Reactive Versus Proactive Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence

Abstract

Although there has been a growing research interest in examining factors associated with police arrest decisions and victims’ perceptions of the police in handling domestic violence, very few studies have empirically assessed female and male officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence. Using survey data collected from 272 male and female officers from two metropolitan police departments in Taiwan, this research compared male and female police officers’ reactive and proactive attitudes toward handling domestic violence incidents. The findings indicated that male officers were more likely than female officers to support minimum police involvement and to tolerate domestic violence. With regard to proactive attitudes, there was no significant gender difference in officers’ endorsement of proarrest policy and the importance of domestic violence in police work. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Keywords

Taiwanese police domestic violence female officers proactive attitudes reactive attitudes

Introduction

Domestic violence is recognized as a serious social problem and a major public health issue in many countries around the globe. In the United States, for example, it is estimated that about 30% of couples will experience intimate partner violence in their relationships over the lifetime. Most victims of intimate partner violence are women (Ellison, Trinitapoli, Anderson, & Johnson, 2007). The role that police play in domestic violence is critical because they are the first-line responders in the criminal justice system. Understanding police attitudes toward domestic violence is critical. Police attitudes toward domestic violence may affect their responses to domestic violence cases. Moreover, police responses to domestic violence cases not only affect victims’ willingness to report the crime or seek help through the criminal justice system but also influence all other sectors in the system (Feder, 1997).

Although increased attention has been directed to examining various factors associated with police arrest decisions and victims’ perceptions of the police in handling domestic violence, only a small number of studies conducted in the United States and other Western countries have empirically compared male and female officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence. The results of those studies are inconsistent. For instance, some reported attitudinal differences between female and male officers (Belknap, 1995, 1996; Stalans & Finn, 2000), whereas others found that such distinction did not exist (Feder, 1997; Robinson, 2000; Stewart & Maddren, 1997). As a result, whether female and male officers differ in their attitudes toward domestic violence remains an open question.

The same question may be extended to Asian countries for similar reasons. Using Chinese societies as an example, although a growing amount of research has been directed to the issues of violence against women and domestic violence in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore since the late 1980s (e.g., R. Chen, 1999; Choi & Edleson, 1996; Gallin, 1992; Gilmartin, 1990; Honig & Hershatter, 1988; Liu & Chan, 1999; Tang, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2003; Tang, Lee, & Cheung, 1999; Wang, 1999), very few empirical studies have examined officers’ attitudes toward and response to domestic violence. Among the few studies that examined gender differences in officers’ attitudes toward domestic evidence, the findings were inconsistent (M. Chen, 2003; Meng, 2002; Tang, 2003; Wang, 2003; Yeh, 1996). Another concern is that, although previous studies have noted the influence of cultural and legal traditions in shaping citizens’ perceptions and definitions of domestic violence (see, e.g., Tang, Wong, Cheung, & Lee, 2000), very little is known about the impact of traditional Chinese culture on men’s and women’s attitudes in a gender-segregated occupation such as policing.

The inconsistent findings may be attributed to variations in attitudinal measures, with most of the previous studies only focusing on a single dimension, such as proarrest policy or blame attribution (e.g., Stewart & Maddren, 1997; Tang, 2003). To bridge the gap in the past studies, the present study explored gender differences in officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence by including both proactive (proarrest and important police task) and reactive (minimal police involvement and tolerance of domestic violence) attitudes. Additionally, we examined female and male officers’ proactive and reactive attitudes toward domestic violence in a different social setting—Taiwan, which can help us to identify possible variations between Western and non-Western countries.

Using survey data collected from Taiwanese female and male police officers, this study empirically tests whether gender differences exist in officers’ reactive and proactive attitudes toward domestic violence. Specifically, this study assesses whether female and male officers differ in (a) their attitudes toward domestic violence, (b) their belief that domestic violence is an important aspect of police work, and (c) their support of a proarrest policy. The following section provides a brief introduction to the historical development of women police in Taiwan and recent changes in police response to domestic violence in Taiwan. This is followed by a review of theoretical explanations of gender differences in occupational attitudes and empirical evidence on officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence.

Policing in Taiwan

Female Police Officers

Under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Interior, the National Police Agency (NPA) is the primary law enforcement organization in Taiwan. The NPA is a centralized force with 26 subordinating city- and county-level police departments and 1,616 local police stations (the so-called Pai-chu-suo) carrying out street-level policing throughout the country. Whereas local police departments are considered agencies of their local governments, and city mayors and county magistrates are responsible for evaluating the performances of police chiefs in their jurisdictions, the NPA, in consultation with local officials, has the authority to appoint local police chiefs and has full control of personnel rotation and transfer of all officers. All police officers wear the same uniform regardless of their jurisdictions and are subject to a similar set of rules and regulations in operation and management. The NPA currently employs more than 80,000 police officers, and approximately 7% are female.

The entry of women into the Taiwanese police force started in 1949 when the nationalist party (i.e., Kuomintang or KMT) retreated to Taiwan and recruited a small number of women into the police (Chiang, 1994). In 1952, an all-women unit was established within the Taipei City Police Department (TCPD; Chu & Sun, 2006). Like their U.S. and European counterparts in policing (J. Brown, 1997; Schulz, 1995), women police in Taiwan during the early years were limited to gender-related assignments in the areas of juvenile and women protection, household registration, and administrative assistance. The duties of female officers and all-women units have been gradually expanded to a wider variety of assignments, such as traffic management, order maintenance in important festivals, and forensic analysis. Nevertheless, it appears that the progression of women within the Taiwanese police is still in the so-called separate restricted development stage, characterized by functionally restricting women to administrative and support duties (J. Brown, 1997). It should be noted, however, that a higher degree of integration has emerged over the past several years as more and more female officers have been assigned to local police stations with identical street duties as their male counterparts. Several female officers were also appointed as chiefs at the city-/county- and district-level departments. Despite these encouraging developments, it is unlikely that the Taiwanese police will soon evolve into a fully integrated force with equal deployment opportunities for female officers.

Policing Domestic Violence

Handling domestic violence cases has been closely linked to the role and assignment of police women and was not viewed as an essential part of police work in Taiwan before the 1990s. Although there is a long history of local social service agencies providing assistance and protection to abused women and children, legal interventions, including appropriate police actions, were largely absent from the official response to domestic violence. Similar to their Western counterparts, Taiwanese police officers tended to view domestic violence cases as civil, family matters, and they were unwilling to actively intervene into this type of incident (Wang, 2003). Officers clearly preferred mediation over arrest and strongly encouraged parties involved in the incidents to reconcile their conflict rather than to seek official legal sanctions (Yeh, 1996). The role of the police, however, has gradually shifted from passive listeners to active responders in the 1990s. This change has resulted mainly from the women’s human rights movement, political pressure, and perhaps, most importantly, new legislation (Huang, 1999; Wang, 2003), all of which were similar factors that contributed to more proactive and aggressive police responses to domestic violence in Western societies. Violence against women is now regarded, at least from the government’s point of view, as a form of interpersonal violence and violation of women’s rights (Tang, Cheung, Chen, & Sun, 2002).

The most important legal factor that pushed the Taiwanese government to take a more aggressive position concerning domestic violence was the passage of the Domestic Violence Prevention and Control Act (DVPCA). As the first law of this kind among Asian countries, the DVPCA was enacted in June 1999 to coordinate and enhance law enforcement’s response to this historically ignored issue and to provide better protection for domestic violence victims (M. Chen, 2001). The DVPCA requires various governmental agencies, such as social services, police, prosecutors and courts, public health, education, and household registration, to carry out certain responsibilities and to work collectively to address the problem of domestic violence. Under the auspices of social service bureaus, within city and county governments, domestic violence prevention centers (DVPCs) were established to coordinate governmental efforts in response to domestic violence. Twenty-six shelters were also set up throughout the country to provide emergency accommodations for domestic violence victims (Lin, 2001). Subsequently, domestic violence cases reported to DVPCs have increased steadily since the passage of the DVPCA, rising from 21,572 in 2000 to 25,362 in 2001 and to 28,467 in 2002 (Lai, 2003). The number of domestic violence cases declined to 20,810 in 2003. Since then, a steady increase was found in 4 consecutive years (with 22,180 cases in 2004, 27,548 in 2005, 27,950 in 2006, and 30,582 in 2007). In 2008, the number of domestic violence cases reported to the police slightly decreased to 29,557 (NPA, 2010). In response to the increase in domestic violence cases, police officials have held various domestic violence workshops and training seminars to familiarize officers with the processes and procedures of handling domestic violence.

The DVPCA requires the police to take more aggressive actions, such as arresting serious offenders, filing case reports, and helping victims to apply for protection orders against domestic violence offenders. These tasks are shouldered mainly by three groups of officers within police departments. The first group is neighborhood officers assigned to the local police station. These officers are directly involved in domestic violence incidents as first responders. Their specific tasks include (a) taking and handling domestic violence calls made to local stations; (b) controlling the scene, separating parties involved, and making arrests if necessary; (c) protecting the safety of victims and their family members, informing district stations about victims who have an urgent need for protection orders, and relaying information concerning the protection orders to victims; (d) arresting offenders who violate the protection orders; and (e) informing the local DVPC about domestic violence cases (M. Chen, 2001).

The second group of officers consists of domestic violence prevention officers. They are assigned within district stations (the so-called Fen-ju). Specifically, the criminal investigation division within each district is required to assign a detective to serve as the district domestic violence officer whose primary responsibilities include applying protection orders for victims and informing officers at local stations about the nature (e.g., time and place) of the protection orders, assisting victims in seeking legal actions against offenders, compiling and analyzing case-related data, conducting contacts with victims and making referrals to counseling and shelter services, and administering training in handing domestic violence (M. Chen, 2001). These officers act as bridges between the DVPCs and local police stations.

The final group of officers is female officers assigned to women and/or juvenile police squads. They are responsible for designing prevention programs and tactics and supervising and coordinating enforcement and prevention efforts carried out by officers at district stations (M. Chen, 2001). Studies showed that female officers assigned to women squads displayed better knowledge of and more positive attitudes toward domestic violence than female officers assigned to other duty (Yeh, 1996).

Officers’ Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence

Theoretical Reappraisal

Theoretical explanations of gender differences between men and women in general and between male and female officers in particular focus on psychological distinctions developed early in life or prior socialization into different social roles (L. Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Gilligan, 1982; Worden, 1993). Women emphasize interpersonal concerns in their attitudes and actions toward others because they are socialized into nurturing roles, highlighted by an “ethic of care” (Gilligan, 1982). Men, on the other hand, stress the importance of rules and rights in their decisions because their early socialization experiences lead to an “ethic of justice” (L. Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Gilligan, 1982; Stalans & Finn, 2000; Worden, 1993). Similarly, Eagly, Wood, and Diekman (2000) posit that sex differences in social behavior are associated with the typical roles of males and females. Females’ adaptation to domestic role fosters their communal and interpersonal behavioral pattern. In contrast, males’ role orientation exhibits a pattern of assertiveness and independence. Along the same line of argument, the gender role socialization theory posits that women and men become different by virtue of socialization, and thus the performance of various roles is shaped by the different values, personalities, and characteristics that women bring to distinctive roles because of the learned differences accruing from socialization (Sun, 2007).

Extending these arguments to policing in Taiwan, one may speculate that female officers are more inclined to regard domestic violence as an important police matter and display sympathy toward victims of domestic violence because of the ethic of care. One may also expect that female officers are more likely to support aggressive police involvement in handling domestic violence, including proarrest policy, than their male counterparts who tend to hold traditional views, which consider domestic violence as a private matter (Sun, 2007).

Looking specifically at Chinese societies, the gender role differences between men and women are heavily embedded in traditional culture. The gender roles prescribed to a Chinese woman were to be a good daughter, wife, and mother, who was required to place obedience, loyalty, and devotion to her father, husband, and sons above her own self (Gallin, 1992). In a patriarchal society, Chinese men’s superiority and women’s inferiority were reflected in various aspects of social life (Liu & Chan, 1999). For instance, daughters were often viewed as a liability to the family because they drained family resources as children and withdrew from family labor after they married, whereas sons were considered a steady source of family income throughout their life (Gallin, 1992). Women were subjected to arranged marriages, whereas men were entitled to discipline or even divorce their wives for reasons such as adultery, jealousy, failure to bear children, and improper conduct (Honig & Hershatter, 1988).

Although Chinese women’s social status and rights have certainly improved over the past two decades, one suspects that traditional patriarchal ideology still lingers deep within the culture. In other words, submissive and dependent roles may continue to shape male and female officers’ perceptions of their roles in policing in general and their attitudes toward domestic violence in particular. Compared with their Western counterparts, police women in Chinese societies were found to be less active in fighting for gender equality and more willing to accept supportive and administrative assignments (Yang, 1985). Furthermore, studies of Asian police have questioned the appropriateness of integrating the Anglo-American model in countries with distinctive cultural traditions and deep-rooted social expectations of women. Scholars have posited that gender equality could be achieved, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the police could be enhanced by assigning women to different, but equally important, police duties (see, e.g., Natarajan, 2008). Police women’s willingness to perform gender-related duties and accept a secondary role in policing should not be interpreted as having more conservative or less proactive attitudes toward the disposition of domestic violence. On the contrary, in line with the argument of the gender role socialization theory, Chinese women’s traditional roles of housekeepers and child bearers may enhance female officers’ awareness of the need of policing violence against women and support for aggressive police response. Policemen, on the other hand, may be more tolerant of domestic violence because of “their socialization in the masculine gender role and acceptance of the use of physical force in controlling situations” (Tang, 2003, p. 585).

Before moving to the discussion of empirical evidence on gender differences in officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence, a brief elaboration of differential attitudes among officers is warranted. Officers’ attitudes toward and responses to domestic violence can be conceptually divided into two groups: reactive and proactive. The former may be regarded as the traditional attitudes and reactions toward domestic violence, whereas the latter may be viewed as “prescribed” or preferred beliefs and responses to similar incidents. Specifically, reactive attitudes or responses refer to nonsupportive attitudes toward and passive responses to domestic violence. That is, officers with reactive attitudes tend to view domestic violence incidents as private matters, rather than criminal offenses, and perceive the disposition of such cases as peripheral or secondary police work. As a result, they are more likely to favor low levels of involvement in domestic violence and prefer inaction or less coercive interventions (e.g., mediation and separation) over arrests. Proactive attitudes or responses, on the other hand, refer to supportive attitudes toward and aggressive interventions into domestic violence. Officers with proactive attitudes tend to view domestic violence as a crime, buy into the idea that handling domestic violence is an essential part of police work, and favor proarrest policy. It is argued that officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence vary and can be distinguished along these two dimensions.

Empirical Evidence

Officers’ gender role expectations intertwined with attitudinal propensities may lead to differential beliefs in and responses to domestic violence between female and male officers. These expectations, however, have yet to receive consistent support from previous studies. The majority of past studies conducted in the United States found no significant differences between male and female officers in attitudes toward or perceptions of various aspects of domestic violence. For example, most female and male officers exhibited either neutral or antagonistic attitudes toward the Phoenix presumptive arrest policy¹ (Ferraro, 1989). Similar attitudinal propensities between women and men were also found in a study of American officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence victims (Robinson, 2000). Other research along this line includes evaluations of whether police could have a positive impact on domestic violence (Feder, 1997) and perceptions of arrest, referrals to shelter, and marriage counseling as appropriate responses to domestic violence (Stalans & Finn, 2000). A study of the Australian police revealed similar results, with female and male officers showing no differences in the judgment of blaming victims and reported likelihood of charging assailants in family violence cases (Stewart & Maddren, 1997).

Deriving survey data from 324 police officers in a large metropolitan area in the United States, Belknap (1996) examined whether policewomen, policemen, or a combination of both are best suited to handle battered women, offenders, and domestic violence overall. The study found that male officers were more inclined than female officers to believe that male officers alone were better suited than a combination of male and female officers in handling domestic violence overall in general and batterers in particular. Unlike the findings of no gender differences stated in the above studies, Stalans and Finn (2000) found that experienced women officers were more likely than their experienced male counterparts to refer victims to battered victims’ shelters and also showed a lesser preference to recommend marriage counseling.

Studies conducted in Taiwan have also produced mixed results in terms of the relationship between officer gender and their attitudinal and behavioral tendencies toward domestic violence. One of the most comprehensive studies is Wang’s (2003) study of officers’ attitudes toward the proarrest policy. She found that Taiwanese female officers were less likely than male counterparts to blame women/wives for the incidents and were more inclined to view domestic violence as a crime. No gender differences, however, were found in officers’ attitudes toward the willingness to intervene and the adoption of the proarrest policy.

Several other studies also reported more proactive attitudes and responses toward domestic violence among Taiwanese female officers, with female officers showing higher levels of familiarity with regulations and procedures of domestic violence (M. Chen, 2003) and displaying greater support for enforcing the law, issuing violation of protection orders, and responding to domestic violence than male officers (Yeh, 1996). A study of Chinese police also revealed that female officers were more liberal in their attitudes toward women and more likely to perceive wife abuse as having serious negative influences on victims and society (Tang, 2003). Nevertheless, counterevidence on gender differences were reported in studies of officers’ arrest decisions (Meng, 2002) and their familiarity with regulations and procedures of domestic violence (Yeh, 1996). In light of this situation, more research is clearly needed to assess the connections between officer gender and attitudes toward domestic violence.

In brief, police officers may choose to respond to domestic violence reactively or proactively. The possible variations in occupational attitudes coupled with gender role orientations may influence female and male officers’ responses to domestic violence. Although limited empirical evidence has been accumulated to support such argument, it is hypothesized that Taiwanese female officers are more likely to display proactive attitudes toward domestic violence and less likely to show reactive attitudes than male counterparts.

Method

Research Sites

This research project was conducted in two metropolitan cities, Taipei and Kaohsiung, in Taiwan. TCPD is the largest city police department in Taiwan. It provides police services to 2.6 million residents of Taipei, which is the political, economic, and cultural center of Taiwan. TCPD consists of a headquarters command, 14 districts, 96 stations, and 8,400 officers, including approximately 300 female officers. Its women police division is staffed by approximately 85 female officers who are responsible for, but not limited to, women and children protection, traffic management, security escort for foreign dignitaries, and order maintenance in important festivals. TCPD is considered one of the leading Taiwanese law enforcement agencies in terms of training, equipment, and technology (Sun & Chu, 2006). In 1996, TCPD issued the country’s first domestic violence handbook for police officers, and in 2000, the agency ordered all criminal investigation divisions within each district station to assign a detective to serve as the domestic violence prevention officer (M. Chen, 2003).

Kaohsiung City Police Department (KCPD) is the second largest city police agency in Taiwan. It provides police services to 1.5 million residents in the city of Kaohsiung. The department comprises a headquarters command, 10 districts, and 55 stations and approximately 4,600 officers, including 205 female officers. Like TCPD, KCPD has a women police squad staffed with approximately 50 officers. The rest of the female officers are dispersed in local police districts/stations or divisions within the headquarters.

Data Collection and Samples

Data used in this study were collected by the Study of Taiwan Police, a research project that examined critical policing issues in Taiwan. The first-stage data collection involved several visits to TCPD in the summer of 2006. One of the authors visited three police precincts and one women police squad in TCPD. Officers who were in the precincts or the squad during the author’s visits were invited to voluntarily participate in the survey. A lot of officers were not able to complete the survey immediately because of their shifts or duties. The author was requested to come back to collect the completed surveys in a week. Out of the 191 questionnaires distributed, 161 were returned, resulting in an 84% response rate. Out of the 161 returned surveys, only 30 were responded to by female officers. To increase the representativeness of females in the sample, intentional oversampling of female officers in KCPD was arranged during the second-stage data collection, which was conducted between December 2006 and January 2007. With the help of a senior supervisor at KCPD, the same survey instrument was administered with 118 female and male police officers at six police precincts and one women police squad at KCPD. One hundred thirteen questionnaires were completed and returned, reaching a response rate of 96%.

The survey questionnaire, which consisted of nearly 50 items, was designed to elicit information on officers’ attitudes toward proactive and reactive responses to domestic violence. In addition, the survey also solicited information on the characteristics of victims and offenders, situational factors that affected officers’ arrest decision, officers’ confidence in handling domestic violence, and information about their colleagues’ and supervisors’ attitudes toward domestic violence. Officers were asked several questions regarding their individual background characteristics.

Data collection efforts yielded a total of 279 surveys. Unusable surveys and cases with missing values were deleted from analysis, resulting in a final sample of 272 officers. In total, there were 103 responses from female and 169 from male officers. This included 30 female and 129 male officers from TCPD and 73 female and 40 male officers from KCPD. Although these samples were not randomly selected, a comparison between sample officers and the general population at each research site showed a high degree of congruence in terms of officers’ background characteristics.

Variables

Four dependent variables were constructed to measure officers’ attitudes toward reactive and proactive responses. The former includes two measures, “minimum police involvement” and “tolerance for domestic violence,” and the latter consists of two measures, “important police task” and “proarrest.” Table 1 displays the survey items used to construct these variables and reliability estimates. All variables are additive scales based on two or more items with at least acceptable reliability among composing items.

Table 1.

Construction of Dependent Variables.

Variable	Survey Items	Response Categories	Cronbach’s α
Minimum police involvement	1. The police officers’ arrival usually increases the problem, by increasing the tension level.	1 = Disagree strongly	.83
	2. The involvement of the police in a domestic violence case cannot help resolve the domestic conflicts.	2 = Disagree somewhat
	3. Arrests are generally useless in resolving domestic violence.	3 = Agree somewhat
	4. The primary job for the police is to crack down on crime rather than to handle domestic violence cases.	4 = Agree strongly
	5. In most cases, domestic violence is best handled by a third party, such as social workers, instead of police.
Tolerance for domestic violence	1. Society should expect that a husband and his wife will occasionally have minor physical fights.	1 = Disagree strongly	.62
	2. Domestic violence victims are partially responsible for the violent behavior of the offenders.	2 = Disagree somewhat
	3. A husband may beat his wife if she is unreasonable and starts the argument/fight first.	3 = Agree somewhat
	4. Abused women tend to be those who fail to fulfill a wife’s responsibilities.	4 = Agree strongly
Important police task	1. Responding to domestic violence is a very important part of police work.	1 = Disagree strongly	.64
	2. Domestic violence should be viewed as crime.	2 = Disagree somewhat
		3 = Agree somewhat
		4 = Agree strongly
Proarrest	1. Arresting offenders for domestic violence is a good policy.	1 = Disagree strongly	.81
	2. Arresting offenders for domestic violence can serve as a deterrent for the offenders.	2 = Disagree somewhat
	3. Department should have a proarrest policy for domestic violence	3 = Agree somewhat
		4 = Agree strongly

The independent variable is “gender,” which was coded as a dummy variable with 1 representing females. Control variables include the following: officers’ department affiliation, educational background, marital status, experience, assignment, rank, confidence in handling domestic violence, training in domestic violence, and supervisory support.² Officers’ department affiliation, educational background, marital status, assignment, and rank were also coded as dummy variables, with 1 indicating TCPD, holding a degree of bachelor or above, married, field station assignment, and supervisor (sergeant and above). Officers’ experience was measured in years. Confidence in handling domestic violence was measured by a Likert-type scale item: “I feel confident in effectively handling domestic violence.” Response categories were 1 = disagree strongly, 2 = disagree somewhat, 3 = agree somewhat, 4 = agree strongly. A higher score indicated a higher level of confidence in handling domestic violence. Training in domestic violence was also measured by a Likert-type scale item: “I have enough training for handling domestic violence.” Possible responses were 1 = disagree strongly, 2 = disagree somewhat, 3 = agree somewhat, 4 = agree strongly. A higher score reflected a suitable training in domestic violence. Supervisory support was an additive measure constructed by summing up two items: “My supervisors value the importance of domestic violence incidents” and “My supervisors show strong support for officers handling domestic violence (1 = disagree strongly and 4 = agree strongly). A higher score suggested a higher level of supervisory support. The first panel in Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for all variables used in this study. The correlations among independent and control variables were examined (results not shown), and the issue of collinearity is not a concern.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Mean Comparison by Gender.

	Total (N = 272)		Females (N = 103)		Males (N = 169)
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	F Ratio^a
Attitudinal dimensions
Minimum involvement	13.97	3.14	12.69	2.78	14.73	3.10	29.49***
Tolerance for DV	9.49	2.01	8.50	1.78	10.09	1.91	46.59***
Important task	5.78	1.44	6.28	1.07	5.47	1.55	21.90***
Proarrest	8.46	2.01	8.56	1.93	8.40	2.06	0.42
Officer background
College graduated	0.20	0.40	0.27	0.45	0.15	0.36	6.24*
Married	0.73	0.45	0.71	0.46	0.74	0.44	0.33
Experience	13.86	6.99	14.39	9.07	13.52	5.26	0.32
Field station	0.72	0.45	0.46	0.50	0.88	0.33	71.47***
Supervisor	0.25	0.43	0.40	0.49	0.15	0.36	22.64***
Confidence in handling DV	2.65	0.79	2.67	0.78	2.64	0.80	0.08
Training in DV	2.52	0.87	2.56	0.91	2.49	0.84	0.45
Supervisory support	5.74	1.38	5.96	1.19	5.62	1.46	3.88*

Note. DV = domestic violence.

One-way analysis of variance was used to compute the ratio.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, one-tailed.

Analysis

Two types of analyses, mean comparison and multivariate regression, were conducted. The former focused on the mean differences between female and male officers across attitudinal dimensions and officer characteristics. Ordinary least squares regression was then performed to examine the effects of all explanatory variables on four additive attitudinal scales, minimum involvement, tolerance for domestic violence, domestic violence as important task, and proarrest policy.

Findings

Mean Comparison

Table 2 presents the results from the one-way analysis of variance. The data were from combined departments. The F ratios associated with the first three attitudinal variables are statistically significant, suggesting that female and male officers differed in their attitudes toward “minimum police involvement,” “tolerance for domestic violence,” and “perceived importance of domestic violence.” In comparison with their male counterparts, female officers were less likely to be supportive of minimum police involvement, less inclined to tolerate domestic violence, and more likely to consider handling domestic violence as an important police task. Female and male officers did not differ in their attitudes toward proarrest policy.

In addition, female and male officers differed significantly in some of their background characteristics. Compared with male officers, female officers were more likely to have a bachelor’s or graduate degree and to hold a rank of sergeant or higher, they were less likely to be assigned to a field station, and they worked for supervisors who were supportive of actively handling domestic violence.

Multivariate Analysis

Table 3 demonstrates the results from the ordinary least squares regression analysis. Consistent with the results of the bivariate analysis, female and male officers differed significantly in their attitudes toward minimum involvement and tolerance for domestic violence, controlling for officers’ individual background characteristics, confidence in handling domestic violence, and training in domestic violence. Female officers were less likely than their male counterparts to be supportive of minimum police involvement and less inclined to be tolerant of domestic violence. These findings are consistent with the predictions. Officer gender is the only significant predictor in the model of minimum police involvement. In the model of tolerance for domestic violence, two additional variables were found to be significant predictors. Nonsupervisors and more experienced officers were more likely than supervisors and less experienced officers to tolerate domestic violence. The independent and control variables accounted for 17% and 19% of the variation in officers’ attitudes toward minimum involvement and tolerance for domestic violence, respectively.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Summary.^a

	Reactive Attitudes		Proactive Attitudes
Variable	Minimum Involvement	Tolerance for DV	Important Task	Proarrest
Female	−1.481** (.472)	−1.399*** (.297)	.347 (.205)	−.512 (.299)
TCPD	.133 (.269)	−.156 (.169)	−.341** (.117)	−.385* (.172)
College graduated	.487 (.581)	−.067 (.362)	.155 (.250)	.443 (.365)
Married	−.647 (.512)	−.301 (.322)	.500* (.223)	.251 (.326)
Experience	.055 (.036)	.046* (.023)	−.030 (.016)	.005 (.023)
Field station	.773 (.522)	.275 (.331)	−.108 (.228)	−.478 (.333)
Supervisor	−.873 (.596)	−.978** (.378)	.165 (.260)	−.041 (.380)
Confidence in handling DV	−.459 (.318)	−.163 (.201)	.326* (.139)	.302 (.204)
Training in DV	−.469 (.287)	.127 (.182)	.090 (.126)	.149 (.184)
Supervisory support	−.057 (.149)	.002 (.094)	.245*** (.065)	.260** (.095)
R ²	.17	.19	.25	.13

Note. TCPD = Taipei City Police Department; DV = domestic violence.

Entries are unstandardized regression coefficients, with standard errors in parentheses.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, one-tailed.

With regard to the dimensions of proactive attitudes, there was no significant gender difference in officers’ attitudes toward perceived importance of domestic violence and proarrest policy, which is contrary to our hypotheses. Several nongender variables exerted a significant effect on proactive attitudes. KCPD officers were more likely to show proactive attitudes than their TCPD counterparts. Officers who were married and had greater confidence in dealing with domestic violence were more inclined to perceive domestic violence as an important part of police work. Supervisors’ attitudes were significantly associated with officers’ attitudes toward perceived importance of domestic violence and proarrest policy. Not surprisingly, officers expressed more positive attitudes toward handling domestic violence and arrest policy when their supervisors valued and supported active police responses to domestic violence. The predictors together explained 25% and 13% of the variation in officers’ attitudes toward perceived importance of domestic violence and proarrest policy, respectively.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to assess gender differences in officers’ reactive and proactive attitudes toward domestic violence. Several major findings emerge. First, it is apparent that Taiwanese female officers displayed some occupational attitudes that distinguish them from their male coworkers. Gender difference is most evident in officers’ reactive attitudes toward domestic violence. As expected, Taiwanese male officers were more likely than their female counterparts to support minimum police involvement and tolerate domestic violence. Several possible explanations of this finding come to mind. Police officers assigned to urban stations are predominately males who are responsible for a wide array of tasks and carry a very heavy workload, including serving as the first responders to domestic violence incidents. The disposition of domestic violence is highly time consuming and often difficult to produce tangible results, which may lead to the preference of lower police involvement in domestic violence among male officers. It is also possible that the traditional dominant role played by Chinese males may contribute to a higher level of tolerance of domestic violence among policemen in Taiwan. Finally, as indicated by the gender role theory, female officers favored greater levels of police intervention and were less likely to tolerate domestic violence because they shared similar gender role experiences with female victims and have a better understanding of their psychological and emotional needs. As a result, female officers tended to emphasize interpersonal concerns in their attitudes and decisions. There is not enough evidence, however, to confirm or refute any of these explanations. Future research should continue to assess the validity of these arguments. Collecting more survey and in-depth interview data might shed a brighter light on these issues.

Second, there is no gender distinction in officers’ proactive attitudes toward domestic violence. Female and male officers were found to exhibit similar attitudinal patterns in terms of the acceptance of domestic violence as legitimate police work and the approval of proarrest policy. Although some male officers have yet to fully “buy into” the idea of a high degree of police involvement in domestic violence, both female and male police officers seemed to have accepted, willingly or reluctantly, the mandates imposed by the new legislation (i.e., DVPCA). That is, the legitimacy of handling domestic violence as an important police task and the use of arrest as a major tool in deterring future violence appear to be acknowledged by officers, regardless of their gender. More studies should be conducted to further examine how and to what extent these attitudes are translated into field actions exercised by officers. For example, future research can analyze the possible differential arrest rates between those who favor and do not favor the proarrest policy.

Finally, other nongender variables are generally not predictive of officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence, with the exception of two variables: supervisors’ supportive attitudes and officers’ department affiliation. The positive connections between supervisory support and supervisory attitudes and officers’ proactive attitudes toward domestic violence do not come as a complete surprise, given that previous research has suggested a link between supervisor styles and patrol officers’ behaviors (Engel, 2000). The findings that TCPD officers were less likely than their KCPD counterparts to perceive domestic violence as an important police task and being supportive of proarrest policy is somewhat unexpected, given that the Taiwanese police are centralized forces, and officers are subject to similar training, policies, and regulations. One may speculate that the less proactive attitudes among TCPD officers may be attributed to a more complex work environment and a relatively heavy workload embedded in policing the capital city of the country, which may restrict officers from taking aggressive actions. Again, this speculation needs to be justified by more empirical evidence generated by future research.

Before discussing policy implications, some of the limitations of this research should be noted. First, the sample for this study was taken from two metropolitan police departments in Taiwan. Although the characteristics of the sampled officers are similar to those of officers in the two police departments, the findings may not be appropriate to generalize to rural (i.e., smaller) police departments, where the nature of domestic violence and the police response could be different (Websdale, 1995; Websdale & Johnson, 1997). Future study should include sample officers from rural police departments to examine whether officers’ perceptions of domestic violence vary by geographic area. Second, the study only assesses officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence. Previous research has yet to establish a firm association between police officers’ occupational attitudes and operational styles. Thus, the findings of this study may not be applied to what officers would actually do in disposing of domestic violence incidents. Future studies may want to explore whether officers’ perceptions of domestic violence predict their enforcement practices in the field (Logan, Shannon, & Walker, 2006). Third, this study found that supervision support, but not officers’ gender, had a positive impact on officers’ proactive response to domestic violence cases. It is worthwhile for future studies to examine how and to what extent supervision support or training may override individual or gender differences in officers’ perceptions of domestic violence.

The findings of this study bear some implications for future police policy. First, Taiwanese police administrators might seek ways to improve male officers’ attitudes toward domestic violence. It is highly unlikely that male officers are a group of individuals who possess particularly strong opposition to the involvement of police in settling domestic violence. Rather, their willingness to settle domestic violence may be hindered by high workloads, inadequate training and guidance, limited resources, and low managerial recognition. Police administrators could enhance officers’ willingness to engage in domestic violence by adopting three strategies: (a) regularly stress the importance of responding to domestic violence, (b) require adequate training in legal requirements and practical procedures for all patrol offices, and (c) include, as an element of merit evaluations, officers’ performance in handling domestic violence.

Second, female officers’ supportive attitudes toward domestic violence make them suitable candidates for handling domestic violence cases. Compared with their male colleagues, female officers were less likely to attribute responsibility to battered women and less inclined to tolerate domestic violence. This suggests that female officers may be more sensitive to battered women’s needs and thus more likely to render quality services, such as providing referrals or other guidance. Police departments should take advantage of female officers’ favorable attitudes toward domestic violence cases. In other words, female officers can be deployed into local police stations to serve the needs of victims better, which may increase victims’ willingness to report domestic violence cases to the police. Police agencies should also consider establishing domestic violence squads comprising both female and male officers to handle domestic violence incidents better. Of course, a more friendly work environment has to be in place first for female officers to be willing to work at the field stations with their male coworkers.

Finally, police administrators have to pay closer attention to first-line supervisors’ attitudes toward and support for domestic violence. First-line supervisors are essential in shaping rank-and-file perceptions of the importance of domestic violence and proarrest policy. Police chiefs must clarify and solidify departmental policies and expectations on domestic violence. Equally important is close monitoring of whether supervisors have effectively communicated department requirements to subordinates and thoroughly evaluated the performance of patrol officers in handling domestic violence incidents.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggested revisions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Doris C. Chu is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology, Sociology, and Geography at Arkansas State University. She received her PhD in criminal justice from the University at Albany, State University of New York, in 2003. Her research interests include religiosity and desistance, policing, and comparative criminal justice. Her recent articles have appeared in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, and Criminal Justice and Behavior. She is the editor of a book titled Crime and Punishment Around the World, V01.3. Asia/Pacific. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO (Expected 2010).

Ivan Y. Sun is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware. He received his PhD in criminal justice from the University at Albany, State University of New York. His research interests include police attitudes and behavior, social disorganization and crime, and crime and justice in Asian societies. His most recent publications have appeared in Justice Quarterly, Police Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management.

References

Belknap

(1995). Law enforcement officers’ attitudes about the appropriate responses to women battering. International Review of Victimology, 4, 47-62.

Belknap

(1996). Policewomen, policemen, or both? Recruitment and training implications for responses to woman battering. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 12, 215-234.

Brown

(1997). European policewomen: A comparative research perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25, 1-19.

Brown

Gilligan

(1992). Meeting at the crossroads. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chen

(2001). Analysis of problems of police response to domestic violence. Community Development Journal, 94, 317-330.

Chen

(2003). An analysis of domestic violence prevention by police organizations: The case of Taipei City Police Department. Police Science Quarterly, Central Police University, 33, 17-50.

Chen

(1999). Violence against women in Taiwan: A review. In Cheung

(Ed.), Breaking the silence: Violence against women in Asia (pp. 174-184). Hong Kong, SAR: Equal Opportunities Commission.

Chiang

(1994). The role of female officers in policing. Police Journal in Taiwan, 24, 147-180.

Choi

Edleson

(1996). Social disapproval of wife assaults: A national survey of Singapore. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 27, 73-88.

10.

Chu

Sun

(2006). Female police officers’ job-related attitudes: A comparative study of Taiwan and the United States. Women & Criminal Justice, 18, 107-130.

11.

Eagly

Wood

Diekman

(2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes

Trautner

(Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Ellison

Trinitapoli

Anderson

Johnson

(2007). Race/ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence. Violence against Women, 13, 1094-1112.

13.

Engel

(2000). Effects of police supervisory styles on patrol officer behavior. Police Quarterly, 3, 262-293.

14.

Feder

(1997). Domestic violence & police response in a pro-arrest jurisdiction. Women & Criminal Justice, 8, 79-98.

15.

Ferraro

(1989). Policing woman battering. Social Problems, 36, 61-74.

16.

Gallin

(1992).Wife abuse in the context of development and change: A Chinese (Taiwanese) case. In Counts

Brown

Campbell

(Eds.), Sanctions and sanctuary: Cultural perspectives on the beating of wives (pp. 119-227). Boulder, CO: Westview.

17.

Gilligan

(1982). In a difference voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

Gilmartin

(1990).Violence against women in contemporary China. In Lipman

Harrell

(Eds.), Violence in China: Essays in culture and counterculture (pp. 203-225). New York: State University of New York Press.

19.

Honig

Hershatter

(1988).Violence against women. In Honig

Hershatter

(Eds.), Personal voices: Chinese women in the 1980s (pp. 173-361). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

20.

Huang

(1999). An analysis of family violence prevention strategies. Police Science Quarterly, Central Police University, 29, 151-172.

21.

Lai

(2003). Let the judges to decide family issues. Judicial Reform Magazine, 45, 51-52.

22.

Lin

(2001). The achievements and future of domestic violence prevention. Auditing Monthly, 548, 51-59.

23.

Liu

Chan

(1999). Enduring violence and staying in marriage: Stories of battered women in rural China. Violence Against Women, 5, 1469-1493.

24.

Logan

Shannon

Walker

(2006). Police attitudes toward domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1365-1374.

25.

Meng

(2002). A analysis of police arrest decision and police role: A study of handling marriage violence cases by Taiwan City Police Department. Police Science Quarterly, Central Police University, 33, 1-30.

26.

Natarajan

(2008). Women police in a changing society: Back door to equality. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

27.

National Police Agency. (2010). Statistics of police recorded domestic violence cases. Retrieved from http://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/ct?xItem=26965&ctNode=11397&mp=1

28.

Robinson

(2000). The effect of a domestic violence policy change on police officers’ schemata. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 600-624.

29.

Schulz

(1995). From social worker to crimefighter. Westport, CT: Praeger.

30.

Stalans

Finn

(2000). Gender differences in officers’ perception and decisions about domestic violence cases. Women & Criminal Justice, 11, 1-24.

31.

Stewart

Maddren

(1997). Police officers’ judgments of blame in family violence: The impact of gender and alcohol. Sex Roles, 37, 921-933.

32.

Sun

(2007). Policing domestic violence: Does officer gender matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 581-595.

33.

Sun

Chu

(2006). Attitudinal differences between Taiwanese and American police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 29, 190-210.

34.

Tang

(1994). Prevalence of spouse aggression in Hong Kong. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 347-356.

35.

Tang

(1998). Psychological abuse of Chinese wives. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 299-314.

36.

Tang

(1999). Wife abuse in Hong Kong Chinese families: A community survey. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 173-191.

37.

Tang

(2003). Factors influencing responsibility attribution to wife abuse: A study of Chinese police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 584-601.

38.

Tang

Cheung

Chen

Sun

(2002). Definitions of violence against women: A comparative study of Chinese societies of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and PRC. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 671-688.

39.

Tang

Lee

Cheung

(1999). Violence against women in Hong Kong. In Cheung

(Ed.), Breaking the silence: Violence against women in Asia (pp. 38-58). Hong Kong, SAR: Equal Opportunities Commission.

40.

Tang

Wong

Cheung

Lee

(2000). Exploring how Chinese define violence women: A focus group study in Hong Kong. Women’s Study International Forum, 23, 197-209.

41.

Wang

(1999). Police response to domestic violence in Taiwan. Paper presented in Zonta Forum on Violence Against Women and Children, Taipei, Taiwans.

42.

Wang

(2003). Police adopting a pro-arrest policy in response to domestic violence. Crime and Criminal Justice International, 1, 148-204.

43.

Websdale

(1995). An ethnographic assessment of the policing of domestic violence in rural eastern Kentucky. Social Justice, 22, 102-122.

44.

Websdale

Johnson

(1997). The policing of domestic violence in rural and urban areas: The voices of battered women in Kentucky. Policing & Society, 6, 297-317.

45.

Worden

(1993). The attitudes of women and men in policing: Testing conventional and contemporary wisdom. Criminology, 31, 203-235.

46.

Yang

(1985). Women in policing: A comparative study of the United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Police Studies, 8, 125-131.

47.

Yeh

(1996). Police and justice system response to spousal violence (Unpublished master’s thesis). Central Police University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.