in which the interaction is

embedded” (Giles & Ogay, 2007, p. 294). For example, the communication

accommodation that occurs in an isolated encounter between a law enforcement officer

and a civilian could be influenced by past experiences, whether the history is positive or

negative.

Second, “communication is not only a matter of merely and only exchanging

information about facts, ideas, and emotions (often called referential communications),

but salient social category memberships are often negotiated during an interaction

9

through the process of accommodation” (Giles & Ogay, 2007, p. 294). This could be

seen in the decision by a bilingual, Latina police officer who may choose to use English

or Spanish with other Latino citizens. By speaking Spanish, she is choosing to emphasize

a shared identity, acknowledging that she and the citizen share a common language and

culture. By speaking English, she displays a discordant identity, clearly identifying

herself as an officer of the law and her position as an unbiased authority.

Third, “interactants have expectations regarding optimal levels of

accommodation. These expectations are based on stereotypes about outgroup members

as well as on the prevailing social and situational norms” (Giles & Ogay, 2007, p. 294).

This is evident in the example of a police officer’s sudden change of communication

from a very accommodating tone to a monotonous demeanor while interviewing a

civilian. The officer’s accommodation may hint to the interviewee that the officer wishes

to engage in conversation. However, when the officer modifies the level of

accommodation by becoming more serious, the officer may now be signaling to the

interviewee that the officer no longer wishes to participate in the interaction.

Fourth, “interactants use specific communication strategies (in particular,

convergence and divergence) to signal their attitudes towards each other and their

respective social groups” (Giles & Ogay, 2007, p. 294). For instance, a police officer

may display accommodating features when communicating with a non-threatening

civilian, which may indicate a positive attitude toward that individual. On the other hand,

non-accommodating communication by an officer toward a potential suspect could signal

that the officer’s attitude toward that particular individual is suspicious and distrustful.

10

The final principle of CAT, regarding convergence and divergence, has served as the

foundation of this theory (Giles, 1973) and is responsible for numerous empirical studies

(Giles & Ogay, 2007). Like the studies that came before this, this study will heavily

utilize this basic principle, which warrants a more detailed look at this concept.

Convergence

In the earliest form of CAT, convergence was initially described as occurring

when “individuals adapt to each other’s speech by means of a wide range of linguistic

features, including speech rates, pauses and utterance length, pronunciations, and so on”

(Giles et al., 1987, p. 14). In future versions, convergence was further developed from

including only simple speech factors to involving a large array of communicative

behaviors such as nonverbal communication or tones of voice (Miller, 2005). Thus, Giles

et al. (2006) provides a more fitting definition of convergence as a strategy whereby

individuals adapt their communicative behaviors in terms of a wide range of linguistic

(e.g. speech rate, accents), paralinguistic (e.g. pauses, utterance length), and nonverbal

(e.g. smiling, gazing) features in such a way as to become more similar to their

interlocutor’s behavior. This basic principle has been studied in numerous

communicative contexts such as the political arena (Levin & Lin, 1988), mass media

(Thomson, Murachver, & Green, 2001), organizational settings (Ayoko, Hartel, &

Callan, 2002), and police-civilian encounters (Giles et al., 2006).

There are three main ideas explaining the motivations of convergence. First,

convergence demonstrates the human desire to gain social approval from one another

(Giles & Ogay, 2007). Originating from Byrne’s (1971) similarity attraction postulate,

the theory posits that the more similar we are to our interactional partner, the more likely

11

that interaction will lead to an increase of social attraction. Second, converging to a

common linguistic style may lead the communicative process to be more effective by

lowering uncertainty, interpersonal anxiety, and mutual understanding (Giles & Ogay,

2007). Finally, convergence reflects the desire for a shared self-presentation with the

other interactant (Giles et al., 1987). By converging, it is one interactant’s hope to

identify similarly to the other person and not to highlight major differences.

There are several strategies of convergence utilized at different communicative

levels noted by Miller (2005). First, convergence can go upward, in which behavior

moves toward the more socially appropriate sanction of speech as seen in the example of

one gang member converging his or her speech to sound similar to two police officers

conducting an interview. In this situation, the gang member may feel it is more

appropriate to avoid slang or other street behavior and to accommodate his or her

language to that of the officers, perhaps at an attempt of goodwill to avoid being arrested

or charged with a crime. Convergence can also occur downward, in which behavior

moves away from the socially appropriate sanction of communication. In the same

scenario, if the gang member wanted to proudly associate himself or herself with the

gang and street life, he or she may choose to constantly speak in slang or say derogatory

slurs to the officers in an effort to move away from the expected communicative

behavior. This would be classified as downward convergence.

Second, the extent to which convergence occurs can vary and occurs on a full,

partial, or hyper level. Full convergence occurs when one interactant fully matches the

communicative behavior of another while partial convergence displays an individual only

partially matching another’s communicative behavior. Hyper convergence occurs when

12

one goes beyond the behavior of another and is also known as cross-over convergence.

For example, if Person A exhibits a speech rate of 100 words per minute, Person B,

whose original speech pace is at 75 words per minute, may choose to fully converge and

match Person A’s communicative behavior and increase his or her speech rate to 100

words per minute. Person C, whose speech rate is also at 75 words per minute, may only

choose to partially converge and increase his or her speech rate to 90 words per minute.

Person D, who also speaks at 75 words per minute, may choose to go beyond the

behavior of Person A (hyper or cross-over convergence) and increase his or her speech

rate to 110 words per minute.

Third, interactants may choose to only converge on one aspect of communicative

behavior and not on others. This is called unimodal convergence. If an interactant

chooses to converge on several or all dimensions of another’s communicative patterns, he

or she would be engaging in multimodal convergence. This can be seen in the scenario

where one speaker has a unique vocabulary, accent, and speech rate. If another attempts

to converge at a unimodal level, he or she may only accommodate their vocabulary. At a

multimodal level, he or she may accommodate all components of this particular

communicative pattern.

Fourth, convergence can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. Symmetrical

convergence is evident when all parties in an interaction attempts to accommodate their

communication toward each other. On the other hand, asymmetrical convergence occurs

when only one party attempts to accommodate their communication toward the rest of the

group.

13

Finally, communicative behavior, the intent that was behind it, and how an

addressee perceives the behavior can occur on three different levels: objectively,

psychologically, and subjectively. This is exemplified in Woolard’s (1989) study of a

language norm in Spain at a time where it was believed Catalan should only be spoken

between Catalans. In this scenario, Castillian speakers who attempted to speak Catalan

often received a reply back in Castillian. The Castillians may have been objectively

converging but the Catalan may have refused to converge with the psychological intent to

keep the Castillians in their own sociolinguistic space. In the same way, subjective

accommodation would not necessarily correspond with the objective behavior nor with

the intent that was behind it (Giles & Ogay, 2007).

The most recurring theme of convergence has to do with the idea of social status

or power, between interactants as Giles, Coupland, and Coupland (1991) conclude that

the work done with CAT often results in the power variable supporting the model’s

central predictions; convergence tends to occur most in interaction where one interactant

has higher status or power over another. Generally speaking, it is expected that people in

subordinate positions would converge to their superordinate counterparts, also known as

upward convergence. A New York study noted that Puerto Ricans, who are generally

viewed in this area as having less prestige and power than their African American

neighbors, often converged to the African American dialect (Wolfram, 1974).

Furthermore, a study of a popular American talk show, found the interaction would

between host and guest would change according to the social statuses of its guests. In

one scenario, the host Larry King would converge his communication toward the more

highly regarded President Clinton while in another, the more lower socially regarded

14

Vice-President Dan Quayle would accommodate more to the communicative styles of the

host (Gregory & Webster, 1996).

Divergence

The concept of divergence derives from the notion of identity and stems from

Tajfel’s theory of intergroup relationships and social identity (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel &

Turner, 1979). Divergent communicators base their behavior on their own perceptions of

other interactants beliefs, expectations, and/or stereotypes. In contrast to its dichotomous

counterpart, divergence can be explained as the accentuation of differences and serves as

a means by which an interactant can establish and highlight his or her association with a

particular social group that is not represented by another interactant (Miller, 2005). For

example, if a citizen is yelling loudly in a state of chaos, a police officer may diverge his

or her communication and speak in a calm and soft tone in an effort to help alleviate the

citizen’s distress. By diverging, the police officer has highlighted his or her position as

part of the law enforcement group that aims to maintain authority and stability.

There are three motives that lead to divergent communication: the speaker’s

desire to present a contrasting self-image, to differentiate oneself from others, or to be

viewed differently from another person’s communicative behavior (Giles et al., 1986).

According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), people do not necessarily always react to others

as individuals, but rather react by identifying their own selves as representatives of

unique social groups. Giles et al. (1991, p. 27) notes that intergroup comparisons “will

lead individuals to search for, or even create, dimensions on which they may be seen to

be positively distinct from a relevant outgroup. The perception of such a positive

15

distinctiveness contributes to individuals’ feelings of an adequate social identity, which

enhances their feelings of self-worth.”

Since both verbal and nonverbal communicative features (dress style,

authoritative tone, weapon, badge) serve as core dimensions of a group identity (police

officer), divergence is often regarded as a significant tactic of distinguishing him/herself

from others which also simultaneously reflects a sense of group pride and enhances

feelings of self-worth (Giles & Ogay, 2007). Furthermore, divergence can be

strategically used to shape receivers’ attributions and feelings toward the communicator.

Similar to the manner in which convergence occurs, divergence can be utilized partially

or fully, as well as uni-modally or multi-modally. Additionally, one can choose to refrain

from both convergent and divergent behaviors. Maintenance is the process in which a

person persists in his or her original style of communication, regardless of the

communicative behavior of the interlocutor (Bourhis, 1979). Maintenance usually occurs

as a passive response of a nonattending, or disagreeable, social being (Giles et al., 1987).

When it comes to the binary relationship of convergence and divergence,

convergent speakers are seen as both more efficient and cooperative communicators and

are generally viewed more favorably.

Shaping Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement

The extant research reveals that numerous factors such as the media, personal

experiences, and sociodemographic characteristics, play significant roles in shaping

citizens’ perceptions of law enforcement officials (Hennigan, Maxson, Sloane, &

Ranney, 2002; Klyman & Kruckenberg, 1974; Olsen, 2005).

16

The Media

Topics in the media, such as film, books, newspapers, magazines, television

broadcasts, and everyday conversations, constantly surround crime and law enforcement

(Dowler, 2003). Specifically, television as well as the movie industry consistently air

programs with a central policing theme and clearly show that police dramas have played

prominent roles throughout the development of media culture. In Los Angeles, a study

showed that 35% of civilians believed that the greatest influencing factor on citizens’

opinion of local law enforcement stemmed from the mass media (Hennigan, Maxson,

Sloane, & Ranney, 2002). Perlmutter (2000) reports that in the last half of the 1990s,

there were 225 individual, serialized, prime-time American television shows about crime

and law enforcement, which at a certain point in 1994 even had up to fifteen shows airing

simultaneously.

The literature on media portrayal of law enforcement reveals two conflicting

views. While some scholars argue that there is a positive portrayal of law enforcement

figures in the media, others suggest that police are displayed negatively (Dowler, 2003).

Under a positive light, most television shows display police officers as the heroic

professional crime fighter and are generally hyperbolized to meet standards of fictional

police entertainment (Dowler, 2003), meaning that the majority of the time, crimes are

usually solved and criminals are successfully captured (Carlson, 1985; Dominick, 1973;

Zillman and Wakshlag, 1987). Furthermore, many news outlets present embellished

information about criminal offenses and arrests, which may lead the media audience to

believe that law enforcement officials are more effective than actual statistics suggest

(Marsh, 1991; Sacco & Fair, 1988). Graber (1980) also reports that this leads the general

17

public to view street police patrols more favorably and more effective than officials

within the courts and corrections systems. On the other hand, many forms of media can

negatively affect the image of the law enforcement official. Surette (1998) argues that

while television shows and tabloids programs depict police officers as heroes that fight

evil, news outlets can also display police officers as ineffective and incompetent. Licther

and Licther (1983) further suggest that although justice is usually served in police

dramas, the law enforcement officials themselves are rarely exhibited as the heroic

figures.

Rather than viewing media depiction as positive or negative, Dowler (2003)

describes the civilian-law enforcement relationship as “symbiotic” (p. 111), or mutually

beneficial, in which the police can provide the media with quick and reliable information

about crime. In turn, the media can contribute to the benefit of law enforcement officials

by helping to create and maintain a positive public image (Ericson, Baranek, & Chan,

1987). Following examination of this research, it is clear that a large portion of public

knowledge and opinion of the justice system is heavily derived from the media.

Personal Experiences

Furthermore, personal experiences heavily influence citizens’ attitudes toward

law enforcement as the previously mentioned study shows that 65% of Los Angeles

citizens believed their personal experiences is most responsible for their perceptions of

police (Hennigan et al., 2002) and may even serve as the greatest determinant in shaping

attitudes toward police (Cooper, 1980; Cordner & Jones, 1995). Specifically, direct

contact with law enforcement officials serves as the most influential factor in the

development of a citizens’ attitude toward law enforcement. Rosenbaum et al. (2005)

18

posit that it is whether a police encounter is negative or positive that helps shape people’s

beliefs about law enforcement, which is generally viewed in terms of satisfaction.

Decker (1981) also suggests satisfaction level is dependent on who initiated police

contact; that is, those who seek out encounters with the police, such as dialing 911 for

assistance, are generally more satisfied with their experience than those who are the

unwilling targets of police-initiated contact, such as traffic stops.

The quality of treatment by police also affects the personal experience of citizens

(Rosenbaum et al., 2005). When citizens experience police officers who they deem to be

unfair, rude, unconcerned, unhelpful, or unprofessional in some manner, they are more

likely to be dissatisfied with police and may exhibit negative attitudes (Cheurprakobkit &

Bartsch, 2001; Tyler & Huo, 2002). For instance, use of excessive or physical force can

heavily sway somebody to view law enforcement in a negative light. However, there are

additional factors that affect the relationship between abusive police behavior and the

public’s perception of abuse. Alpert and Dunham (1997) suggest that factors such as a

suspect’s level of resistance or demeanor at a criminal scene are not taken into

consideration in the public’s determination if excessive force was necessary or

unnecessary. Rusinko, Johnson, and Hornung (1978) also suggest that police contact

made during people’s youth experiences can serve to be influential in shaping police

perceptions. On the other hand, elderly citizens who reported having direct experiences

with police viewed the police less favorably (Arcuri, 1981) and the more contact they had

with police, their perceptions of law enforcement was less favorable (Morello, 1982).

Rosenbaum et al. (2005) examined how vicarious experiences (i.e. hearing about

an acquaintance’s positive or negative police encounter) have a major effect on shaping

19

attitudes toward police. Due to the fact that an average of 1 out of 5 Americans

experience direct contact with the police during any given year, vicarious experiences are

critical in shaping views of police. Their study found that while negative experiences

resulted in negative perceptions, positive experiences were associated with less negative

perceptions of the police and played a large role in changing attitudes toward the police

than negative experiences. After reviewing the extant literature, it is transparent that

personal experiences play a critical role in the development of beliefs toward law

enforcement officials.

Sociodemographic Factors

Klyman and Kruckenberg (1974) point out that many studies highlight

sociodemographic variables, such as socioeconomic status, age, gender, and race, as

playing key roles in predicting judgments about law enforcement. Initially, Walker

(1972) and Jacob (1971) both suggest that sociodemographic status may affect

perceptions toward police. However, more recent studies challenge the role

sociodemographic status has on attitudes and imply that sociodemographic status is

linked with neighborhood culture, which serves to be a more accurate predictor of

attitudes toward police (Davis 1990; Dunham & Alpert, 1988). Second, Decker (1981)

notes that age can affect perceptions toward law enforcement. The general consensus is

that younger citizens have less favorable ideas and beliefs toward police than older

citizens (Murty, Roebuck, & Smith, 1990; Dunham & Alpert, 1988; Feagin, 1970;

Walker 1972). Third, there are several studies suggesting that gender affects attitude

toward police. Brandl, Frank, Worden, and Bynum (1994), and Cao, Frank, & Cullen

(1996) propose that females rate police more positively than their male counterparts.

20

Black and Smith (1981) explain this phenomenon by saying that police may often times

treat female suspects differently from male suspects. It has also been found that younger

teenage girls retain more favorable attitudes toward police than males (Taylor, Turner,

Esbensen, & Winfree Jr., 2001).

Finally, the impact race has on the relationship between law enforcement and

citizens, has been the most heavily investigated demographic (Decker, 1981).

Traditionally, these studies were limited to solely African-Americans and White

ethnicities while other groups were rarely studied. The urban race riots of the 1960s

served as a springboard for more research to be conducted dealing with race and attitude

toward police. Initial studies revealed that despite the riots, most citizens still viewed

police favorably; however, Whites were more favorable than African-Americans of law

enforcement. This has generally been a consistent finding in studies examining African-

Americans and Whites attitudes toward police (Apple & O’Brien, 1983; Cao et al., 1996;

Dean, 1983; Zamble & Annesley, 1987). When the scope of research moved onto other

ethnic groups, results suggested that as race differs, attitudes vary as well. More recently,

Davis (1990) found that in New York City, law enforcement was viewed more favorably

by Hispanics than African-Americans. Furthermore, Reisig and Parks (2000) note that in

Indianapolis, Indiana and St. Petersburg, Florida, non-Black minority members held more

favorable attitudes than African-Americans. Thus, it is clear that not all minority groups

have the same consistent views regarding attitude toward police. Jesilow, Meyer, and

Namazzi (1995) attribute these varying attitudes to the fact that there has been an increase

in the hiring of minority officers which may have affected opinions toward police.

21

These four key sociodemographic elements have been most heavily investigated

among research surrounding attitude toward police. However, additional studies have

factored other sociodemographic components such as neighborhood culture or city of

residence (Decker 1981; Taylor et al., 2001) and education (Jesilow, Meyer, & Namazzi,

1995) in determining the relationship between citizens and law enforcement.

Communication and Law Enforcement

It is clear that research within the law enforcement field has primarily been

interested in media depiction, personal experiences, and the effects of sociodemographic

factors on perceptions of police. However, a major gap within the literature lies with the

minimal effort dedicated to examining the communicative aspect of police-civilian

encounters. While the communicative discipline has dedicated significant study to the

role communication plays in numerous contexts between different types of groups, such

as between different cultures/genders/ages, the mass media and its audience, patients and

health professionals, and members of the courtroom (Giles & Ogay, 2007; Linell, 1991)

little attention has been devoted to examining the communication that occurs within the

direct interaction between law enforcement officials and civilians. The extant literature

shows that some work has addressed related fields such as different perspectives of

policing (Heydon, 2005; Solan & Tiersma, 2005) and the legal courtroom (Linell, 1991),

but few studies have solely concentrated on the communicative elements of law

enforcement-civilian encounters (Giles et al., 2006; Perlmutter, 2000). Womack and

Finley (1986) note that communication is the central most important commodity that an

officer has at his or her disposal while Giles et al. (2006) report that 98% of law

enforcement practice is directly related to communicating with the public and its safety

22

needs. Thus, it is clearly evident the important presence communication has in the law

enforcement field and warrants increased study.

Perception and Law Enforcement

Of the existing literature related to this field, the communication research within

the law enforcement context heavily surrounds how officers’ style of communication

affects perceptions (Giles et al., 2006), trust (Barker et al., 2008), compliance (Hajek et

al., 2008c) and relational/emotional satisfaction (Giles et al., 2006) in American and

international contexts (Hajek et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al., 2008b). Giles

et al. (2006) explored the role accommodation plays in the communicative relationship

between community members and its law enforcement agency. Utilizing CAT as their

theoretical framework, they were interested in discovering how accommodation affected

citizens’ attitudes toward police (ATP). By distributing surveys through three separate

methods (door-to-door distribution, after Mass at two Spanish speaking churches, and an

online college campus survey), the authors were able to derive conclusions from separate

populations that were from a common community. This study found that ratings of

satisfaction among local citizens were heavily dependent on an officer’s accommodative

ability, as citizens perceived officers who were more accommodating, more positively.

Adding yet another element to the list that helps predict attitude toward police, Giles et

al. (2006) found substantial evidence that communication accommodation can serve as a

key factor in affecting citizens’ perception of police.

In a replicated study conducted in Kansas, People’s Republic of China, and

Taiwan, Giles et al. (2007) predicted that in all three cultural contexts, ratings and

satisfaction of police would be dependent on perceived trust and officer accommodation.

23

However, different cultures yielded different results. In both Kansas and China,

perceived trust was the only predictor of satisfaction while in Taiwan, both trust and

accommodation were significant predictors. Furthermore, Hajek et al. (2006) found

similar results in their own study comparing Black and White respondents in Louisiana

and South Africa in examining the relationships among accommodation, trust, and

compliance. Results indicated that accommodation was a significant predictor of trust in

both contexts but when it came to compliance, they found that there was no predictive

relationship between officer accommodation and voluntary civilian compliance.

However, police accommodation led to perceived trust, from which willingness to

comply was derived. These finding were again supported in a similar study conducted in

Korea, Japan, Guam, and Canada where results indicated that although officer

accommodativeness may not directly have influenced compliance, it did indeed affect

civilians’ perceptions on trustworthiness, which in turn predicted one’s willingness to

comply (Barker et al., 2008).

Therefore, it is clear that in numerous contexts, an officer’s level of

communication accommodation is a key element in shaping civilian perceptions of law

enforcement. Attitudes toward police, perceived trustworthiness, and compliance can all

potentially be affiliated with the level of an officers’ communicative style. As police

officers’ level of accommodation increases, so does the level of perceived trust between

them, which in turn results in an increased likelihood of voluntary civilian compliance

(Barker et al., 2008; Hajek et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al., 2008b; Giles et

al., 2006; Giles et al., 2007). These same conceptual ideas will be applied to the police

officer-suspect relationship. Therefore, this study will test the following hypothesis:

24

H 1: A suspect will have a more positive perception of a communicatively

accommodative police officer than a non-accommodative police officer.

Trust and Law Enforcement

Nadler and Liviatan (2006) note that trust is an important element when it comes

to establishing peaceful and favorable relationships between members of different

groups. Furthermore, Tyler and Huo (2002) suggest that motive-based trust affects

people’s willingness to comply with legal authorities as Hajek et al. (2006) add that trust

serves as a mediating variable to civilian compliance, which is an important relevant

factor in community policing. Ultimately, the communication that occurs between the

police and civilians can also be described as the communication between two separate

groups and thus, it is safe to say that trust plays an increasingly important role when it

comes to the working relationship between civilians and law enforcement officials (Tyler,

2006).

Trust is closely associated with empathy, positive attitudes, self-disclosure, and

reciprocity (Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, & Niens, 2006; Kenworthy, Turner,

Hewstone, & Voci, 2005) and is a highly complex process. All of these elements are

critical in helping to establish a more effective police-civilian relationship. However, as

people interact with different group memberships, people typically tend to accord less

trust and greater distrust to outgroup members (Tanis & Postmes, 2005). This is evident

in the police-community relationship, as civilians tend to view law enforcement officials

as outgroup members. Borrero (2001) notes that a civilian’s interaction with the police is

seldom pleasant and most individuals feel apprehensive just to see a police officer in

25

numerous common settings such as walking down the street, in a restaurant, or driving on

the freeway.

In order to develop a higher attainment of trust and eliminate perceived group

differences, the availability of personal information (Tanis & Postmes, 2005) and the

expectation of relational development (Yuki et al., 2005) can serve as important factors.

Brown and Hewstone (2005) argue that establishing personal and intimate relationships

with outgroup members may result in generating positive attitudes. As a result, it is

important that the outgroup (law enforcement) establishes such bonds with the ingroup

(civilians), in order to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement-community

relationships.

Stoutland (2001) examines what type of central role trust plays in her study of

resident-police relations. She asserts that in Chicago and San Diego, law enforcement

philosophies are designed so that residents and police work together to create activities

that will decrease disorder, which at the center is trust. In Boston, police strategy relies

on an effective relationship between community leaders and police with high levels of

trust so that community members are willing to disclose sensitive information about

identifying and communicating with violent youth. In order for law enforcement officials

to implement effective policing behavior, it is clear that trust is a critical and important

element. Therefore, grounded in the existing literature surrounding trust, this study tests

the following hypothesis:

H 2: A suspect will be more trustful of a communicatively accommodative police

officer than a non-accommodative police officer.

26

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

In order to examine the effects of communication accommodation in law

enforcement-suspect encounters, this study relied on a web-based survey to collect data.

This method of data collection is ideal for ensuring that the opinions of a wide range of

respondents are considered. By specifically targeting college students, the data reflected

the opinions of those who have actually had a direct encounter experience or know

somebody who has had a direct encounter experience with a law enforcement officer as

Hingson et al. (2002) estimates, more than 1100 college students were involved in

alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents in 1998. Furthermore, Presley, Meilman, and

Lyerla (1995) reported that in their study, 31.9% of students aged 20 years and younger

and 33.6% of students aged 21 years and older admitted to driving while intoxicated. By

studying college students, this study depicted the opinions of a large and knowledgeable

population.

Administering surveys through the Internet serves as an effective and efficient

means to collect data. Although the traditional form of data collection may be via mailed

surveys or phone calls (Dillman, 1998), the modern collection process has evolved to

significantly depend on different forms of technology, such as web-based surveys.

Dominelli (2003) outlines several key advantages of utilizing surveys distributed through

the Internet than utilizing the traditional method.

27

Initially, the consistently increasing number of Internet users provides the

researcher the potential to reach a larger number of people at once, as the U.S. National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (2003) reports that the Internet

experiences a growth rate at approximately two million new users per month. Next,

utilizing the Internet as a form of data collection serves to financially benefit the

researcher as well, and allows avoiding costs of printing and postage expenses associated

with mailed surveys. Furthermore, the quicker response rates and turnaround times of

web-based research than the traditional mailing method makes Internet questionnaires a

more favorable choice of data collection.

Although web-based data collection provides significant key benefits, there are

also limitations. At the fundamental level, there are three specific limitations to web-

based research outlined by Dominelli (2003) relating to “participating in web surveys,

perceived burden of responding to a web survey, and security” (p. 412). First, regarding

participation, it is important to recognize that although Internet use has increased

significantly, not everybody is an experienced user. Thus, this limits the researcher from

constructing a sample that extends into all different types of people in a population, such

as the elderly or extremely young. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult to create

incentive for participation because researchers are not directly connecting with

participants. Participants may also have the ability to preview a survey in a web-

administered questionnaire, which could skew the data. Next, some participants may not

complete the surveys and could result in a high rate of abandonment. Finally,

participants may be weary of the security of their participation and it may be difficult to

assure them that their answers will remain anonymous and confidential. Despite these

28

shortcomings, Dominelli (2003) suggests that by focusing on an effective and efficient

survey design, these limitations can be suppressed and can provide a useful instrument

for the process of collecting data.

Recruitment

Students who were recruited form a large, southeastern University constituted the

main source of data. University students were deemed as an ideal sample population for

three reasons. Initially, the large student population on the University campus allowed

the researcher to easily access willing participants. Second, the standard admission

procedures and requirements for students to be enrolled at the University reflected the

students’ ability to be competent survey participants, which met the typical research

requirements. Third, the population sample had the potential to have a large number of

people who may have actually had a direct encounter with the police whether it was in an

unofficial or official setting. In fact, the California Department of Alcohol & Drug

Programs reported in 2011 that the proportion of DUI arrests for those under the age of

21 has increased 12.6% between 1998 and 2008. Furthermore, the same report reveals

that the highest percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol content (BAC) levels of the

legal limit of .08 or higher were for drivers between the ages of 21-24 years of age

(California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs, 2011). For these key reasons, this

type of sample population was chosen for study.

In order to recruit participants for this study, two different recruitment strategies

were employed. First, the researcher arranged to visit with several large undergraduate

lecture courses to ask for voluntary participation in the survey. These courses consisted

of general education communication courses such as public speaking. For some courses,

29

there was a basic course obligation where students must participate in some type of

research study to meet assignment specifications or to receive extra credit. In these cases,

the researcher made a visit to the lecture, presented the basic details of the research, and

asked for voluntary participation. Students were also instructed on what type of protocol

they must take to ensure that they will receive credit for participation in the study. In

other cases, where the instructors may not offer any sort of incentive to participate in

research, the researcher also made a visit to the lecture, presented the basic details of the

research, and asked for voluntary participation. The researcher was sure to explain how

important willing and enthusiastic participants were needed for the purpose of the study

in hopes of persuading students to participate in the survey on their own accord.

The second form of recruitment took place through the researcher’s email

networks. The researcher circulated a pre-conceived email to other large communication

lecture courses, asking students to participate in the research study. This email stated the

purpose of the study, why participation is important, and assured the students that

participation would be anonymous and voluntary (See Appendix B).

Participants

A sample of 288 students, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, was

obtained for the study. They were recruited either from introductory level communication

courses at a large, southeastern University or through the researcher’s email network. Of

the original 288 participants, 31 responses were eliminated from the final dataset due to

missing responses and/or failure to meet manipulation checks, which left a final sample

of 257 students.

30

Instruments

The survey begins with an introductory page that outlines the informed consent

procedure and instructions on how to properly take the survey. The introductory page let

participants know what the purpose of the study is, reminded students that participation is

completely voluntary, and provided direct contact information for the researcher. The

page concluded by asking participants to confirm or reject participation in the study. The

participant was only granted access to the next page if they selected to have understood

the consent form and chose to participate in the survey.

The second page of the survey focused on the demographic information of the

participants. Questions concerning gender, age, education level, martial status, and

ethnic group were asked to provide the researcher with a more detailed description of the

sample population. Additionally, this page sought information to determine how much

participants are exposed to police-related media and whether participants ever

experienced a direct encounter with a law enforcement officer. Then, the participants

were directed to a randomization question that randomly placed them in one of two

potential contexts. Context One depicted an accommodative situation while Context Two

displayed a non-accommodative situation (see Appendix C). Approximately half of the

total sample population participated in each respective context.

The third page depicted a hypothetical encounter between a law enforcement

officer and a potential DUI suspect. The participant was asked to assume the role of the

DUI suspect and was given information about the officer’s communication

accommodation. Depending on which context they were placed in each hypothetical

context provided a police officer who sustained either an accommodative or non-

31

accommodative communication style. Following the scenario, the participants were

asked a series of questions designed to measure the level of the officers perceived

accommodation level, their perception toward the law enforcement officer, and the level

of trust the suspect had toward the law enforcement officer.

The survey concluded with a final page thanking the participants for participation

in the survey. Here, the participants were once again given the contact information to the

researcher and were also provided with an opportunity to provide any type of feedback or

comments that would be directly sent to the primary researcher. Furthermore, if students

were participating to meet a basic research requirement for their school course, this page

allowed them to provide information that would ensure the students that their information

would be sent to their course instructor to receive credit for completing the survey.

Measures

In order to measure the manipulation of an officer’s level of communication

accommodation, the questionnaire utilized a 10-item modified version of the

Communication Accommodation Scale (CAS), which has been used in several studies in

the past to measure communication accommodation in law enforcement-civilian

encounters (Giles et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al.,

2008b). The original scale asked five questions to determine how an officer’s

communication style was “pleasant,” “accommodative,” “respectful,” “polite,” and

“explanatory.” To measure a police officer’s communication accommodation for this

study, two of the original five questions were used (accommodation, respectfulness) in

the adapted scale.

32

Incorporating two of the existing items, the modified scale asked questions

assessing whether the officer’s communicative ability was “accommodative,”

“respectful,” “comfortable,” “engaged,” “adaptive,” “uncomfortable,” “uncooperative,”

“rude,” “careless,” and “unadaptive” for a total of ten questions, respectively. The

answers for the modified communication accommodation scale were recorded on a 9-

point Likert-type scale ranging from “1 - Strongly Agree” to “9 – Strongly Disagree”.

Items 1-5 (n = 257, M = 7.29) of the modified communication accommodation scale

measured convergent behaviors, while divergent behaviors were measured by items 6-10

(n = 257, M =3.76). Following data collection, items 6-10 were reverse coded to align

the responses. This scale showed that an officer’s communication accommodation style

was significantly manipulated between the two hypothetical contexts. A high level of

reliability was deduced from this modified scale as Cronbach’s alpha reliability was

reported at .96 (M = 56.05, SD = 21.77).

Then, the researcher utilized an adapted scale to measure how communication

accommodation may have affected their perception toward the police in general. The

original scale, Faith In People Scale (FIPS), was developed by Rosenberg (1957) and is

designed to assess one’s degree of confidence in the trustworthiness, honesty, goodness,

generosity, and brotherliness of people in general. The instrument utilizes a Guttman

scale of two forced-choice and three agree-disagree statements and takes about 1 minute

to complete. In the past, the coefficient of reproducibility for the original FIPS was .92

(Rosenberg, 1957). To make this scale fit appropriately to this specific study, the

researcher modified the questions from asking opinions of the generalized group of

33

“people” to asking opinions on the more specific group: the police. For instance, one

question in its original form asked:

“Some people say that most people can be trusted. Others say you can’t be too

careful in your dealings with people. How do you feel about it?”

This question was altered to:

“Some people say that the police can be trusted. Others say you can’t be too

careful in your dealings with the police. How do you feel about it?”

The remaining questions were modified in the same way to be directed toward the police.

The Cronbach’s alpha of .73 (M = 6.92, SD = 1.67) indicated that this scale was a reliable

measure of police perception.

To measure the level of trust that the participant may have experienced an

additional trust scale was utilized. The Individualized Trust Scale (ITS) focused on the

specific officer present in the hypothetical scenario. The ITS is a modified version of the

Interpersonal Trust Scale and has been tailored by Wheeless and Grotz (1977) to focus on

a particular person rather than people in general. This scale utilizes a 7-point semantic

differential scale and takes about 1 minute to complete. This scale was chosen for its

ability to measure trust toward an individual person, such as the police officer in this

particular study, as well as the high levels of reliability reported in the past. Wheeless

and Grotz (1977) found a split-half reliability level of .92, while Snavely (1981) found an

alpha of .95. After the ITS was administered for this survey, the researcher found a

Cronbach’s alpha reliability level of .91 (M = 54.96, SD = 15.34).

Furthermore, in order to test the authenticity of the hypothetical scenarios,

students were asked to rate their “believability” of the scenarios on two separate, seven-

34

point scales: not believable/very believable and not very realistic/very realistic (Kearney,

et al., 1988). Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimate for this scale was reported at .93 (M =

7.49, SD = 4.32), which suggests that the scenarios used in the study were, in fact,

believable and realistic. Furthermore, Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko (2009)

suggest that including a manipulation check can increase statistical power and reliability

of a dataset. Thus, this page included two questions that asked participants to identify

simple, but detailed, elements of the hypothetical scenario. In doing so, the researcher

was able to identify and eliminate the answers that may have been seemingly chosen at

random or from participants who may have failed to follow instructions when completing

the questionnaire.

In summary, this study tested two hypotheses concerning the interaction between

law enforcement officials and potential suspects. In order to test the hypotheses, two

separate independent t-tests will be conducted. Two types of hypothetical contexts were

distributed at random to the participants of the survey. The first hypothetical scenario

manipulated the independent variable that depicted a police officer engaging in an

accommodating form of communication. The dependent variables here were perceptions

of police, which was measured through the modified version of the FIPS and levels of

trust, which was measured through the ITS. The second hypothetical scenario depicted a

police officer who had a non-accommodating form of communication, which served as

the independent variable and had the same dependent variables. The data for all

hypotheses was analyzed simultaneously, and was tested through two separate

independent sample t-tests. Before conducting the independent t-tests, the media,

sociodemographic factors, and personal experiences were accounted and controlled for

35

through a preliminary linear regression analysis as additional independent variables to

ensure they did not have a significant impact on perceptions or levels of trust toward the

police.

36

Chapter 4

RESULTS

First, the descriptive statistics for each variable were calculated to gain a better

understanding of the nature of the sample (n = 257). Second, a bivariate correlation

analysis was conducted among the variables to provide an introductory understanding of

the relationships between each variable. Finally, to gain a better understanding of how

communication accommodation affects the relationships between police officers and

suspects, two separate independent sample t-tests were conducted to test the hypotheses.

Descriptive Statistics

The findings for the descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The average

age of the respondents was 20.1 years old (SD = 1.55). The sample consisted of 66.5%

female respondents (n = 171) and 33.5% male respondents (n = 86). The majority of the

participants identified as “Caucasian” (86.4%). The sample showed that 89.5% of the

participants (n = 250) had experienced a direct encounter with the police in the past 5

years. Furthermore, 203 participants (79%) also reported that they have had a police-

initiated encounter with the police, and 136 students (47.1%) reported that they have had

an encounter where they, the students, were the ones to initiate contact. Furthermore,

54.5% of respondents considered themselves frequent viewers of television crime shows

(i.e. NCIS, Law and Order, Criminal Minds, Cops, etc.). Per week, 71.2% of respondents

(n = 183) spent “0-2 Hours” watching crime shows, 24.9% of respondents (n = 183) spent

37

“3-5 Hours” watching crime shows, and 3.9% of respondents (n = 64) spent more than 6

hours watching crime shows.

Bivariate Correlations

The details of the bivariate correlation analysis are outlined in Table 2. In order

to see if there was high collinearity between any two variables, the bivariate correlations

were examined. Although the question “Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter

(i.e. traffic stop, random conversation, questioning, etc.) with the police in the past 5

years?” showed the highest correlation at .602 with “Have you ever had any direct

contact/encounter with the police that was initiated by a police officer?”, all coefficients

were reported at the acceptable level of less than .700 (George & Mallery, 2006).

38

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Hypothetical Contexts (n = 257)

Variable

M

SD

Would you consider yourself a frequent viewer of a television crime show (i.e. NCIS, Law and Order, Criminal Minds, Cops, etc.)? 1.46 .499 What is your gender? 1.67 .473 How old are you? 20.07 1.547 What is your race? 2.83 .645 Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter (i.e. traffic stop, random conversation, questioning, etc.) with the police in the past 5 years? 1.89 .307 Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter with the police that was initiated by a police officer? 1.79 .408 Have you had any direct contact/encounter with the police where you initiated contact? 1.47 .500 Modified Communication Accommodation Scale 5.60 2.177 Modified Faith In People Scale 1.38 .333 Individualized Trust Scale 3.66 1.023

39

Table 2

Bivariate Correlations (n = 257)

Gender Age Race Direct Encounter

1

Direct Encounter

2

Direct Encounter

3

Modified Communication Accommodation

Scale

Modified Faith In People Scale

Individualized Trust Scale

Media -.229** .014 .025 -.094 .046 .077 -.022 -.063 .021

Gender --- -.128* -.086 -.082 -.103 -.075 -.050 -.025 -.073

Age --- .043 .081 .129* .134* -.026 .057 .031

Race --- .027 .160* .093 -.159* -.006 .064

Direct Encounter 1

---

.602** .298** .021 .006 .032

Direct Encounter 2

---

.142* -.009 .049 .039

Direct Encounter 3

---

.010 -.043 -.015

Modified Communication Accommodation

Scale

--- -.160* -.562**

Modified Faith In People Scale

--- .408**

Note: Correlations with an * are significant at the level of p < .05. Correlations with an **are significant at the level of p <.01.

40

Data Analysis

In order to test the hypotheses, two separate independent sample t-tests were

conducted to determine the relationships between communication accommodation,

perception, and trust. Before the independent t-tests were calculated, additional

independent variables including media, sociodemographic factors, and personal

experience were first controlled for in a separate regression analysis to make sure they

did not significantly influence levels of perception and/or trust.

Before testing Hypothesis 1, a linear regression analysis was first performed to

examine the relationships between the potential confounding variables including media,

sociodemographic factors, and personal experience, and a suspect’s level of perception.

The linear regression found that there were no significant relationships between these

potential confounding variables and the dependent variable. The results of this linear

regression model are portrayed in Table 3. Next, to test Hypothesis 1, an independent

sample t-test was conducted to compare levels of perception in accommodative and non-

accommodative conditions. This analysis found that there was no significant difference

at α = .05 in scores between accommodative (M = 1.37, SD = .34) and non-

accommodative (M = 1.40, SD = .33) conditions; t(255) = -.678, p =.498). These results

suggest that a police officer’s communication accommodation style did not have a

significant effect on a suspect’s level of perception. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not

supported.

41

Table 3 Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between Communication Accommodation and Perception (n = 257)

Variable B SE B β Sig. Modified Communication Accommodation Scale -.026 .010 -.168 .009 Would you consider yourself a frequent viewer of a television crime show (i.e. NCIS, Law and Order, Criminal Minds, Cops, etc.)?

-.049 .043 -.074 .255

What is your gender? -.033 .046 -.047 .476 How old are you? .011 .014 .049 .440 What is your race? -.022 .033 -.042 .513 Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter (i.e. traffic stop, random conversation, questioning, etc.) with the police in the past 5 years?

-.033 .089 -.030 .712

Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter with the police that was initiated by a police officer?

.052 .065 .064 .423

Have you had any direct contact/encounter with the police where you initiated contact?

-.028 .044 -.042 .532

Note: r = .201, r2 = .040, p < .05

Prior to testing Hypothesis 2, an additional separate linear regression test was

initially conducted to examine the relationships between the same potential confounding

variables and level of trust. The linear regression again indicated that the potential

confounding variables did not significantly affect a suspect’s level of trust. The findings

of this particular linear regression model are displayed in Table 4. In order to test

Hypothesis 2, another independent sample t-test was conducted to compare levels of trust

in accommodative and non-accommodative conditions. The analysis indicated that there

is a significant difference at α = .05 in scores between accommodative (M = 3.35, SD =

1.04) and non-accommodative (M = 4.01, SD = .88) conditions; t(255) = -5.501, p

=.000). These findings suggest that a police officer’s communication accommodation

style did have a significant effect on a suspect’s level of trust. Therefore, Hypothesis 2

was supported.

42

Table 4

Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between Communication Accommodation and Trust (n = 257)

Variable B SE B β Sig. Modified Communication Accommodation Scale

-.264 .025 -.563 .000

Would you consider yourself a frequent viewer of a television crime show (i.e. NCIS, Law and Order, Criminal Minds, Cops, etc.)?

.059 .111 .029 .594

What is your gender?

.121 .118 .056 .307

How old are you?

.014 .035 .022 .685

What is your race?

-.038 .086 -.024 .663

Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter (i.e. traffic stop, random conversation, questioning, etc.) with the police in the past 5 years?

.158 .229 .048 .490

Have you ever had any direct contact/encounter with the police that was initiated by a police officer?

.042 .168 .017 .803

Have you had any direct contact/encounter with the police where you initiated contact?

-.051 .114 -.025 .658

Note: r = .568, r2 = .323, p < .05.

43

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

Summary of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the communicative relationship in

police-suspect interactions. As the policing philosophy continues to embrace a

“community policing” orientation, there has been a small growing trend to learn how to

establish a positive relationship between police officers and civilians; however,

establishing a positive relationship between police officers and suspects is equally

important. Specifically, this study utilized online questionnaires to examine the effect a

police officer’s communication accommodation had on a suspect’s perception and level

of trust toward the officer. The results of the study indicate that a police officer’s

communication accommodation was not a successful predictor of suspect perception, but

was successful in predicting levels of trust.

Hypothesis 1 focused on the police officer-suspect communicative relationship in

terms of perception. This hypothesis predicted that a suspect would have a more positive

perception of a communicatively accommodative police officer than a non-

accommodative police officer. As indicated by the independent sample t-test, this

hypothesis was not supported.

Hypothesis 2 focused on the level of trust within the police officer-suspect

communicative relationship. This hypothesis predicted that a suspect would be more

trusting of a communicatively accommodative police officer than a non-accommodative

44

police officer. Upon completion of an independent sample t-test, this hypothesis was

supported.

Implications

This study has important implications for both the theoretical and social arenas.

First, at the theoretical level, the guiding principles of CAT have once again been

supported. The validation of Hypothesis 2 shows the potential social effect

communication accommodation can have in a social interaction. Analysis revealed a lack

of empirical support for Hypothesis 1; however, this may have very well been due to the

fact that the scale used to measure perception asked participants to respond to their

perception of the police as a collectivistic group and not as an individual. Utilizing a

more specific perception scale that aims to measure individual perception in future study

may prove to produce different findings. In addition to the numerous contexts that CAT

has been historically studied and supported, such as in instructional (Mazer & Hunt,

2008), health (Watson & Gallois, 1998), and intercultural (Imamura, Zhang, & Harwood,

2011) contexts, this study shows the versatile nature CAT has in being applied to

different interactional situations. Specifically, this particular study highlighted how

convergence and divergence in communicative behaviors can increase or decrease the

social distance between interactants (Giles & Ogay, 2007). In doing so, this research

reiterates the validity of the tenets outlined in CAT.

Second, this study employed a modified version of the Communication

Accommodation Scale to measure how participants perceived a police officer’s

communication. As a result, the researcher proposes an additional measure that may be

utilized to measure communication accommodation. The original scale inquired five

45

questions to determine how an officer’s communication style was “pleasant,”

“accommodative,” “respectful,” “polite,” and “explanatory” (Giles et al., 2006; Hajek et

al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2008a; Hajek et al., 2008b, Barker et al., 2008). However,

although a valid and reliable scale, the original scale primarily focuses on converging

accommodative behavior. The modified scale used in this study, integrated a 10-item

questionnaire that emphasized both converging and diverging features by asking if an

officer’s communicative ability was “accommodative,” “respectful,” “comfortable,”

“engaged,” “adaptive,” “uncomfortable,” “uncooperative,” “rude,” “careless,” and

“unadaptive.” By asking questions that motivate students to think about both converging

and diverging communicative behavior, the modified communication accommodation

scale reveals a more precise analysis of an interactant’s perceived level of

accommodation. In future studies interested in accommodation, this scale may be

considered appropriate to measure levels of communication accommodation.

Third, the results of this study extend the existing literature surrounding the

importance of effective communication between police officers and society. Although

some research exists regarding the interaction that occurs between police officers and

civilians (Giles et al., 2006, Hajek et al., 2006), it is important to examine the police-

suspect encounter, as criminal suspects play a large role within the concept of community

policing (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010). Thus, this study suggests an additional

venue where communication theory can infiltrate to improve the relationships between

societal members.

Next, at the social level, this research provides important pragmatic implications

that can be directly applied to the law enforcement community. The lack of support for

46

Hypothesis 1 suggests that accommodation is not enough to affect an individual’s

perception of law enforcement as a whole. However, empirical support for Hypothesis 2

suggests that communication strategies can help improve the individual encounter

between a police officer and a suspect. Thus, in an effort to improve the collectivistic

perception of police officers, law enforcement officials must make a conscious effort to

be accommodating in their own individual interactions, as part of a collectivistic effort to

improve the relationships between law enforcement and their communities.

Next, as previously noted, over 13 million police-suspect encounters led to a

direct arrest in the year 2010 alone (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010) not including

the encounters that did not lead to an arrest, which shows the prevalence of this type of

interaction. Therefore, police officers can utilize this type of communicative knowledge

to improve the increasingly common police-suspect encounter. The results indicate that a

suspect’s level of trust will increase toward an accommodative officer, which in turn will

lead to a more efficient interaction. In fact, several studies point out that criminal

suspects often lie and employ deceptive behavior when interacting with the police

(Strömwall, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2006; Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Woods, &

Michlik, 2006; Hines et al., 2010). By implementing communicative strategies, such as

accommodation, to increase the level of trust between an officer and a suspect, officers

may hope to improve the validity of the information exchanged during interaction.

Additionally, employing strategies to increase trust toward law enforcement helps

to mold the overall community’s relationship toward the law enforcement agency. Due

to the large presence of communities sustaining negative attitudes toward law

enforcement (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003), it is imperative that policing agencies embrace

47

methods to create such trusting atmospheres. Both academic scholars and law

enforcement officials promote the same idea that the prevention of criminal activity

highly depends on police and society cooperating together (Bayley, 1994). By no means

does this study claim to have the answer to provide a completely cooperative police-

civilian relationship; rather, the findings of this study suggest that accommodative

behavior could be one strategy to contribute in the effort to improve the police-suspect

relationship.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although this study found empirical evidence in support of the criteria outlined in

the Communication Accommodation Theory, this study is not without limitations.

Most participants identified themselves as “Caucasian.” Thus, future research may aim

to incorporate a more racially diverse population to learn the effects of communication

accommodation on a broader scale. In doing so, a more accurate depiction of the

relationship between sociodemographic factors views toward police can be assessed.

Moreover, the fact that students were asked to assume suspect roles may initially appear

limiting. However, the descriptive statistics reveal that 89.5% of participants had

experienced a direct encounter with the police in the past years, which coincides with

Johnson’s (2004) study that found 84% of the 245 surveyed students reported having

been stopped by the police for a traffic violation. These results support that college

students are appropriate for study as they have experience interacting with the police.

Future studies may examine other populations, such as the working class or the elderly.

Second, the fact that the survey asked participants to assume roles in a

hypothetical situation may serve as an additional limitation to this study. Although

48

questionnaires with hypothetical scenarios are a common method to solicit responses

(Myers et al., 2008, Bowman, 2009), there is no real way to determine if their answers

would coincide with scenarios that may actually occur. Additionally, the believability

scale used to assess if the realism of the hypothetical scenarios can be considered a

weakness. Of the original three believability questions (Kearney, et al., 1988), only two

were utilized to test the believability of this study’s hypothetical scenarios. The omitted

question asked, “How easy is it to imagine yourself in this type of situation?” Due to

some sensitive elements of the imagined scenario, such as alcohol consumption and

driving, the researcher believed that participants answering this question would more

likely focus on the DUI reference, rather than the intended focus of scenario believability.

The remaining believability questions showed a high level of reliability, reporting a

Cronbach’s alpha level at .93 (M = 7.49, SD = 4.32).

Third, the homogeneous cultural perspective that these students shared in

answering the questionnaire may have served to limit the study. Although the survey was

conducted at a large Southeastern University, the region’s particular police culture may

have had a significant impact on the responses collected. Students from different

regional cultures, both domestically and internationally, may possess different

preconceived ideas regarding the police, which may produce drastically different results.

The police culture in urban settings may vary from that of a more rural area and may lead

to different public opinions toward law enforcement as Klyman and Kruckenburg (1974)

reported that different areas come with different problems and the police officer must

adapt to different environments as his or her tasks may differ from urban to rural settings,

large cities to small cities, and from district to district among these jurisdictions. These

49

limitations should be considered in the future direction of study. The results indicate

support for the principle guidelines of CAT; however, continuous study is necessary to

gain an even better knowledge about the communicative relationship between police

officers and members of society. Initially, a qualitative research perspective, such as

interviews or focus groups, may serve to provide an insightful picture of the social

meanings behind the relationships that police officers and suspects share. By directly

speaking and conversing with suspects about interactions with the police, researchers

may improve their comprehension of what significant factors may have played a role in

shaping perceptions or levels of trust toward police.

Next, it would be interesting to incorporate live footage of police officers, rather

than asking students to think about imagined scenarios. Perhaps, showing students a

video of a police officer speaking with an accommodative and/or non-accommodative

communication style to the participants may have a different effect on the perception and

trust toward the officer. Including this type of experiment may contribute a more realistic

and authentic interactive experience, from which levels of perception and trust can be

derived.

Third, the extent to which communication accommodation may affect a suspect’s

perception and trust can be further investigated by adjusting the investment a suspect may

have in a police-suspect encounter. This study explored accommodative effects on DUI

suspects; it would be intriguing to learn how significantly accommodation may affect

more heavily invested criminal suspects, such as the interactions that occur between

police officers and suspects of assault, robbery, or even murder. While this type of study

50

may be more difficult to conduct, the suspect’s investment level in a police interaction

and its effect on attitude toward police may provide to be of compelling interest.

Conclusion

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the role communication

accommodation plays in law enforcement interactions. While some studies have

examined how accommodation affects communication in the police-civilian encounter, a

significant gap in literature exists concerning police-suspect interactions. As a majority

of a police officer’s time is spent interacting with criminal suspects, the lack of research

serves to be problematic and this study was possibly the first to examine such

interactions. The research from this study implies that police accommodative behavior

can lead suspects to be more trusting toward police officers. Thus, communication plays

an integral part in enhancing the relationship between an officer and a suspect.

This research could be continued in numerous directions. Sociodemographic

variables, including race, gender, and personal experience, could be highlighted in future

versions of study to learn how they impact the police-suspect encounter. Future studies

may also consider different cultural contexts where the police-suspect relationship may

greatly vary from the western perspective. Furthermore, while this study was limited to

examining potential DUI suspects, additional research can extend into interactions that

occur with suspects that have a more serious criminal accusation such as assault, robbery,

and/or murder.

Ultimately, this study hopes to contribute scholarly and practical knowledge to

improve the relationship between law enforcement and society. In order to embrace the

community policing philosophy, it is important to constantly dedicate effort to improve

51

the relationship between the police and their communities as these relationships carry

significant implications. Thus, communication theory and practical applications must

continue to intersect in order to produce fruitful relationships between law enforcement

and those they serve to protect.

52

REFERENCES

Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. (1997). The force factor: Measuring police use of force relative to suspect resistance. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Apple, N., & O’Brien, D. (1983). Neighborhood racial composition and residents’

evaluation of police performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 11, 76-84.

Arcuri, A. (1981). The police and the elderly. In D. Lester (Ed.), The elderly victim of

crime (pp. 106-128). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Ayoko, O. B., Hartel, C. E. J., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive

and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups: A communication accommodation theory approach. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), 165-195.

Ball, P., Giles, H., & Hewstone, M. (1985). Interpersonal accommodation and situational

construals: An integrative formalisation. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 263-286). London: Erlbaum.

Barker, V., Giles, H., Hajek, C., Ota, H., Noels, K., Lim, T. S., & Somera, L. (2008).

Police-civilian interaction, compliance, accommodation, and trust in an intergroup context: International data. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1(2), 93-112.

Bayley, D.H. (1994). Police for the future. New York: Oxford University Press. Black, T. E., & Smith, C. P. (1981). A preliminary assessment of the number and

characteristics of juveniles processed in the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Borrero, M. (2001). The widening mistrust between youth and police. Families in

Society, 82, 399-408. Bourhis, R. Y. (1979). Language in ethnic interaction: A social psychological approach.

In H. Giles & B. Saint-Jacques (Eds.), Language and ethnic relations (pp. 117-141). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

53

Bowman, J. M. (2009). The influences of attribution, context, and heterosexual self-presentation on perceived appropriateness of self-disclosure in same-sex male friendships. Communication Research Reports, 26, 215-227.

Brandl, S., Frank, J., Worden, R., & Bynum, T. (1994). Global and specific attitudes

toward the police: Disentangling the relationship. Justice Quarterly, 11, 119-134. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P.

Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255-343). San Diego, CA: Elsvier Academic Press.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic. California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs. (2011). Fact sheet: driving-under-

the-influence (DUI) statistics. Retrieved November 22, 2011, from www.adp.ca.gov/factsheets/drivingundertheinfluencestatistics.pdf.

Cao, L., Frank, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). Race, community context, and confidence in

the police. American Journal of Police, 15, 3-22. Carlson, J. (1985). Prime Time Law Enforcement. New York, NY: Praeger. Cheurprakobkit, S., & Bartsch, R. A. (2001). Police performance: A model for assessing

citizen’s satisfaction and the importance of police attributes. Police Quarterly, 4, 449-468.

Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Woods, D., & Michlik, P. M. (2006).

Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth-tellers: How liars attempt to convince. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 24, 31–38.

Cooper, J. (1980). The police and the ghetto. Port Washington, NY: National University

Publications, Kennikat Press. Cordner, G. (2005). Community policing: Elements and effects. In G. P. Alpert & A.

Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 45–62). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Cordner, G., & Jones, M. (1995). The effects of supplementary foot patrol on fear of

crime and attitudes toward the police. In P. Kratcoski & D. Dukes (Eds.), Issues in Community Policing (pp. 189-198). Highland Heights, KY: Anderson Publishing Co.

Davis, J. (1990). A comparison of attitudes toward the New York police. Journal of

Police Science and Administration, 17, 233-243.

54

Dean, D. (1983). Citizen ratings of the police: The difference police contacts makes. Law and Police Quarterly, 2, 445-471.

Decker, S. H. (1981). Citizen attitudes toward the police: A review of past findings and

suggestions for future policy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 9, 81-97.

Dillman, D. A. (1998). Mail and other self-administered surveys in the 21st century: The

beginnings of a new era. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445-455. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.

Organization Science, 12, 450-455. Dominelli, A. (2003). Web surveys – Benefits and considerations. Clinical Research and

Regulatory Affairs, 20, 409-416. Dominick, J. R. (1973). Crime and law enforcement in the mass media. In C. Winick

(Ed.), Deviance and mass media (pp. 105-28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice:

The relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10(2), 109-126.

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. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 79, 504-523.

Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate

supervisor: The relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and information receiving. Communication Quarterly, 49, 383-398.

Ericson, R., Baranek, P., & Chan, J. (1987). Visualizing deviance. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press. Feagin, J. (1970). Home defense and the police: Black and white perspectives. American

Behavioral Scientist, 13, 797-814. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States, 2010. Retrieved

October 3, 2011, from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010.

Fielding, N. (2005). Concepts and theory in community policing. Howard Journal of

Criminal Justice, 44, 460-472.

55

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2006). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and

reference, 13.0 update (6th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics,

15, 87-109. Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In B. B. Whaley &

W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Giles, H., & Powesland, P. G. (1975). Speech styles and social evaluation. London:

Academic Press. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991) Accommodation theory: Communication,

context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Context of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Giles, H., Fortman, J., Dailey, R., Barker, V., Hajek, C., Anderson, M. C., & Rule, N. O.

(2006). Communication accommodation: Law enforcement and the public. In R. M. Dailey & B. A. Le Poire (Eds.), Interpersonal communication matters: Family, health, and community relations (pp. 293-310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Giles, H., Hajek, C., Barker, V., Lin, M.-C., Zhang, Y. B., Hummert, M. L., & Anderson,

M. C. (2007) Accommodation and institutional talk: Communicative dimensions of police-civilian interactions. In A. Weatherall, B. Watson, & G. Gallois (Eds.), The social psychology of language and discourse (pp. 131-159). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory:

The first decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 10, pp. 13-48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1973). Towards a theory of interpersonal

accommodation through speech: Some Canadian data. Language in Society, 2, 177-192.

Glaser, M. A., & Denhardt, J. (2010). Community policing and community building: A

case study of officer perceptions. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(3), 309-325.

Graber, D. (1980). Crime news and the public. New York, NY: Praeger.

56

Gregory, S. W., & Webster, S. (1996). A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status predictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1231-1240.

Hajek, C., Barker, V., Giles, H., Louw-Potgieter, J., Pecchioni, L., Makoni, S., & Myers,

P. (2006). Communicative dynamics of police-civilian encounters: South African and American interethnic data. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 161-182.

Hajek, C., Giles, H., Barker V., Demirtas-Madran, A., Pecchioni, L., & Choi, C. (2008a).

Perceptions of trust, compliance, and officer accommodation in police-civilian intergroup encounters: A Russian, Turkish, and American cross-national analysis. Russian Journal of Communication, 1, 127-128.

Hajek, C., Giles, H., Barker, V., Lin, M-C., Zhang, Y. B., & Hummert, M. L. (2008b).

Expressed trust and compliance in police-civilian encounters: The role of communication accommodation in Chinese and American settings. Chinese Journal of Communication, 1, 168-180.

Hajek, C., Giles, H., Barker, V., Makoni, S., & Choi, C. (2008c). Reported compliance in

police-civilian encounters: The roles of accommodation and trust in Zimbabwe and the United States. Communicatio: South African Journal of Communication Theory and Research, 34(1), 173-187.

Hennigan, K., Maxson, C., Sloane, D., & Ranney, M. (2002). Community views on crime

and policing: Survey mode effects on bias in community services. Justice Quarterly, 19, 565-587.

Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup

contact, forgiveness, and experience of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social issues, 62, 99-120.

Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. London:

Palgrave Macmillan. Hines, A., Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Garret, E., Ansarra, R., & Montalvo, L.

(2010). Impression management strategies of deceivers and honest reporters in an investigative interview. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2, 73–90.

Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Zakocs, T. C., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H. (2002).

Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18-24. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 136-144.

57

Imamura, M., Zhang, Y. B., & Harwood, J. (2011). Japanese sojourners’ attitudes toward Americans: Exploring the influences of communication accommodation, linguistic competence, and relational solidarity in intergroup context. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 21, 115-132.

Jacob, H. (1971). Black and White perceptions of justice in the city. Law and Society

Review, 5, 69-89. Jesilow, P., Meyer, J., & Namazzi, N. (1995). Public attitudes toward the police.

American Journal of Police, 14, 67-89. Johnson, R. R. (2004). Citizen expectations of police traffic stop behavior. Policing, 27,

487-497. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Sorensen, G., & Smith, V. R. (1988). Experienced and

prospective teachers' selections of compliance-gaining messages for "common" student misbehaviors. Communication Education, 37, 150-164.

Kenworthy, J. B., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2005). Intergroup contact

when does it work, and why. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 278-292). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Klyman, F. I., & Kruckenberg, J. (1974). A methodology for assessing citizen

perceptions of police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 219-233. Leighton, B. (1991). Visions of community policing: Rhetoric and reality in Canada.

Canadian Journal of Criminology, 33, 485-522. Levin, H., & Lin, T. (1988). An accommodating witness. Language and Communication,

8, 195-198. Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work

relationships. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations (pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lichter, L., & Lichter, S. (1983). Prime time crime. Washington, DC: Media Institute. Linell, P. (1991). Accommodation on trial: Processes of communicative accommodation

in courtroom interaction. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation (pp. 103-130). New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Marsh, H. (1991). A comparative analysis of crime coverage in newspapers in the United

States and other countries from 1960 to 1989: A review of the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 67-80.

58

Mazer, J. P., & Hunt, S. K. (2008). “Cool” communication in the classroom: A preliminary examination of student perceptions of instructor use of positive slang. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 9, 20-28.

Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and context. New

York: McGraw-Hill. Moore, M. (1999). Security and community development. In R.F. Ferguson & W.T.

Dickens (Eds.), Urban Problems and Community Development (pp. 293-337). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Morabito, M. S. (2010). Understanding community policing as an innovation: Patterns of

adoption. Crime & Delinquency, 56(4), 564-587. Morello, F. (1982). Juvenile Crimes Against the Elderly. Springfield, IL: Charles C.

Thomas Publishers. Murty, K. S., Roebuck, J. B., & Smith, J. B. (1990). The image of the police in Black

Atlanta communities. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17, 250-257. Myers, P., Giles, H., Reid, S. A., & Nabi, R. (2008). Law enforcement encounters: The

effects of officer accommodativeness and crime severity on interpersonal attributions are mediated by intergroup sensitivity. Communication Studies, 59, 1- 15.

Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s

expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459-470.

Nalbandian, J. (2005). Professionals and the conflicting forces of administrative

modernization and civic engagement. American Review of Public Administration, 35, 311-326.

Olsen, K. (2005). School of law. Teaching Tolerance, Spring, 40-45. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation

checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867-872.

Perlmutter, D. D. (2000). Policing the media: Street cops and public perceptions of law

enforcement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Lyerla, R. (1995). Alcohol on American College

Campuses: Use, Consequences, and perceptions of the Campus Environment, Vol. 2. Carbondale, IL: The CORE Institute Student Health Programs, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

59

Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17, 607-630.

Rosenbaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Costell, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K. (2005).

Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quaterly, 8(3), 343-365.

Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values (pp. 25-35). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical

work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 313-328.

Rusinko, W. T., Johnson, K. W., & Hornung, C. A. (1978). The importance of police

contact in the formulation of youths’ attitudes toward police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 53-67.

Sacco, V., & Fair, B. (1988). Images of legal control: Crime news and the process of

organizational legitimation. Canadian Journal of Communication, 32(3-4), 114-123.

Scheider, M. C., Chapman, R., & Schapiro, A. (2009). Towards the unification of

policing innovations under community policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 32(4), 694-718.

Snavely, W. B. (1981). The impact of social style upon person perception in primary

relationships. Communication Quarterly, 29, 132-143. Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of crime. Chicago, IL: The University

of Chicago Press. Stoutland, S. (2001), The multiple dimensions of trust in resident/police relations in

Boston. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 226-56. Strömwall, L. A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal

behavior and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 207–219.

Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping

public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–547. Surette, R. (1998). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and realities. New York,

NY: Wadsworth Publishing.

60

Tajfel, H. (1978). The social psychology of minorities. New York: Minority Rights Group.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W Austin

& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal

perception, group membership and trusting behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 413-424.

Taylor, T. J., Turner, K. B., Esbensen, F. A., & Winfree Jr., L. T. (2001). Coppin’ an

attitude: Attitudinal differences among juveniles toward police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 295-305.

Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in

developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business Communication, 46(3), 287-310.

Thompson, G. J. (1983). Verbal judo: Words for street survival. Springfield, IL: Charles

C. Thomas. Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered

language? Psychological Science, 12, 171-175. Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differences in trust and

confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8, 322-342. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual

Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust and the rule of law. New York: Russell-Sage

Foundation. U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Economics and

Statistics Administration. (2003) A nation outline: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Executive Summary. Retrieved November 22, 2011, from www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/html/execsum.htm.

Walker, D. (1972). Contact and support: An empirical assessment of public attitudes

toward the police and the courts. North Carolina Law Review, 51, 43-79. Watson, B., & Gallois, C. (1998). Nurturing communication by health professionals

toward patients: A communication accommodation theory approach. Health Communication, 10, 343-355.

61

Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3, 250-257.

Wolfram, W. (1974). Sociolinguistic Aspects of Assimilation: Puerto Rican English in

New York City. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied linguistics. Womack, M. M., & Finley, H. H. (1986). Communication: A unique significance for law

enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Woolard, K. A. (1989) Double talk: Bilingualism and the politics of ethnicity in

Catalonia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Yuki, M., Maddux, W. W., Brewer, M. B., & Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural

differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 48-62.

Zamble, E., & Annesley, P. (1987). Some determinants of public attitudes toward the

police. Journal of Police Administration, 15, 285-290. Zillman, D., & Wakshlag, J. (1987). Fear of Victimissation and the appeal of crime

drama. In D. Zillman & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 141-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

62

APPENDIX A

Institutional Review Board Certification

63

64

65

66

APPENDIX B

Email Invitation Manuscript

67

Dear Student, My name is Andy and I am a graduate student in the Department of Communication Studies and I would really appreciate your participation in a research study! This study is interested in learning more about the communication relationship between law enforcement and suspects. The study is being conducted by principal investigator Andy C. Kwon, a graduate student in the program of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama. The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of communication accommodation in interpersonal relationships. Taking part in this study involves completing a web survey that will take about 15-20 minutes. The survey asks basic information about a hypothetical situation between a law enforcement official and a suspect. It will ask you to take on the role of a suspect having a conversation with a police officer and will ask questions about how you feel about the situation. This survey is completely anonymous and confidential. At no point will you be asked to give your name, student number, or any other identification, but some basic demographic questions will be asked. As well, the link to this survey contains no identifying information connected with your email address. The investigator is the only person that will have access to the password-protected research data. Only summarized data from all participants will be presented in publications or at meetings. If your instructor has offered extra credit for participation, your name will be collected at the end of the survey but will not be associated with your answers in any way. If you have questions about this study, you may contact the investigator, Andy C. Kwon, at 562-455-7776 or you may contact the investigator’s advisor, Dr. Carol B. Mills at 205-348-6165. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant you may contact Ms. Tanta Myles, The University of Alabama Research Compliance Officer, at (205)-348-5152. YOUR PARTICIPATION IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. You are free not to participate or stop participating at any time.

68

APPENDIX C

Subject Questionnaire

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86