Applying Social Exchange Theory to Police Deviance: Exploring Self-Protective Behaviors Among Police Officers

Abstract

Social exchange theory is one of the prominent paradigms used to explain the processes linking organizational treatment of employees to their job performance. However, the theoretical link between perceived organizational treatment and police deviance has not been fully explored. This research addresses this gap by analyzing the relationship between perceptions of organizational justice and the use of police self-protective behaviors (SPBs) using organizational support and organizational indifference as ad hoc indicators of the social exchange process. Data were collected using an online self-report survey distributed to police officers in a southern state who are members of a police officer association (n = 1,861). Consistent with previous social exchange research, the findings generally support the idea that fairness is related to SPBs, but largely to the extent that it enhances the social exchange in terms of increasing perceptions of organizational support and reducing perceptions of organizational indifference, which both directly affect an officer’s use of SPBs, and are a type of police deviance. Specific findings, relevant policy implications, and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

police culture/accountability law enforcement/security police organization/management police processes quantitative methods other

Organizational policies and guidelines are developed by departmental leadership and heavily influenced by local, state, and federal laws along with occupational mores (Stojkovic, Kalinch, & Klofas, 2015). However, given the highly discretionary nature of police work and the fact that officers often perform their duties with minimal direct supervision, a potential obstacle exists for police leadership to detect, correct, and adequately address police deviance among officers (Mastrofski, 2004). This is particularly troubling, given that research suggests over three fourths of officers’ patrol time is outside of direct supervision (Famega, Frank, & Mazerolle, 2005).

While increased oversight and scrutiny coupled with stricter and more severe disciplinary practices may deter and reduce police deviance (Frydl & Skogan, 2004), it may also create unintended consequences (Myhill & Bradford, 2013) and increase other forms of police deviance (Bishopp, Worrall, & Piquero, 2016; Harris & Worden, 2014; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Specifically, punitive consequences can result in decreased performance (i.e., production deviance) and increased usage of self-protective behaviors (SPBs; Reynolds, Fitzgerald, & Hicks, 2017). These types of retaliatory behaviors toward the organization can hinder overall effectiveness and efficiency of the department (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Of specific concern, research suggests many officers perceive a variety of aspects of their organization as unfair and thus may lead to officers feeling unsupported or devalued by their organization (Reynolds & Hicks, 2015; Reynolds et al., 2017). One way in which this phenomenon can be explained is through the use of social exchange theory.

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1967; Homans, 1958) is predicated on the idea of reciprocation in relationships where individual actions are based upon a cost–benefit analysis, which theoretically explains the relationship between employees and organizations (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). From a social exchange framework, employees expect to be treated in a particular way by the organization and tailor their actions based upon this perception and act in accordance to promote the most beneficial outcome from the employee’s perspective (Colquitt et al., 2013; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Given that research generally supports the theoretical notions from organizational research, the same principal likely holds true for police organizations (Reynolds & Hicks, 2015).

Extending the social exchange process to a policing context, organizational mistreatment in the form of perceived unfairness and lack of support—among subordinates from superiors—may violate expectations of how officers feel as though they should be treated and thus fails to fulfill their emotional needs. The implication of this failure is diminished and strained relationships, which may ultimately lead to negative changes in work performance (Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, 1998; Boateng, 2014). Consistent with a social exchange theory framework, Colquitt et al. (2013) perceived unfair treatment in an organization should weaken relationships that may lead officers to engage in various types of retaliatory work behaviors, generally captured under the umbrella term of police deviance. There remain limited studies exploring the relationship between organizational treatment and police deviance from a theoretical framework. Further still, even fewer studies examine less severe forms of police deviance, which are likely to be more common than the more egregious acts (i.e., corruption, sexual misconduct, and abuse of power; Bishop et al., 2016; Eitle, D’Alessio, & Stolzenberg, 2014).

The purpose of this study is to explore how organizational treatment may be linked to police deviance using the theoretical lens of social exchange. Specifically, the main objective of this study is to gain further insight into the relationships among organizational fairness, perceived organizational support (POS), perceived organizational indifference (POI), and SPBs. Building upon previous studies linking social exchange theory to employee performance (Colquitt et al., 2013; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000), this study uses a sample of 1,861 police officers who are members of a police officer association in a southern state to examine the research question: Do POS and POI mediate the relationship between perceived organizational fairness and SPBs in accordance with social exchange theory?

Relevant Literature

Three primary facets of employee work performance are often used to examine the overall job performance of employees: (a) task performance, (b) organizational citizenship behaviors, and (c) counterproductive work behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2013; Masterson et al., 2000). This study focused on the type of police work behaviors that are difficult to observe but could compromise an organization’s effectiveness and ability to achieve its goals. In the general occupational and business literature, retaliatory and negative work behaviors are often described under the broad umbrella of counterproductive work behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2013) and share common correlates (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). These types of retaliatory work behaviors include withholding effort, lying to bosses, stealing supplies, sleeping on the job, and taking excessive breaks (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Spector & Fox, 2005; Spector et al., 2006). Robinson and Bennett (1997) defined these types of acts as “voluntary behavior that violate significant organizational norms and in so doing threaten the well-being of the organization, its members, or both” (p. 556). Accordingly, counterproductive work behaviors can be categorized regarding types, severity, and the target against whom the action was directed. These types of behaviors not only occur frequently across the public and private sector but can also cost organizations billions of dollars in lost productivity and diminished worker performance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Unfortunately, police departments are not exempt from these issues (Chanin, 2015). For example, abuse of sick leave by officers can create serious financial strains for police organizations primarily through overtime expenditures (Orrick, 2004). What makes some types of these counterproductive work behaviors challenging to study is that many of these acts are often covert, discrete, less severe, and may only result in indirect harmful actions (Spector & Fox, 2005). Furthermore, counterproductive behaviors may differ depending upon the organization and type of occupation (e.g., police crimes). Therefore, it is imperative to tailor examinations toward specific organizations and the appropriate type of corresponding behaviors (Bennet & Robinson, 2000).

Police Deviance and SPBs

Police occupational misconduct is frequently discussed in the literature under the broad term of police deviance (e.g., Punch, 2009) and includes types of corruption (i.e., using position for personal gain; Porter & Warrender, 2009), police crimes (i.e., illegal activities committed by officers; Stinson, Liederbach, & Freiburger, 2012), and police misconduct (i.e., rule violations and abuses of authority; Kane, 2002). Prior research has placed any behavior that supersedes an officer’s legal authority, ethical standards, or any action that may result in disciplinary actions under this broad umbrella term of police deviance (Barker, Carter, & Barker, 1991). However, police deviance may be more complex because there is often disagreement as to its prevalence, which is due in large part to the debate regarding defining and measuring which specific acts should be considered police deviance (Porter & Warrender, 2009). For example, Punch (2009) argued police deviance is rampant throughout police departments (bad barrels), but Porter and Warrender (2009) posit that police officer deviant behaviors are isolated to only a few officers (bad apples). Thus, the discussion concerning the frequency of police deviance is often relative and largely dependent upon the definition of police deviance employed. For example, excessive force is far less prominent in policing than simple violations of departmental rules or policies, but both negatively impact the organization, although to differing degrees and with corresponding differences in the ability to detect these behaviors. Regardless of how police deviance is operationalized, most would agree that negative work behaviors are ubiquitous in law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal level with varying degrees of severity and frequency (see Eitle et al., 2014). Furthermore, these behaviors, regardless of severity, may serve to weaken the overall effectiveness of the organization (Chanin, 2015).

As described above, police deviance can manifest itself in numerous ways. For example, Reynolds, Fitzgerald, & Hicks (2017) identified two typologies of deviant behaviors (i.e., production deviance and SPBs) based on interviews with police officers about their reactions to perceived organizational injustice. This research found that while these acts can be conceptualized as intentional retaliatory responses to perceived organizational injustice, production deviance can also be described as intentional decreases in activities (e.g., traffic stops), whereas SPBs refer to preventive and protective actions taken by the officers to mitigate potential adverse actions (e.g., disciplinary actions or citizen complaints). These SPBs were expressed in terms of laying low, taking extra precautions to avoid supervisory and administrative scrutiny specifically as a means of protecting oneself from perceived unjustified allegations of misconduct. Therefore, production deviance and SPBs may intentionally—or unintentionally—harm the organization directly or indirectly and therefore can both be conceptualized as minor forms of police deviance. Additionally, while some officers reported engaging in production deviance as a response to organizational injustice, a plurality of officers reported responding to the perceived mistreatment and bureaucratic uncertainties in the form of SPBs (Reynolds et al., 2017). Therefore, while each of these acts may be of potential importance to police practitioners and scholars, it is important to examine the role POS and POI may have between fairness and SPBs.

We argue SPBs are not only a form of police deviance but also a form of deviance that is potentially explained using the social exchange lens. Viewing SPBs as harmful to the organization and as police deviance is consistent with police research (Eitle et al., 2014; Fyfe & Kane, 2006; Porter & Warrender, 2009; Punch, 2009; Smoktunowicz et al., 2015). Although not directly tested, prior research on police organizations and subcultures supports the idea that officers often perceive the administration with skepticism and often alter their work behaviors to manage the uncertainties of the street and the organizational bureaucracy (Brown, 1988). Van Maanen (1975) describes one method officers used to navigate the bureaucratic landscape and stay out of trouble was by adopting a “CYA and a lay-low” approach. The conflict between line officers and their superiors is well-documented in policing research, particularly when officers perceive undue scrutiny and unfair treatment from superiors (Paoline, 2004; Paoline & Terrill, 2013; Reuss-Ianni, 1983). This may also provide an explanation for why police officers are more compliant with organizational directives and policies when there are both a high degree of trust and perceptions of fairness in the organization (Hass, Van Craen, Skogan, & Fleitas, 2015).

Organizational Fairness and Employee Behavior

Employees’ perceptions and reactions to fairness within an organization are often examined using the lens of organizational justice (Colquitt et al., 2013). Organizational justice is generally conceptualized as consisting of three distinct dimensions of justice: (a) distributive, (b) procedural, and (c) interactional justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013). In general terms, distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of an outcome. Procedural justice refers to fairness in the processes used to reach decisions. Whereas interactional justice is disaggregated into interpersonal and informational justice. Interpersonal justice refers to situations in which supervisors treat employees with respect and refrain from demeaning comments; while informational justice refers to the perceived fairness in organizational explanations for the existence of certain procedures and distributions in the workplace (Bies & Moag, 1986; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001, 2013).

However, since individual fairness judgments are based on multiple experiences involving various aspects of justice, researchers argue for the need for a more holistic approach to studying fairness because it should be used to examine perceptions of justice within particular groups or organizations (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009) and a holistic measure has been used in prior police research (Reynolds & Helfers, 2018). Taking a more holistic perspective, employees make assessments of fairness in the workplace by taking into account the totality of their experiences, including outcomes, processes, and treatment during these events. For instance, an employee may feel an event was unjust but still perceive the organization is fair. Hence, employees can have perceptions of fairness based on multiple justice rules (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional and an overall perception of fairness) simultaneously. In other words, research suggests a global measure of justice may capture something distinct and desirable from what is captured using dimensional measures of justice (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). Furthermore, Reynolds and Hicks (2015) found perceptions of fairness in police organizations involve distinct perceptions of fairness assessments that are shaped by both direct and vicarious experiences among officers. This prior study revealed officers can distinguish between perceived fairness of an event and their global perception of fairness in the organization. Therefore, in the absence of more specific data, global perceptions of fairness may be best operationalized by including a broad number of dimensions within a single indicator.

Fairness is typically one of the strongest organizational predictors of employee behaviors, particularly counterproductive work-related behaviors (Colquitt, 2008; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2013; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Moreover, research consistently suggests many employees are influenced by workplace fairness (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2008; Colquitt et al., 2005). Policing research supports that organizational fairness matters because organizational treatment is associated with officer performance, regardless if examined using the traditional components of organizational justice or the broader principles of procedural justice (Donner, Maskály, Fridell, & Jennings, 2015). Specifically, research suggests that perceived mistreatment is linked to different forms of police deviance; such as police misconduct (Harris & Worden, 2014; Kaariainen, Lintonen, Laitenen, & Pollock, 2008; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011).

Additionally, the policing literature advocates that police officers’ attitudes are influenced by job-related characteristics to some extent as these factors are associated with their role within the organization and their work-related duties (Paoline & Terrill, 2013). Both of which are associated with officers’ organizational experiences. These factors may include tenure or career phases (Barker, 1999), duty assignment (Crank, 2004; Van Maanen, 1975), rank (Reuss-Ianni, 1983), and department size (Dantzker, 1997). Researchers have also purported that there are many occurrences related to gender, race, and ethnicity that can influence officers’ daily work experiences and their attitudes (e.g., tokenism, being held to different standards, and blocked opportunities; Archbold & Schulz, 2012; Cooper, White, Ward, Raganella, & Saunders, 2014; Kringen, 2014). Yet, findings are mixed. For example, some research supports that these said factors are not associated with fairness perceptions (Tyler, Callahan, & Frost, 2007), while other research supports the relationship. However, the effects of these factors are often very small (Reynolds & Helfers, 2018). Additionally, empirical evidence supports several of these factors are correlates with police deviance (Donner & Jennings, 2014).

POS and Social Exchange Theory

A meta-analysis by Colquitt and colleagues (2013) supports the idea that fairness not only influences employee performance but is also associated with how employees view their worth within the organization. Prior research using group value and group engagement models suggests perceptions of fairness are associated with positive working relationships among peers as well as between leaders and subordinates. Accordingly, employees use perceptions of fairness to make judgments as to one’s status and worth within an organization (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Fair treatment provides comfort that an individual will neither be mistreated nor taken advantage of by the organization. Fair treatment demonstrates that the employee is respected and valued as a member of the organization (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992). The need for acceptance and affirmation beyond instrumental rewards (e.g., pecuniary gains, promotions, and other forms of incentives and employee compensations) is vital for a person because fairness helps fulfill one’s emotional needs, which is essential for building and sustaining healthy work relationships (Tyler, 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2000). Thus, meeting one’s emotional needs is an essential component for maintaining relationships and fostering cooperation between individuals (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986).

POS is the degree to which the organization is perceived to value employee contributions and care for their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkle, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). An underlying premise of POS is that employees often form a generalized belief of how committed their organization is to them based on their treatment, which is one of the most robust predictors of healthy working relationships (Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Employees who feel supported by the organization experience enhanced affective attachment to the organization because the employees feel the organization supports and cares about them (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003). Hence, when the organization demonstrates to officers that it “has their back” and appreciates their hard work, officers will likely reciprocate in a positive manner (Armeli et al., 1998; Boateng, 2014). Favorable treatment may include, but is not limited to, perceived fair practices in the organization’s policies, procedures, and decisions; participation in decision-making, fairness of rewards/recognition, and growth opportunities; and human resources practices and working conditions (Allen et al., 2003; Armeli et al., 1998; Kurtessis et al., 2015). A meta-analyses suggests POS is one of the strongest predictors of promoting healthy working relationships (Kurtessis et al., 2015; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009). Although limited, studies on police organizations parallel findings in the general occupational literature. In particular, evidence suggests POS is linked to numerous beneficial behaviors among officers including increased effectiveness, work engagement, and police performance (Armeli et al., 1998; Boateng, 2014; Gillet, Huart, Colombat, & Fouquereau, 2013). However, research has not yet examined the relationship between POS, POI, and the use of SPBs.

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1967; Homans, 1958) has long been used in organizational research to explain the association between exchange relationships and employee work performance. This link continues to garner empirical support (Colquitt et al., 2013; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Masterson et al., 2000). Based on the idea of the norm of reciprocity, the recipient of positive actions from an organization engenders a sense of indebtedness through a process of reciprocation (Gouldner, 1960). As explained by Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005), “social exchange relationships evolve when employers ‘take care of employees’ which thereby engenders beneficial consequences” (p. 882). Conversely, mistreatment nullifies an employee’s obligation to reciprocate in a positive manner and may actually result in the individual responding in an adverse manner. A meta-analytic study by Colquitt and colleagues (2013) finds the relationship between fairness and employee performance is mediated through indicators of social exchange indicators; such as POS—and likely POI. Based upon the review of literature and consistent with social exchange theory, one could reasonably assume that fairness is linked to SPBs, but the relationship between fairness and the use of SPBs is mediated by POS and POI. In other words, fairness matters when discussing the use of SPBs in the context that fairness promotes POS and reduces POI, which reduces police deviance.

The current study explores the potential role POS and POI have in mediating the relationship between perceptions of fairness and SPBs. The results of this study fill a gap in our understanding regarding the importance that fairness has on police officer behaviors for police administrators. Previous research has posited that fairness is an important concept within police organizations (Donner et al., 2015; Reynolds & Helfers, 2018), and this study will narrow the gap in the literature by examining the role that POS and POI have as mechanisms between fairness and the use of SPBs.

Method

Data

The data for this study were collected from municipal police officers who were members of a statewide police association in a southern state. The association represents police personnel (e.g., current officers, retired officers, and police support staff) from campus, rural, state, suburban, and urban jurisdictions throughout the state.¹ The association’s president, with support from the executive committee, supported the research and encouraged members to participate. The survey contained a cover letter from the association president approving of the research and encouraging membership participation, along with a letter from the researchers explaining the purpose of the study and ensuring that officers’ responses would be voluntary and anonymous. The survey was distributed to approximately 6,000 members who met the research criteria (i.e., sworn police officers currently employed in rural, suburban, and urban police departments).² There were 1,861 officers who completed the survey, which equates to approximately a 31% response rate. This response rate is consistent with the response rate of many online surveys (Tourangeau, Conrad, & Couper, 2013). Furthermore, this response rate should be perceived as respectable given the difficult nature of studying police (e.g., Boateng, 2014; Gordon, 2010). Accessing the statewide association was a way for the researchers to access a variety of officers throughout the state working at different-sized agencies, particularly smaller sized rural and suburban agencies, which despite making up the bulk of agencies in the United States are chronically understudied (Falcone, Wells, & Weisheit, 2002). Descriptive statistics for the full sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for the Sample.

Variable	%
Race
White	91.03%
Black	4.39%
Asian/Pacific islander	0.83%
Other	3.74%
Hispanic
Yes	15.13%
No	84.87%
Sex
Female	10.91%
Male	89.09%
Current assignment
Patrol	47.81%
Detective	14.83%
Special assignment	9.43%
Other	27.94%
Rank
Nonsupervisor	64.05%
Mid-level supervisor	28.00%
Command staff	7.95%
Department size
Very small	21.53%
Small	20.29%
Medium	16.48%
Large	36.82%
Very large	4.88%
Tenure
Mean	15.34
Standard deviation	9.35
Minimum	1.00
Maximum	46.00

Note. N = 1,861. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is a latent indicator of SPBs. This item was constructed using three manifest variables that were selected to capture feelings of distrust and/or isolation from the department. Each item asked participants to report how often they felt the following statements accurately described them on a Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 6 (most of the time). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was estimated to assess how well the latent construct of SPBs was captured with these 3 items. The text of the items, the descriptive statistics, factor loadings, and fit statistics are presented in the top panel of Table 2. Overall, the results from the CFA suggest that the model fit the data well (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and that each of the three factors were strongly associated with SPBs. Additionally, reliability analyses indicate that the measure provides a reliable measure is sufficiently reliable (α = .66).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and CFA Estimates for Dependent and Independent Variables.

Item	M	SD	Range	CFA Estimate
Dependent variable CFA^a
Self-protective behaviors
I try to “lay low” and stay off the department’s radar	3.58	1.75	1–6	.57***
I take extra precautions daily to protect myself from allegations	4.76	1.39	1–6	.48***
In regard to my administration, I try to watch my back	4.24	1.71	1–6	.88***
Independent variables CFA^b
Perceptions of fairness
My performance evaluations have been fair	4.33	1.35	1–6	.79***
My disciplinary actions have been fair	3.94	1.59	1–6	.82***
Opportunities to advance my career have been fair	3.91	1.54	1–6	.77***
Overall, I have been treated fairly at this department	4.21	1.53	1–6	.88***
Officers evaluations are fair at this department	3.78	1.41	1–6	.76***
Organizational support
The organization values my contribution to its well-being	3.61	1.42	1–6	.87***
The organization strongly considers my goals and values	3.20	1.43	1–6	.87***
The organization really cares about my well-being	3.39	1.48	1–6	.86***
The organization would grant a reasonable request for a change in my working conditions	3.45	1.39	1–6	.74***
The organization is willing to help me when I need a special favor	3.65	1.42	1–6	.78***
The organization takes pride in my work accomplishments at work	3.58	1.43	1–6	.85***
Perceptions of organizational indifference
If given the opportunity, the organization would take advantage of me	3.77	1.56	1–6	.85***
If the organization could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary, it would do so	3.45	1.61	1–6	.73***
The organization would ignore a complaint from me	3.29	1.49	1–6	.75***
Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice	3.60	1.50	1–6	.78***
The organization shows very little concern for me	3.33	1.52	1–6	.84***

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; SRMSR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index.

^aχ² = 723.94, df = 101, p < .001; SRMSR = .024; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .970. ^bχ² = 8.36, df = 1, p < .001; SRMSR = .004; RMSEA = .02; CFI = .992.

***p < .001.

Independent Variables

Addressing the research question required three independent variables. The first construct is perceptions of fairness (α = .90), which was measured using 5 items designed to capture feelings of fair treatment within the department. The second measure is perceptions of organizational support (α = .92), which was measured using 6 items designed to capture perceptions of support from the respondents’ department. The third measure is perceptions of organizational indifference (α = .89), which was measured using 5 items designed to capture perceptions that the respondents’ organization was indifferent to their well-being. Items for the second and third measure were derived from an 11-item scale used prior by Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Lynch (1998) to examine POS on police officers and is a modified version of the POS Scale developed by Eisenberger, Hungtington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) to measure the extent that an employee perceives that their organization values their contributions and cares about them. Because the initial measure was attempting to capture two dimensions, it is consistent that we find empirical support for two dimensions. Furthermore, prior research suggests that while organizational support, or rather the absence of, can be a factor in developing levels of organizational indifference, it is not the only factor. In fact, Esfahani, Ghorbani, Amiri, and Farokhi (2013) identify four broad factors that predict organizational indifference: managerial factors, structural factors, motivational factors, and personal factors. Of these, only some subelements of the managerial factors are related to organizational support. In other words, while organizational support and organizational indifference are certainly related, the evidence seems to support the idea that the two concepts may coexist independent of one another. Still further, this is supported by research examining the motivations of police officers to engage in various forms of counterproductive work behaviors (Reynolds et al., 2017). The initial factor structure of these constructs was identified using principal axis factoring methods, using an oblique rotation, based on 16 manifest indicators. Each indicator was measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The initial factor structure of the measures was then subjected to a CFA to assess how well the factor structure explained the psychometric properties of the three constructs.

The text of the items, the descriptive statistics, factor loadings, and fit statistics from the CFA are presented in the bottom panel of Table 2. The results from the CFA suggest that the data fit the model well. Furthermore, we observe that each of the indicators is strongly related to the underlying latent construct (i.e., >.73). Additionally, as would logically be expected, we found a negative covariance between organizational support and organizational indifference (ρ = −.79) and organizational indifference and perceptions of fairness (ρ = −.71). Furthermore, we found that organizational support and perceptions of fairness positively covary with one another (ρ = .83). These covariation terms provide further evidence of the validity of the measures.

Control Variables

Several control variables were included in the final model to parse out any demographic or other effects. Tenure was a continuous variable indicating total years of service as an officer as of January of the year the survey was distributed. Dichotomous measures of race (1 = White, 0 = non-White),³ ethnicity (1 = Hispanic, 0 = non-Hispanic), and sex (1 = male, 0 = female). A dichotomous variable was also included to account for respondents who were supervisors (1 = yes, 0 = no) and another accounting for primary function within the department (1 = patrol, 0 = nonpatrol). The final control variable was the size of the organization for which the participant worked. The categories were developed using the system developed by Klockars, Ivković, Harver, and Haberfeld (2000). The specific categories were very small (n < 25), small (n < 50), medium (n < 100), large (n < 500), and very large (n ≥ 501) categories based on the number of sworn officers reported by the participant. The decision to include these control variables was based on prior empirical research and not based on theoretical rationale (Murphy, 2009; Reynolds & Helfers, 2018; Wolfe & Nix, 2016; Wolfe, Nix, & Campbell, 2018).

Analytic Strategy

Due to the presence of the latent constructs, the analytic strategy employed was structural equation modeling (SEM). The benefits of using SEM for this type of analysis are the ability to partial out the measurement error of latent variables that is omnipresent in most survey research, which yields more accurate parameter estimates (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). Furthermore, due to the dual-mediated relationship, we estimated four models. Model 1 estimates the relationship between perceptions of organizational fairness and SPBs. Model 2 estimates the relationship between fairness and both perceptions of fairness and perceptions of indifference. Model 3 estimates if the relationship between fairness and SPBs is mediated through perceptions of organizational support and perceptions of organizational indifference. The last model, Model 4, adds the control variables to the mediated model. In order to maximize any potential model misspecification errors, control variables were not included until the final model. We acknowledge the role, and the logical argument that could be made for many of these variables; however, as these concepts have not been fully fleshed out theoretically we still approach their addition to the model with caution (Lewis-Beck, 1980). All models were estimated in Mplus Version 8. Finally, because we recognize the potentially nested nature of the data, which we are unable to account for due to the confidentiality guaranteed to the respondents, we estimate robust standard errors to account for the potential overefficiency of the model estimates (Kline, 2006). All path coefficients reported are standardized coefficients.

Results

The first model estimates the direct effect of fairness on SPBs. The model fit the data well (χ² = 179.93, df = 31, p < .0001; standardized root mean square residual [SRMSR] = .04; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .051; comparative fit index [CFI] = .98). The results indicate there is a negative relationship between fairness and SPBs (β = −.70, SE = .02, p < .001). This means that for every one standard deviation increase in perceived fairness, there is a .70 reduction in the use of SPBs. This finding is consistent with prior research.

Model 2 estimates the relationship between perceptions of fairness and perceptions of organizational support and perceptions of organizational indifference. Overall, the data fit the model well (χ² = 584.48, df = 100, p < .0001; SRMSR = .047; RMSEA = .055; CFI = .977). The results suggest there is a positive relationship between fairness and organizational support (β = .84, SE = .01, p < .001) and a negative relationship between perceptions of fairness and perceptions of organizational indifference (β = −.72, SE = .01, p < .001). These results mean, in terms of absolute value, effect of fairness is 16.67% larger for organizational support than for organizational indifferences. Furthermore, we found the covariance between organizational support and organizational indifference is reduced by 35.44%, from the measurement model, after including perceptions of fairness in the model.

The results from Model 3, which tests the full mediation model sans control variables, are presented in Figure 1. Overall, the data fit the model well (χ² = 719.93, df = 145, p < .001; SRMSR = .04; RMSEA = .046; CFI = .98). The results indicate that, while still significant (β = −.18, SE = .04, p < .001), perceptions of organizational support and organizational indifference partially mediate the effect of perceptions of fairness on SPBs—reducing the size of the direct effect by 74.29%. We also found that perceptions of organizational support (β = −.29, SE = .05, p < .001) and perceptions of organizational indifference (β = .33, SE = .04, p < .001) are significantly related to SPBs. Furthermore, we see that fairness is still related to organizational support (β = .84; SE = .01, p < .001) and organizational indifference (β = −.72, SE = .01, p < .001), which are unchanged from the initial parameter estimates.

Figure 1.

Path diagram of the effects of perceptions of fairness on self-protective behaviors mediated through perceptions of organizational support and perceptions of organizational indifference (Model 3). χ² = 719.93, df = 145, p < .001; standardized root mean square residual = .043; root mean square error of approximation = .046; comparative fit index = .975.

In addition to the direct effects, we found that fairness has an indirect effect on SPBs through perceptions of organizational support (β = −.25, SE = .01, p < .001) and perceptions of organizational indifference (β = −.24, SE = .01, p < .001). Interestingly, the indirect effects of fairness through organizational support and organizational indifference are larger than the direct effect of fairness alone. This may suggest that enhancing perceptions of fairness may reduce the use of SPBs by enhancing perceptions of organizational support and reducing perceptions of organizational indifference.

The final model, Model 4, replicates the full mediation model with the addition of the control variables. The results for the primary variables of interest are presented in Figure 2 and the estimates for the control variables are presented in Table 3. Again, the model fits the data well (χ² = 1,107.66, df = 250, p < .001; SRMSR = .04; RMSEA = .043; CFI = .96). The addition of the control variables did not alter the magnitude of the direct effect between fairness and SPBs (β = −.18, SE = .04, p < .001). However, the results indicate that after adding the control variables to the model the effects of organizational support (β = −.22, SE = .04, p < .001) and organizational indifference (β = .25, SE = .03, p < .001) on SPBs are slightly attenuated, 24.14% and 24.24%, respectively. However, because the results between fairness and organizational support and organizational indifference were strengthened, there was a modest reduction in the indirect effects of fairness on SPB.

Figure 2.

Path diagram of the effects of perceptions of fairness on self-protective behaviors mediated through perceptions of organizational support and perceptions of organizational indifference—controls omitted (Model 4). χ² = 1,107.66, df = 250, p < .001; standardized root mean square residual = .039; root mean square error of approximation = .043; comparative fit index = .964.

Table 3.

Control Variable Estimates for Model 4 (Omitted From Path Diagram).

Variable	Self-Protective Behaviors	Fairness	Organizational Support	Organizational Indifference
Tenure	−.02 (.02)	−.01 (.01)	.01 (.01)	.01 (.01)
White	.05 (.01)	.18 (.09)*	−.15 (.06)*	.05 (.09)
Hispanic	−.01 (.02)	−.06 (.07)	−.09 (.06)	.16 (.07)*
Male	.02 (.01)	.33 (.08)***	−.03 (.06)	−.03 (.08)
Nonsupervisor	.08 (.02)***	−.14 (.07)*	−.15 (.05)**	.14 (.07)*
Patrol	.04 (.02)*	−.39 (.06)***	.06 (.05)	−.07 (.06)
Agency size	.01 (.01)	−.04 (.01)***	−.11 (.02)***	.04 (.02)*

Note. Standardized parameter estimates, standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Next, we examined the effects of the control variables that were included in Model 4. The only control variables significantly associated with the use of SPBs is being a nonsupervisor (β = .08, SE = .02, p < .001) and being in patrol (β = .04, SE = .02, p < .001). The fact that these are the only significant control variables may suggest the use of these SPBs is associated with the contextual conditions in which these officers work rather than something inherent about certain types of officers or organizational size. While this is conjecture, the data seem to support this finding as many of the demographic factors are associated with perceptions of fairness, organizational support, and organizational indifference. Specifically, we found that officers in larger organizations generally perceive less fairness (β = −.04, SE = .01, p < .001), less organizational support (β = −.11, SE = .02, p < .001), and more organizational indifference (β = .04, SE = .02, p < .05) than similarly situated officers in smaller organizations. Additionally, we found that males have higher perceptions of fairness than do females (β = .33, SE = .08, p < .001). Furthermore, we found that White officers feel less organizational support than non-White officers (β = −.15, SE = .06, p < .05) and Hispanic officers feel more organizational indifference (β = .16, SE = .07, p < .05) than non-Hispanic officers.

One of the most curious findings of the demographic variables is the effect of being a nonsupervisor. Specifically, as previously highlighted, these officers were more likely to employ SPBs but also have lower perceptions of fairness (β = −.14, SE = .07, p < .05), perceive lower levels of organizational support (β = −.15, SE = .05, p < .01), and are more likely to perceive higher levels of organizational indifference (β = .14, SE = .07, p < .05). All of these findings are net of the other effects in the model. This seems to suggest that line staff (i.e., nonsupervisors) has fundamentally different perceptions than supervisors and management in the organization.

Discussion

Recall that the SPBs concept examined in this study are the type of behaviors that officers engage in that are not directly related to significant malfeasance. SPBs employed in this study were those more subtle and less overt and discretionary actions that officers may engage in to avoid the attention of their direct supervisors and organizational leadership (e.g., laying low, being extra cautions to protect themselves from allegations).

The findings of this study were largely consistent with prior research. First, there is support for an inverse relationship between fairness and SPBs. Officers who perceive higher levels of fairness have lower levels of self-reported engagement in SPBs. This is consistent with both the general organizational justice research (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001, 2013) and the policing research (Donner et al., 2015). Both bodies of literature find employees’ perceptions of fairness are linked to their work behaviors. These findings suggest that when officers believe they are treated fairly, they engage in less SPBs; however, this relationship is more nuanced than previously thought. Our findings suggest fairness is positively related to POS and negatively to POI. The indirect effects among these three concepts are larger than the direct effect of perceptions of fairness on the engagement of SPBs. Thus, while fairness certainly has a role in the use of SPBs in police officers, the direct effect is much smaller than previously thought. This is not to say that organizational fairness is not important, to the contrary, organizational fairness bolsters POS and mitigates POI which are then more strongly related to the use of SPBs. In other words, it is not fairness per se, but rather it seems to be how fairness makes officers feel.

This study provides evidence that perceptions of fairness, organizational support, and organizational indifference are unique concepts and that fairness may act as an antecedent for POS (Colquitt et al., 2013) and POI. The relationship between fairness and POS is commonsensical because when an individual is treated fairly by leadership, the perception of organizational support should be expected to be higher than if the individual is not treated fairly (Colquitt et al., 2013). Additionally, research has not explored the relationship involving POI, but this study revealed it is influential in furthering our understanding between fairness and officers’ engagement in SPBs. This research suggests that perceptions of fairness have an effect with POI. Prior studies on POS among police officers (Armeli et al., 1998; Boateng, 2014) and those in the general occupational literature parallel findings in this study in regard to the link between POS and work-related behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2013). The findings in this study suggest when police organizations demonstrate they care about and value their officers’ work contributions, then officers will reciprocate with increased positive work-related behaviors; but when an officer perceived that the organization minimizes the importance of the officer (organizational indifference), the officer may be more likely to engage in SPBs. Finally, POS has been used in previous research as an indicator of social exchange relations based on social exchange theory (Colquit et al., 2013), similar to this study. The findings revealed support that POS and POI partially mediate the relationship between fairness and officer SPBs. This demonstrates the importance of these three concepts in shaping officer behaviors. Consistent with social exchange theory, findings of this study support that fairness is important because it enhances officers’ perceptions of POS, which promotes healthy reciprocal relationships between officers and leadership based on social exchange theory, and ultimately result in less SPBs.

These findings should be of importance to researchers and police practitioners as this study provides a theoretical framework to help our understanding of how perceptions of the workplace shape officers work-related behaviors. Based on this research, if police leadership desires to increase officers’ perception of support and promote positive work-related behaviors, it begins with improving organizational fairness perceptions among officers. The findings support that treating officers fairly is important, but it is not sufficient. In an effort to reduce officers’ engagement in SPBs, administrators must work to enhance officers’ perceptions that they are supported, professionally and personally, in the organization. Employees need to feel that the organization supports, values, and cares about them. Similarly, one could assume that police officers need to believe that when they are acting within policy and the law, their actions will be supported and that administrators will not succumb to community/political pressure. Research supports that behavior among employees is more aligned with administrative expectations when employees feel the organization “has their back” and are committed to them (Allen et al., 2003; Hass et al., 2015).

Interestingly, among the control variables, only being assigned to patrol and supervisory status were statistically significant. Regardless of tenure, gender, ethnicity, race, and size of the police department did not have a difference in SPBs. This suggests that these feeling may represent a universal human need rather than something uniquely desired by certain groups of people. Additionally, the least supervised officers (patrol) are the most likely to engage in SPBs. This could be the result of the split-second decision-making inherent in patrol work along with the second guessing and increased complaints from the community among patrol officers. Patrol officers are the most visible component of any organization and must be proactive when performing their duties to enhance community safety. Therefore, it is important for supervision to be cognizant that officers assigned to patrol may need extra attention to believe the organization is supportive of their behavior. Overall, police administrators recognize that their officers are placed in many difficult and emotionally challenging situations, and equally relevant is the expectation officers be recognized for the work they perform that also includes being treated respectfully. Through this mutual exchange where officers work hard in a prestigious profession for the public good and where administrators provide the requisite support, officers may be less inclined to engage in SPBs. Overall, the findings in this study support Reuss-Ianni’s (1983) hypothesis of the two dimensions of police officers within police organizations: line level (street cops) and supervisors (management cops). Therefore, it is incumbent upon police administrators to direct attention toward improving the perceptions of line-level employees to enhance organizational effectiveness.

Policy Implications

Police officers represent the largest and most visible component of the criminal justice system. Officers are not only given the authority to enforce laws and the responsibility for maintaining order but are authorized to use force to accomplish these tasks. In performance of this role, the police have the most contact with the public and often serve as the gatekeeper to the criminal justice system (Allen & Sawhney, 2015). For these reasons, police malfeasance in varying forms can be detrimental to achieving the organizational goals of police agencies and may ultimately erode perceptions of legitimacy and public trust (Chanin, 2015; President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015; Tyler, 2004, 2006). Subsequently, researchers and practitioners have continued advocating the importance of fairness in police organizations. They posit that when elements of internal procedural justice (voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthiness) or principles consistent with organizational justice are adopted and successfully implemented in police organizations, the likelihood of police officers engaging in police misconduct may diminish (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). Fairness is important, but making strides toward minimizing police deviance may reside in building and fostering beneficial social exchange relationships within the department.

This research supports that fairness is important in regard to reducing SPBs, but the influence of fairness may be mediated through officers’ perceptions of their organization (POS and POI). Subsequently, how officers are treated influence whether they feel supported by their leadership, which in turn, influences their behaviors. Thus, police administrators must embrace procedural and organizational justice principles as core organizational cultural values. The efficacy of policing relies upon a reciprocal relationship where officers’ perceptions of how they are treated and the fairness of organizational policies and practices within an organization will result in positive benefits for officers interactions with members of the community (Myhill & Bradford, 2013). Therefore, police administrators should implement training and practices that are aligned with procedural justice from the new recruit through veteran officers (supervisors and nonsupervisors alike) and hold all supervisory officers accountable for their actions toward subordinates to ensure procedural and organizational justice practices are used in daily operations. The goal is to institutionalize procedural and organizational justice into the culture of police organizations. As this goal is achieved, officers’ perceptions of the level of support received from their supervisors will contribute toward improving police services for society and minimize police officer’s perceived desire to engage in protective behaviors.

Limitations

As with all research, this study is not without limitations and the findings should be interpreted in light of these limitations. First, this study used a cross-sectional research design, which limits causal inference. Secondly, the data for this study were derived from a convenience sample (nonprobability) of police officers in a single state from one geographic region of the United States. The sample demographics for the respondents were consistent with the demographics of sworn officers in the state as reported by the state licensing agency, which provides some assurance the sample was representative of police officers in the state.⁴ However, compared to national estimates of police composition, White officers were overrepresented and patrol officers were underrepresented in our data (Reaves & U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). Third, the survey did not allow for researchers to associate officers to a specific agency which precludes examining organizational and contextual effects. Thus, these effects may have a role in conditioning the relationships observed in this study. Fourth, the survey did not inquire into the recency or severity of a respondent’s discipline. Officers’ perceptions of fairness could be swayed by those factors. Also, if officers determined their discipline was unnecessary or excessive, their perceptions of fairness may have been impacted in the manner they answered the survey. Fifth, the survey only captured tenure as a correlate with police deviance and did not account for others such as education, job satisfaction, and cynicism. Sixth, the survey only contained 3 items (lay low, extra precautions, and watching my back) to comprise obscure, low-level forms of deviance, but there can be several more behaviors that can be included in this concept. Deviance is a broad concept and the measure used in this study is limited. Therefore, future research should expand upon these minor, innocuous forms of deviance along with addressing the other limitations of this study.

Conclusion

This study extends our understanding of how being treated fairly by organizational leadership is related to deviant behavior among police officers. The generalizability of the findings was enhanced because the officers involved in the study were associated with police agencies that ranged in size from 3 to over 1,000 officers who were affiliated with rural, suburban, and urban agencies. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the possibility that POS and POI were the mechanisms through which police officers’ perceptions of organizational fairness affect their use of SPBs. The findings suggest officers’ perceptions of organizational leadership are fundamental to understanding the relationship between fairness and police behavior. Future research should focus on replicating these findings and continue to expand our knowledge regarding the association between fairness, POS, POI, and police deviance. Future research should consider the role of other social exchange concepts (e.g., trust) to determine how fairness matters to officers. Only when we have a clearer picture of the causal sequence will policy makers be able to fully unpack the importance of fairness on police behavior. Finally, researchers should continue to explore how police officers’ perceptions of their organization may be related to other adverse behaviors including de-policing behaviors.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Allen

D. G.

Shore

L. M.

Griffeth

R. W.

(2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29, 99–118.

Allen

J. M.

Sawhney

(2015). Administration and management in criminal justice: A service quality approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ambrose

M. L.

Schminke

(2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491.

Archbold

C. A.

Schulz

D. M.

(2012). Research on women in policing: A look at the past, present and future. Sociology Compass, 6, 694–708.

Armeli

Eisenberger

Fasolo

Lynch

(1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 288.

Barker

J. C.

(1999). Danger, duty, and disillusion: The worldview of Los Angeles police officers. Prospect Heights, Il: Waveland Press.

Barker

Carter

D. L.

Barker

(1991). Police deviance. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Bennett

R. J.

Robinson

S. L.

(2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.

Berry

C. M.

Ones

D. S.

Sackett

P. R.

(2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.

10.

Bies

R. J.

Moag

J. S.

(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43–55.

11.

Bishopp

S. A.

Worrall

Piquero

N. L.

(2016). General strain and police misconduct: The role of organizational influence. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39, 635–651.

12.

Blau

(1967). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

13.

Boateng

F. D.

(2014). Perceived organizational support and police officer effectiveness testing the organizational support theory in Ghana. International Criminal Justice Review, 24, 134–150.

14.

Brown

M. K.

(1988). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

15.

Chanin

J. M.

(2015). Examining the sustainability of pattern or practice police misconduct reform. Police Quarterly, 18, 163–192.

16.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

P. E.

(2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.

17.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

18.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2008). Two decades of organizational justice: Findings, controversies, and future directions. The Sage handbook of organizational behavior, 1, 73–88.

19.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

20.

Colquitt

J. A.

Greenberg

Zapata-Phelan

C. P.

(2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In Greenberg

Colquitt

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

Rodell

J. B.

Long

D. M.

Zapata

C. P.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

(2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199.

22.

Cooper

J. A.

White

M. D.

Ward

K. C.

Raganella

A. J.

Saunders

(2014). Exploring the nexus of officer race/ethnicity, sex, and job satisfaction: The case of the NYPD. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 15, 43–59.

23.

Crank

J. P.

(2004). Police culture in a changing multicultural environment. Cincinnati, OH: LexisNexis.

24.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.

25.

Dantzker

M. L.

(1997). Police officer job satisfaction: Does agency size make a difference? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8, 309–322.

26.

Donner

C. M.

Jennings

W. G.

(2014). Low self-control and police deviance: Applying Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory to officer misconduct. Police Quarterly, 17, 203–225.

27.

Donner

Maskály

Fridell

Jennings

W. G.

(2015). Policing and procedural justice: A state-of-the-art review. Policing, 38, 153–172.

28.

Eisenberger

Armeli

Rexwinkel

Lynch

P. D.

Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.

29.

Eisenberger

Hungtington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

30.

Eitle

D’Alessio

S. J.

Stolzenberg

(2014). The effects of organizational and environmental factors on police misconduct. Police Quarterly, 17, 103–126.

31.

Esfahani

A. N.

Ghorbani

Amiri

Farokhi

(2013). Identifying and ranking the effective factors on the organizational indifference through fuzzy analytical hierarchy processes (FAHP) (Damavand municipality as a case study). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3, 64–77.

32.

Falcone

D. N.

Wells

L. E.

Weisheit

R. A.

(2002). The small-town police department. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25, 371–384.

33.

Famega

C. N.

Frank

Mazerolle

(2005). Managing patrol time: The role of supervisor directives. Justice Quarterly, 22, 540–559.

34.

Frydl

Skogan

(Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

35.

Fyfe

Kane

(2006). Bad cops: A study of career-ending misconduct among New York City police officers (Document No. 215795). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

36.

Gillet

Huart

Colombat

Fouquereau

(2013). Perceived organizational support, motivation, and engagement among police officers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44, 46–55.

37.

Gordon

R. D.

(2010). Dispersed leadership: Exploring the impact of antecedent forms of power using a communicative framework. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 260–287. doi:10.1177/0893318909360213

38.

Gouldner

A. W.

(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

39.

Harris

C. J.

Worden

R. E.

(2014). The effect of sanctions on police misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 1258–1288.

40.

Hass

N. E.

Van Craen

Skogan

W. G.

Fleitas

D. M.

(2015). Explaining officer compliance: The importance of procedural justice and trust inside a police organization. Criminology and Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://crj.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/18/1748895814566288

41.

Homans

G. C.

(1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.

42.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

43.

Kaariainen

Lintonen

Laitenen

Pollock

(2008). The code of silence: Are self-report surveys a viable means for studying police misconducts? Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 9, 86–98.

44.

Kane

R. J.

(2002). The social ecology of police misconduct. Criminology, 40, 867–897.

45.

Kline

R. B.

(2006). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

46.

Klockars

C. B.

Ivković

S. K.

Harver

W. E.

Haberfield

M. R.

(2000). The measurement of police integrity (Document No. 181465). National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, 17, 1–11.

47.

Kringen

A. L.

(2014). Scholarship on women and policing trends and policy implications. Feminist Criminology, 9, 367–381.

48.

Kurtessis

J. N.

Eisenberger

Ford

M. T.

Buffardi

L. C.

Stewart

K. A.

Adis

C. S.

(2015). Perceived organizational support a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43, 1854–1884.

49.

Lewis-Beck

M. S.

(1980). Applied regression: An introduction (Quantitative applications in the social sciences no. 07-022). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

50.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Springer.

51.

Masterson

S. S.

Lewis

Goldman

B. M.

Taylor

M. S.

(2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.

52.

Mastrofski

S. D.

(2004). Controlling street-level police discretion. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 100–118.

53.

Murphy

(2009). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 159–178.

54.

Myhill

Bradford

(2013). Overcoming cop culture? Organizational justice and police officers’ attitudes toward the public. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36, 333–356.

55.

Orrick

(2004). Controlling abuse of sick leave. Police Chief, 71, 39–42.

56.

Paoline

E. A.

III (2004). Shedding light on police subculture: An examination of officers occupational attitudes. Police Quarterly, 7, 205–236.

57.

Paoline

E. A.

Terrill

(2013). Police culture: Adapting to the strains of the job. Durham: University of North Carolina Press.

58.

Porter

L. E.

Warrender

(2009). A multivariate model of police deviance: Examining the nature of corruption, crime, and misconduct. Policing & Society, 19, 79–99.

59.

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Service.

60.

Punch

(2009). Police corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing. Cullompton, England: William.

61.

Raykov

Marcoulides

G. A.

(2006). On multilevel model reliability estimation from the perspective of structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 130–141.

62.

Reaves

B. A.

, & U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Local police departments, 2013: Personnel, policies, and practices (NCJ 248677). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

63.

Reuss-Ianni

(1983). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

64.

Reynolds

P. D.

Helfers

R. C.

(2018). Differences in perceptions of organizational fairness based on job characteristics among police officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 371–388.

65.

Reynolds

P. D.

Hicks

(2015). There is no justice in a police department: A phenomenological study of police experiences. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 16, 469–484.

66.

Reynolds

P. D.

Fitzgerald

B. A.

Hicks

(2017). The expendables: A qualitative study of police officers’ responses to organizational injustice. Police Quarterly. doi:1098611117731558

67.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.

68.

Riggle

R. J.

Edmondson

D. R.

Hansen

J. D.

(2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1027–1030.

69.

Robinson

S. L.

Bennett

R. J.

(1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.

70.

Robinson

S. L.

Bennett

(1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations, and its causes. Research on Negotiations in Organizations, 6, 3–27.

71.

Rotundo

Sackett

P. R.

(2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.

72.

Skarlicki

D. P.

Folger

(1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.

73.

Smoktunowicz

Baka

Cieslak

Nichols

C. F.

Benight

C. C.

Luszczynska

(2015). Exploring counterproductive work behaviors among police officers: The indirect effects of job demands are mediated by job burnout and moderated by job control and social support. Human Performance, 28, 332–350. doi:10.1080/08959285.2015.1021045

74.

Spector

P. E.

Fox

(2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In Fox

Spector

P. E.

(Eds.), Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

75.

Spector

P. E.

Fox

Penney

L. M.

Bruursema

Goh

Kessler

(2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446–460. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005

76.

Stinson

P. M.

Liederbach

Freiburger

T. L.

(2012). Off-duty and under arrest: A study of crimes perpetuated by off-duty police. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23, 139–163.

77.

Stojkovic

Kalinch

Klofas

(2015). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (6th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

78.

Tourangeau

Conrad

F. G.

Couper

M. P.

(2013). The science of web surveys. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

79.

Tyler

T. R.

(2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 84–99.

80.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

81.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

82.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.

83.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

E. A.

(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

84.

Tyler

T. R.

Callahan

Frost

(2007). Armed and dangerous: Motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law & Society, 41, 457–492.

85.

Van Maanen

(1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207–228.

86.

Wolfe

S. E.

Nix

(2016). The alleged “Ferguson Effect” and police willingness to engage in community partnership. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 1–10.

87.

Wolfe

S. E.

Nix

Campbell

B. A.

(2018). Police managers’ self-control and support for organizational justice. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 71–82.

88.

Wolfe

S. E.

Piquero

A. R.

(2011). Organizational justice and police misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 332–353.