Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

8CI.NC. @DI".CT8

JOlJRNALOF CRIMINALJlJSTICE

PergamonJournal ofCriminaJ Justice 31 (2003) 475-492

Robin Shepard Engel.

Division of Criminal Justice. University of Cincinnati, P. O. Box 210389, Cincinnati. 08 4522/-OJ89, USA

Abstract

The importance of suspects' resistance toward police officers has almost always been described in tenns of itsinfluence on police behavior. Given the cenb'ality of citizens' resistance in the literature on police behavior, it issurprising that so little attention has been focused on explaining suspects' resistance independent of its influenceon police behavior. This research examined the factors influencing multiple measures of suspects' resistance usingsystematic observation data collected in 1977 from twenty-four departments in three metropolitan areas. Thefindings show that non-White suspects were more likely to be noncompliant toward White officers but were notmore likely to show more aggressive forms of resistance (e.g., verbal aggression, physical aggression, ordisrespect). In addition, female suspects were more likely to be disrespectful toward offICers compared to malesuspects. The relevance of these findings for future research is discussed.C> 2003 Elsevier Ltd. AU rights reserved.

Introduction

The importance of suspects' resistance and de-meanor toward police officers has typically beendescribed in tenJJS of its influence on police behavior.Ethnographic studies of police behavior have consis-tently suggested that suspects who refuse to defer toan officers' authority or definition of the situationwere more likely to be sanctioned by police throughformal or informal means (Bittner, 1974; Brown,1981; Skolnick, 1966; Westley, 1953, 1970). Like-wise, the bulk of prior quantitative research examin-ing demeanor analyzed the influence of citizens'disrespect on police behavior. That is, citizens' de-meanor was examined strictly as a predictor variableof police behavior during police-citizen encounters.With only two exceptions (Klinger, 1994; Mastrofski,Worden, & Snipes, 1995), this body of researchreported that suspects who acted in disrespectful

ways were more likely to be sanctioned through~t, citations, or the use of force by police officers(Black, 1980; Engel, Sobol, & Worden, 2000; Lund-man, 1974, 1994, 1996; Smith & Visher, 1981;Worden, 1989; Worden & Shepard, 1996).

Although research examined differences in theinfluence of separate measures of demeanor on policebehavior, to date, little empirical work examinedsuspects' demeanor and resistance toward policeexplicitly. Given the centrality of suspects' demeanorin the literature on police behavior, it was surprisingthat so little attention focused on explaining suspects'displays of disrespect independent of their influenceon police behavior. Therefore, it is unknown whetherindicators of social stratification and the stakes forestablishing and maintaining social identity duringpolice-citizen encounters influence displays of resis-tance and disrespect by suspects toward officers.

In contrast to the scant empirical research examin-ing citizens' resistance and disrespect toward police,the literature examining citizens' attitudes towardpolice had a rich history. As a result of findings fromthe Kerner Commission in ) 967, which reported that

. Tel.: +1-513-556-5827; fax: +1-513-556-3303.

E-mail address: robin.engel@uc.edu (R.S. Engel).

;-.7-23S2J1)3/s - see front matter 02003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

476 R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 31 (2003) 475-492

been established that researchers can examine changesin the predictors of citizens' resistance over time. Thisstudy applied both sociological stratification theoriesand social-psychological perspectives to examinepolice-citizen encounters. Hypotheses regarding theinfluence of social stratification. propensity for ag-gression, and the stakes of maintaining social identitiesduring police-citizen encounters over suspects' dis-plays of resistance and disrespect toward police arepresented and tested with multivariate analyses.

The size and richness of the PSS data offered aunique opportunity to examine the potential predic-tors of multiple measures of suspects' resistanceduring police-citizen encounters that were not read-ily available and/or measured in more current data. Inthe PSS data set, resistance toward police was con-ceptualized and measured in four different forms:noncompliance, verbal aggression, physical aggres-sion, and disrespect. Utilizing these measures ofsuspects' resistance, multivariate analyses showedthat the strongest and most consistent predictor ofresistance was the use of alcohol or drugs by sus-pects. In addition, non-White suspects were morelikely to be noncompliant toward White officers butwere not more likely to display other more aggressivetypes of resistance toward officers (e.g., verbal ag-gression, physical aggression. or disrespect). Also,contrary to expectations, female suspects were morelikely than male suspects to be classified by observersas disrespectful toward officers. The implications ofthese findings for future research are explored.

Defining resistance during police-citizenencounters

Klinger's (1994, 1996b) null findings regardingthe influence of suspects' demeanor on police behav-ior led to his critique of the literature that, insummary, suggested researchers misconceptualizedand improperly measured suspects' demeanor. Heargued that physical resistance should not be consid-ered a form of disrespect, but rather that it should beconsidered an illegal act that is likely to influencepolice behavior. Worden, Shepard, and Mastrofski(1996, p. 328), however, argued that ethnographicresearch suggested that officers responded to extremeforms of disrespect not necessarily because they wereillegal behavior, but because these actions repre-sented affronts to their authority (Bittner, 1974; VanMaanen, 1974, 1978). As such, even affronts of thegreatest gravity (e.g., physical aggression) represent aform of negative demeanor toward officers. Wordenet al. concluded that many diverse (and sometimessubtle) forms of citizen behavior may be character-ized by police officers as disrespectful (p. 326).

there was a national crisis in race relations and aprofound and deep-seeded hostility between minoritycitizens and police officers (Williams & Murphy,1990), extensive research was conducted that exam-ined the relationships between citizens' characteristics(particularly citizens' race) and their attitudes andsatisfaction with police. This line of research hascontinued to the present day, with findings over-whelmingly suggesting that minorities, males, juve-niles, and citizens of lower social-economic statushave more negative attitudes toward police comparedto Whites, females, adults, and citizens of highersocioeconomic status (for a review, see Hurst & Frank,2000; Taylor, Turner, Esbensen, & Winfree, 2001).Unfortunately, such an extensive body of knowledgedoes not exist for predicting citizens' actions-andmore specifically, their resistance-toward police.While the empirical fmdings regarding citizens' atti-tudes remained relatively consistent across the pastforty years, it is unknown if the patterns of citizens'resistance toward police have changed.

The current study attempted to fill this void byestablishing baseline measures and predictors of citi-zens' resistance toward officers using data collected in1977 for the Police Services Study (pSS}-one of thelargest and most respected systematic observationalstudies of police officers to date. The dated nature ofthe PSS data may somewhat limit its generalizability tocurrent urban policing. Certainly, policing has changeddramatically in the last twenty-five years-but havecitizens' reactions toward police changed? There aresome indications that the interactions between citizensand police today appear relatively consistent to thoseexperienced in the late I 970s. For example. currentobservational studies reported similar types of inci-dents and problems that police encounter and consis-tency in the use of arrest, force, and other coerciveactions to handle these situations (Mastrofski, Snipes,Parks, & Maxwell. 2000; Novak, Frank. Smith. &

Engel, 2002; Parks, Mastrofski, Dejong, & Gray.1999). Likewise, as previously noted, citizens' per-ceptions and attitudes toward police have not dramat-ically changed. Larger social issues including povertyand race are as salient today as they were twenty-fiveyears ago, as are the continuing problems betweenpolice and citizens perpetuated by social contexts (forexample. see Velez, 200 I).

Nevertheless, the purpose of the present researchwas to explore in)portant issues that had been previ-ously ignored and to provide a contribution to whatmight become a cumulative body of research examin-ing issues of police-citizen interactions. Findingsfrom data collected in the late 1970s can provide abasis for comparisons with future research utilizingdata collected for more current systematic observa-tional studies of police. It is only after this baseline has

R.s. Engel / Joumal of Criminal Justice 31 (1003) 475-491 477

While researchers continue to struggle to defineand measure citizens' displays of disrespect, mostwould agree that each of these foons of behavioron their face represents some form of resistancetoward police. Resistance might then be properlyconceptualized as including not only physical aggres-sion and other overtly hostile acts, but also verbalaggression (e.g., arguing with or cursing at an offi-cer), noncompliance or statements that challengeofficers' authority or legitimacy (e.g., denying anofficer's accusation. questioning an officer's judg-ment, or refusing to respond to an officer's questionsor requests), and general fonns of disrespect (e.g.,sarcasm, body language). Each of these actionsrepresented a challenge (either passive or active) toan officers' authority or definition of the situation(see Bittner, 1974; Van Maanen. 1974, 1978). Just aseach of these forms of resistance might be expected tohave a varying influence over officers' actions, onemight also expect that factors predicting these actionswould vary. That is, particular types of persons orsituations might be more likely to invoke specificforms of resistance toward officers.

perspectives rooted in social psychology (Brown &Levinson, 1987; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Thesepropositions are discussed in further detail below andsummarized in Table I.

Resistance as a symbol of perceptions of injustice

Theoretical framework

Scholars speculated about the relationship be-tween citizens' characteristics (e.g., race, sex, age,intoxication. etc.) and their antagonistic, disrespect-ful, and hostile behavior toward police. For example,many suggested that 000- White suspects, particularlyyoung Black males, were more likely to be disre-spectful toward police. Indeed, the pen:eived rela-tionship between demeanor and race was used toexplain higher arrest rates for young African-Amer-ican males. As Walker (1999) proposed, "to theextent that officeR stereotype young African-Ameri-can males as potential suspects, they may provokehigher rates of antagonistic behavior that. in turn.results in higher rates of arrest" (pp. 226-227).

Two general explanations are advanced to accountfor the perceived relationship between suspects' char-acteristics and resistance displayed toward officers.First, it is possible that particular types of citizens(e.g., young minority males) may act in disrespectfulor otherwise resistant ways to symbolize their per-ceptions of injustice. This explanation is rooted insociological stratification and psychological theoriesthat suggest race and socioeconomic status influenceactions by both citizens and officeR (Black, 1976;Tyler, 1990). Second. it is possible that dynamicsinvolved during the actual interaction between offi-

cers and citizens lead to displays of resistance. Thisexplanation focuses on the processes involved inpolice-citizen encounteR and relies on interactionist

Applying Black's (1976) theory of law to explaincitizens' deviant behavior toward officers, it is hy-pothesized that increased levels of stratification inpolice-citizen encounters would result in more dis-plays of disrespect by both officers and citizens.Black theorized that as stratification increased, thequantity of law increased.' Although Black's theorywas primarily directed toward describing the quantityof law in society, he argued that his theory of lawcould also explain other types of social control anddeviance (p. 10). Therefore, one could argue thatBlack's theory of law could be used to explain citizendisrespect toward officers as a fonn of deviantbehavior. Thus, this theory predicts that as stratifica-tion increases, other types of social control anddeviance increase. That is, greater levels of stratifi-cation between police and citizens may lead to moredeviant fonDS of behavior, including citizens' resis-tance of authority.

Sykes and Clark (1975) also suggested that nonnsin police-citizen encounters were asymmetrical be-cause the status of the participants was unequal. Theyargued that given this disparate relationship and theassociated nonns and expectations guiding police-citizen encounters, minority citizens might interpretofficers' expectations as "indicating the officer's ownethnic group's superordination," while minority citi-zens' refusals to express deference might be inter-preted by officers as refusals "to acknowledgenormal social obligations of all citizens and theofficer's symbolic status" (p. 590).

Given this disparate relationship, it is hypothe-sized that citizens are resistant toward police officersbecause they do not recognize officers' legitimacyand use disrespect and/or resistance to symbolizetheir perceptions of injustice. In his examination ofwhy citizens obey laws, Tyler (1990) described thenormative processes associated with compliance(e.g., internalization of nonns regarding values, jus-tice, and commitment to legal authorities). He arguedthat citizens obey laws either because they believe thelaws are legitimate or because they believe legalauthorities are legitimate. Analyzing citizen surveys,Tyler reported that "both personal morality andlegitimacy were found to have an effect on people'severyday behavior toward the law" (p. 161).

Tyler's (1990) normative theory of citizen compli-ance can also be utilized to explore citizens' resistancetoward officers. One could argue that citizens act in

R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 31 (2003) 475-492478

Table ITheoretical propositions, applications, and hypotheses

Theoretical propositions Applications and hypothesesTheory

Theory of law (Black, 1980) eThe theory of law can be used to explain other eResistance toward police is a fonD offonDS of social control and deviance. deviance that can be explained using

the theory of law.eIncreased levels of stnltificalion lead to increases eGreater levels of stnltification lead toin the quantity of law. increases in citizens' resistance toward

police..Increased levels of stratification lead 10 increases

in deviance.

Nonnative theory of citizen

compliance (Tyler. 1990)

.citizens obey the law because they believe lawsand/or legal authorities are legitimate.

.Citizens are more likely to be resistantwhen they do not recognize thelegitimacy of officers' authority.

.Minorities and juveniles are more likelyto question officers' authority andtherefore more likely to showresistance.

.Minority and juvenile citizens are less likely tobelieve that the laws and/or legal authorities arelegitimate.

Interactive theory of coerciveactions (Tedeschi & Felson,

1994)

eThe need to establish and/or protect socialidentities leads to the use of coercive actions.

.lnteractions between police and citizensoften involve challenges to authorityand social identities.

.citizens will engage in coercive actionstoward police to protect their socialidentities (particularly in public places).

.citizens will engage in coercive actionstoward police in response to violationsof politeness norms.

.coercive actions are more likely when aperson's social identity has been challengedin public.

.Violations of polite norms provoke coerciveresponses from persons protecting theirsocial identities.

disrespectful or resistant ways because they do notrecognize the legitimacy of officers' authority. Indeed,the police-citizen crisis of the 1960s was exacerbatedin part because members of minority communities didnot recognize legal authority in American society asfair or just (WilIiams & Murphy, 1990). For manyminority citizens, police officers became the ultimatesymbol of an unjust society dominated through Whitesupremacy (Walker, 1999). As a result, the interactionsbetween police and minority citizens were envelopedin an atmosphere of distrust and disrespect that hascontinued to the present day. Citizens who do notrespect the legitimacy of officers' authority may bemore likely to question that authority, and as a resultare more likely to demonstrate resistance toward policeofficers.

gested that a person's need to establish or protect theirsocial identity often leads to the use of coerciveactions. The authors stressed the importance of im-pression management or "saving face" as a predictorof coercive actions. The social dynamics associatedwith "saving face" are of great concern in situationswhere there has been a challenge to authority, such asin police-citizen encounters. Indeed, as noted byTedeschi and Felson, perceptions of disrespect duringpolice-citizen encounters are a frequent source ofconflict. According to these scholars, a typical reactionto perceived attacks from others involves some type ofcoercive behavior, particularly if their social identityhas been threatened in a public setting.

While it is clear that this framework could be usedto explain officers' coercive actions toward citizens, itis initially less apparent how this theory could beused to explain citizens' actions toward officers.Extending Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory ofpoliteness, Tedeschi and Felson (1994) argued thatthere were numerous behaviors that could violate"politeness norms" that protect social identities.The violation of these politeness norms often pro-voked a response from persons seeking to protect

their social identities. Tedeschi and Felson describedthe concept of "negative face" as representing adesire to maintain autonomy and control and not be

Dynamics of police-citizen interactions

While sociological explanations of police-citizenencounters are certainly important, they do not takeinto account the actual processes or dynamics involvedduring citizen encounters with police. One theoreticalframework that can be utilized to better understand the

dynamics associated with police-citizen conflict isTedeschi and Felson's (1994) social interactionisttheory of coercive actions. Tedeschi and Felson sug-

R.s. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 31 (2003) 475-492 479

interfered with by others. Behavior that threatens aperson's autonomy (e.g., orders, threats, and wam-ings) is likely to produce some fonn of resistance.

Applying the concepts of "politeness norms" and"negative face" to police-citizen encounters, offi-cers' attempts to control citizens could be construedby citizens as attempts to restrict their freedom andthus may lead to displays of disrespect. This isespecially true in situations where citizens do notrecognize officers' legitimacy. For example, Tedeschiand Felson (1994) described situations involvinginteractive justice or confonnity to nonns regardingdemeanor, politeness, and respect toward others (p.219). Tedeschi and Felson suggested that citizensmight act in disrespectful ways because they perceiveofficers to be impolite or disrespectful toward them.Although officers hold the power in these relation-ships, citizens may act in disrespectful ways, oftenwith blatant disregard for the consequences. Thus,citizens might be more likely to challenge officers'authority if they felt their identities were beingchallenged. their freedoms restricted, or politenessnonns violated-particularly if the encounter tookplace in front of others.

Prior research

to exhibit the sort of recalcitrant demeanor whichpolice construed as a sign of the confinned delin-quent" (Piliavin & Briar, 1964, p. 212, emphasisadded). In contnl,st, Black and Reiss (1970) reported aslightly lower percentage of Black juveniles (15.4percent) who were antagonistic to police comparedtoward White juveni1es (17.7 pert:ent) in an observa-tional study of three police departments in the late1960s. A replication study utilizing systematic obser-vation of police-citizen encounters in a midwestemcity. however. showed that the percentage of antag-onistic encounters between police and Black juve-niles was double that of White juveniles-30 percentversus 15 percent. respectively (Lundman et a1.,1978).2 Research utilizing this same data found thatin 87.9 percent of encounters with White citizens,complete deference was shown to police compared to80.9 percent of encounters with non-White citizens(Sykes & Clark, 1975). Furtbennore, these research-ers reported that as the citizens' status declined(measured as "a function of role and seriousness ofviolation as well as of class and ethnicity"), the leve1of deference shown to officers declined.

These early research findings paint dramaticallydifferent pictures based on widely varying rates ofdisrespect shown to police by White and non-Whitesuspects. Since studies only reported bivariate asso-ciations, it is unknown whether suspects' displays ofdisrespect are related to other characteristics aftercontrolling for other relevant factors. In more recentmu1tivariate analyses, Greenleaf and Lanza-Kaduce(1995) applied Turk's (1969) structural conflict the-ory to examine conflicts between police and citizensduring domestic disputes. They reported that as theamount of "organization" increased or as the amountof "sophistication" decreased, the likelihood of normresistance by both citizens and officers significantlyincreased. Since the variables of interest (i.e., orga-nization and sophistication) were measured as addi-tive indices, however, the direct influence of citizenand situational characteristics was not determined.)

More recently, Lanza-Kaduce and Greenleaf(2000, p. 222) have extended Turk's (1969) theoryof norm resistance to incorporate deference reversalswhere "suspects refuse to acknowledge the officer'sposition and instead attend to age, race, or gendernorms of deference." In an examination of policeencounters involving domestic disputes, they de-scribed sixteen combinations of suspects' and offi-cers' age and race that might structure police-citizeninteractions. These combinations were collapsed intoa three-category deference variable4 and were used topredict norm resistance. Lanza-Kaduce and GreenJeaf(pp. 230- 231) found that the deference variable wasa significant predictor of norm resistance and con-cluded that age and race deference patterns that were

Although the importance of police-citizen rela-tions is readily apparent, few studies empiricallyexamined this relationship at its most basic level:police-citizen encounters where police act as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980). An abundance ofresearch examined the effects of disrespect overpolice behavior, yet few studies examined the influ-ence of disrespect and resistance toward police. Muchof the research available only reported bivariaterelationships between demeanor and suspects' race(Black & Reiss, 1970; Lundman, Sykes, & Clark,1978; Piliavin & Briar, 1964; Sykes & Clark, 1975).The few multivariate studies that were conductedcombined measures of citizen and officer behavior(Greenleaf & Lanza-Kaduce, 1995; Lanza-Kaduce &Greenleaf, 2000) or focused on citizen compliancerather than resistance (Mastrofski, Snipes, & Supina,1996; McCluskey, Masb'ofski, & Parks, 1999).

Piliavin and Briar's (1964) classic researchreported that the differences officers perceived be-tween "serious delinquents" and «good boys" werebased on the juveniles' demeanor and race. Thesescholars concluded that "the tendency for police togive more severe dispositions to Negroes and toyouths whose appearance corresponded to that which

police associated with delinquents partly reflected thefact, observed in this study, that these youths alsowere much more likely than were other types of boys

.J

R.S. Engel! JOUmQI of Criminal Justice 31 (2003) 475-491480

(1990) theory of citizen compliance, Tedeschi andFelson's (1994) theory of violence, and prior resean:hexamining citizens' behaviors toward police, threegeneral hypodteses are advanced. First, it is specu-lated that differences in social stratification betweenpolice and suspects will influence suspects' reactionstoward officers. possibly due to their varying percep-tions of officers' legitimacy. For example, particulartypes of suspects (e.g., non-White, juveniles) arebelieved to be more likely to question the legitimacyof officers and therefore more likely to act in aresistant manner. Second, it is speculated that the

stakes involved in maintaining social identity during~unters with police will lead suspects to questionofficers' legitimacy and result in displays of resis-tance. Finally, it is argued that suspects or situationsthat involve a propensity for aggressiveness (e.g.,male suspects, intoxicated suspects, situations involv-ing conflict between citizens) are more likely to result

in resistance displayed toward officers.

counter to traditional authority relationships resultedin more resistance. Their measure of the dependentvariable (norm resistance), however, included resis-tance by both citizens and officers.s Therefore, theinfluence of officers' age and race interactions overcitizens' behavior is unknown.

Mastrofski et al. (1996) examined the factorsinfluencing citizen compliance to officers' requeststhrough systematic social observation of police offi-cers collected in Richmond, Virginia. 6 They reported

that officers were more likely to gain compliancefrom male citizens and during encounters in publiclocations, but less likely to gain compliance frompoor citizens, citizens known to police, and encoun-ters where additional officers were present. Thisstudy also found that the influence of the citizens'race on the likelihood of compliance was contingentupon the officers' race. Mastrofski et al. reported thatWhite officers encountering minority citizens weresignificantly more likely to gain compliance, whileminority officers encountering White citizens weresignificantly less likely. The finding that minoritycitizens were more likely to show compliance toWhite officers is counter to past research findings(Lundman et al., 1978; Piliavin & Briar, 1964; Sykes& Clark, 1975) and the perspectives of many policeofficers. Although dated, Piliavin & Briar's (1964)observation that "Negro boys were much more likelythan non-Negroes to "give us [officers] a hard time,"be uncooperative, and show no remorse for theirb'aDsgressions" (pp. 212-213) is an assumption stillwidely held today by police officers and researchers.

A recent replication of the research ofMastrofski etal. (1996) was conducted by McCluskey et al. (1999)utilizing systematic observational data of officerscollected in Indianapolis, Indiana and St. Petersburg,Florida. They reported that few of the original findingsheld in the subsequent analyses. For example, the onlycitizen characteristics that significantly predicted com-pliance in the replication study were age and anadditive scale measuring "irrational elements," in-cluding intoxication, mental illness, and strong emo-tions (fear, anger, or depression). Both juveniles andcitizens with more irrational elements were signifi-cantly less likely to comply with officers' requests.The original finding of Mastrofski et al. regarding thesignificance of officers' and citizens' race interactionswas not supported in the replication study.

Perceptions of officers' legitimacy

It is argued that suspec~ who are non-White orjuvenile will be significantly more likely to questionoffi~' authority and therefore more likely to dis-play fonns of resistance toward officers. Non-Whitesuspec~ are thought to be more likely to questionofficers' authority based on their perceptions ofdiscrimination. Resean:h showed rather consistentlythat minorities had more negative attitudes toward thepolice and were less likely to perceive police officersas legitimate sources of authority (Albrecht & Green,

1977; Bayley & Mendelsohn, 1969; Browning,Cullen, CaD, Kopache, & Stevenson, 1994; Decker,1981; Dunham & Alpert. 1988; Jacob, 1971; Sca-glion & Condon, 1980; Taylor et al., 200 I; Tucb &

Weitzer, 1997; Webb & Marshall, 1995; Weitzer,2000; Weitzer & Tuch, 1999). Therefore, it isexpected that non-White suspec~ are more likely todisplay forms of disrespect toward police as com-pared to White suspects. 7

It is also expected that juvenile suspects are lesslikely to accept police legitimacy and authority. Re-search showed that juveniles had more negative atti-tudes toward police than adults (Hurst & Frank, 2000;Jesilow, Meyers & Namazzi, 1995; Taylor et al.,200 I). In addition, Muir (1977) reported that mostpolice encounters with juveniles involved an elementof irrationality. He described this paradox of in'atio-nality as "the more delirious the threatener, the moreserious the threat" to police officers, and definedjuveniles as irrational because they "simply foresaw

their actions' having consequences different fromthose which adults anticipated" (p. 127). Given thatjuveniles are less likely to internalize norms regarding

Hypotheses

Given the ambiguity surrounding the findingsreviewed above, it is unclear which factors are likelyto influence suspects' resistance toward police. Based

on Black's (1976) theory of social control, Tyler's

R.S. Engel / JoUnlQI of Criminal JlLflice 31 (200J) 475-492 481

Propensity for aggression

Some displays of resistance and disrespect may bebased on chamcteristics of the suspect or situationthat led to more aggressive forms of behavior. Muir(1977) described situations that involved criticalincidents where citizens rebelled against officers'authority. For example, intoxicated citizens wereviewed as less rational and more detached that sobercitizens interacting with police. Likewise, intoxicatedsuspects were believed to show more disrespecttoward officers based on numerous studies that iden-tified a link between alcohol and/or drug consump-tion and aggressive behaviors (for a review, seeFagan, 1990).

It is also expected that male suspects are moreresistant toward officers based on a large body ofliterature that suggested males are more likely thanfemales to engage in violence and other displays ofnegativity (for a review, see Tedeschi & Felson,1994) and are more likely to have negative attitudestoward police (Jesilow et al., 1995). Finally, it isexpected that police-citizen encounters that involveconflicts between citizens when the police arrive willresult in more displays of resistance. Citizens may bemore likely to respond negatively to officers' displaysof authority during emotionally charged conflict sit-uations.

values, justice, and commitment to legal authorities, itis expected that juvenile suspects will be more likely toquestion the legitimacy of officers and therefore morelikely to display fonns of resistance and disrespect.

Despite its intuitive appeal, few studies thorough-ly exan1ined the potential influence of officers' char-acteristics on suspects' actions. It is speculated thatnon-White, female, or younger officers are morelikely to encounter resistant suspects because sus-pects perceive these officers as less legitimate. Sus-pects might be more inclined to maintain autonomyand control when the person attempting to restricttheir freedom is of a pen;eived lower social status.Likewise, it is argued that interactions between offi-cers' race and suspects' race will significantly influ-ence the behavior of suspects toward officers.Specifically, it is speculated that suspects involvedin encounters with police officers of a different raceare more likely to display fonns of resistance.

In addition, police entry-whether the encounterwas reactive (dispatched or otherwise citizen initiat-ed) or proactive (initiated by the officer)-is believedto influence citizens' reactions toward offICers. Tyl-er's (1990) research found that citizens were moreconcerned with issues regarding procedural justicewhen they were proactively stopped by police com-pared to when police were summoned to the scene(see also Tyler & Folger, 1980). Therefore, it isexpected that suspects are more likely to questionofficers' authority in police-initiated encounters andare therefore more likely to react in a disrespectfulmanner. Likewise, it is hypothesized that suspectswho are involved in less serious events leading up toan encounter with police are more likely to showresistance to officers. Officers' use of their authorityand citizens' perceptions of officers' legitimacy touse that authority are less likely to be questioned insituations involving serious offenses. In situationsinvolving less serious offenses, however, officers'legitimacy may be questioned, and as a result sus-pects may be more likely to respond negatively.1I

Data

Social identities

As previously noted, Tedeschi and Felson's( 1994) theory indicated that people were more likelyto engage in coercive actions if their social identitywas challenged, particularly if the challenge occurredin front of others. Tedeschi and Felson stressed theimportance of the social dynamics associated withprotective self-presentation when there was a chal-lenge to authority in police-citizen encounters.Therefore, one might expect that suspects are morelikely to resist officers if the encounter is in a publiclocation or in the presence of others (bystanders andother officers).

The purpose of the cunent study was to examinethe above hypotheses using data from a large-scalemultisite field study of police behavior-the PSSconducted in 1977. Within this data set, suspectresistance was measured in multiple ways, includingmeasures of suspects' actions toward officers thatcould be considered resistant (e.g., noncompliance,verbal aggression, and physical aggression) andobservers' characterizations of suspects as disrespect-ful. The PSS included twenty-four police departmentsin three metropolitan areas (Rochester, NY; St Louis,MO; and Tampa/St Petersburg, FL). These depart-ments ranged in size from thirteen sworn officers toover 2,000 and served municipalities with popula-tions that ranged from 6,000 to 499,000. Althoughnot a random sample, the PSS represented a roughcross section of police organizations and serviceconditions for urban policing in the United States.Compared with other studies of police, the PSSprovided a considerably broader base from which todraw generalizations about American policing.

The core methodology of PSS was systematicsocial observation of patrol officers in the field, alongwith interviews of citizens and officers focused onsixty neighborhoods that were selected with explicit

R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 31 (2003) 475-492482

reference to the race and income of residents. Thesample of neighborhoods thus represented a roughcross section of residential service conditions for eachdepartment. On a matched sample of fifteen shifts ineach neighborhood, trained observers accompaniedofficers during entire work shifts and unobtrusivelytook brief field notes about police-citizen encounters.Based on these field notes, observers coded data itemsabout the police-citizen encounters, including thecharacteristics and behavior of citizens and officers.

Information on 5,688 police-citizen encountersduring over 900 shifts was coded on a standardizedform (see Caldwell, 1978). Encounters were definedas any event in which there was face-to-face com-munication between a police officer and a member ofthe public; the communication normally involvedverbal exchanges but could have involved only theuse of force by police. To address the hypothesesdescribed above, the present work examined a subsetof the PSS observational data: 1,461 nontraffic sus-pects encountered by police officers. Citizens werecoded as suspects if at the end of the encounter withpolice officers, they were considered "suspect in acriminal matter or peace disturber" or the "personcomplained about in a civil matter."

Table 2Measures of suspects' resistance toward police officers~~6l suspects)Variables Minimum Maximum Mean S.D.

Suspects' coded actions:Noncompliant 0Verbally resistant 0Physically resistant 0Any disrespectful 0

action

0.090.100.010.14

0.280.300.120.35

0.22Suspects characterized as disrespectful by observers:At beginning of 0 I 0.05

encounterDuring encounter 0 I 0.08At end of encounter 0 I 0.05Any time during 0 I 0.09

encounter

0.270.210.29

percent of suspects in this sample. Combined, 14.2percent of citizens displayed one or more of thesetypes of resistance.

The second general measure of suspects' resis-tance was captured as observers' global assessment ofsuspects' negative demeanor during police-citizenencounters. Observers were asked to describe sus-pects' demeanor toward officers utilizing a list of"demeanor codes," including one code that wasdefined as "sarcastic, disrespectful, hostile." Thecharacterization of demeanor by observers was cap-tured at three points in time: when officers arrived onthe scene, during the encounter, and when officerswere leaving. Previous analyses exploring the effectsof suspects' demeanor on officers' behavior useddisrespect at the beginning of the encounter (whenthe officer arrived on the scene) to ensure the propertemporal ordering of the variables (Worden, 1989;Worden & Pollitz, 1984). As noted by Worden andShepard (1996), this was a conservative approachwhereby some suspects who were disrespectful be-fore an arrest might be coded as civil. A lessconservative approach would be to measure disre-spect as those characterized as disrespectful at thebeginning or during the encounter, with the risk ofconfounding the effect of suspects' demeanor onpolice behavior. This was a more salient issue foranalyses examining the influence of disrespect onpolice behavior. For the present analyses, disrespectmeasured at any time during the encounter will beexamined. As shown in Table 2, of the 1,461 suspectsexamined, 4.9 percent were characterized as disre-spectful at the beginning of the encounter, 7.7 percentduring the encounter, and 4.7 percent at the end of theencounter. Combined, 9.2 percent of suspects werecoded by observers as "sarcastic, disrespectful, orhostile" at some time during the encounter.

Methods

Measures of resistance

In the PSS data, suspect resistance was measuredin two fundamentally distinct ways: (I) as codedactions that might be considered resistant and (2) asobservers' characterizations of disrespect. The for-mer, coded actions, represented suspects' behaviorsthat might be construed as resistant to officers'authority. These actions included noncompliance,verbal aggression, and physical aggression (see Table2). Observers accompanying officers were promptedon a systematic coding form to indicate if the citizenhad engaged in these actions during the police-citizen encounter. Suspects' actions that were consid-ered noncompliant included passive resistance toofficers' authority by "refusing to answer questions"or "refusing to otherwise cooperate with officers'requests." In this sample, 9.2 percent of suspectsshowed noncompliance toward officers. A secondcoded action, verbal aggression, included more activeforms of noncompliance, including "arguing with orcursing at an officer." Verbal aggression was shownby 9.7 percent of suspects. The final form of codedactions included physical aggression, such as "phys-ically fighting with an officer" and "using orattempting to use a weapon against the officer."Physical aggression was only observed from 1.4

R.S. Engel / Joumal of Criminal JIIStic. Jl (100J) 475-492 483

Table 3CrosstabuIabons of suspect ac1imlS and observa- cbar8Ctcr-iDtions of d~

Characterized by obscrvcn

aadisrespectful

No Yes

Noncompliant (n-13S) 49.6 (67)Verbally resistant (n-141) 3S.S (SO)Physically resistant (n=20) IS.O (3)Any disrespectful action SO.2 (104)

(n=207)

The numbers represent percentages and. in parentheses, theactualvaJues.

physically resistant manner; these actions alone maynot constitute "disrespect. "

Clearly, die strength of this argument rests finnlyon one's definition of disrespect. Van Maanen (1978)suggested that officers' classifications of disrespectwere based on their pen:eptions of a citizen's knowl-edge of their misbehavior and their ability to actdifferently under the circumstances. He described"die asshole" as someone "who is viewed [by diepolice] as culpable and blameworthy for his affront-ing action" (p. 231, emphasis added). Therefore,acting in a noncompliant, verbally aggressive, orphysically aggressive manner may not necessarilyresult in an offICer's interpretation of die citizen as

disrespectful.Unfortunately, it was not clear how PSS observers

defined disrespect. They were prompted to select onedemeanor code to describe the suspect at threeseparate points during the encounter and were givenonly minimal instructions.9 This demeanor measuretapped into what might be considered "typical"interpretations of disrespect and was conditioned bycultural nonns in American society. Yet, given d1atofficers were in a position of authority, their expect-ations for citizen behavior might differ somewhat

Table 4Independent variables (n= 1461 suspects)

Variables Minimum Maximwn MQD S.D.

0.S2 O.SO0.87 0.340.49 0.50

..

I

0.38 0.49

0.03 0.17

0.10 0.30

Cross-tabulations comparing the two generalforms of resistance showed significant differencesin the interpretation of what constituted resistancetoward officers (see Table 3). For example, 23.1percent of suspects characterized as disrespectful byobservers did not display any noncompliance, verbalaggression. or physical aggression toward officers. Itwas likely that observers coded suspects as disre-spectful based on interpretations of attitudes, bodylanguage, and other forms of nonverbal cues or othertypes of disrespectful actions that were not capturedon the standardized coding form.

These measures differed in other significant ways.As shown in Table 3, not all of the suspects whodisplayed particular actions that might be consideredforms of resistance were coded as disrespectful byobservers. For example, nearly half of all suspectswho were noncompliant with officers' requests, over35 pen:ent of suspects who verbally argued with orcursed at an officer, and 15 percent of suspects whophysically resisted an officer were not considered byobservers to be disrespectful. It was clear that as thesuspects' actions became more severe, observerswere more likely to code them as disrespectful.Nevertheless, there were significant discrepanciesbetween the measures.

One interpretation of these discrepancies is thatthe observers' characterizations of suspects' demean-or are of questionable validity (see Worden et al.,1996). A second interpretation, however, is thatcoded actions and observers' global perceptions ofdisrespect are simply measuring different phenome-na. Perhaps some suspects who act in a passive,noncompliant manner-by refusing to answer ques-tions or refusing to cooperate with officers'requests-are not simultaneously being disrespectful.That is, it may be possible to refuse to cooperate withofficers in a respectful manner. For example, suspectsmay respectfully but firmly assert their perceivedrights during encounters with police. The same argu-ment applies to suspects acting in a verbally or

4534I

1.9830.470.810.41

0.66 0.473.56 6.340.91 1.46

13010

Protection of social identitiesPublic location 0Number of bystanders 0Number of other 0

officers present

Propensity for aggressionSuspect male 0Alcohol/drug use 0Suspect fight with 0

other citizen

f(68):(91)1(17); (103)

0.730.200.880.49

0.79 0.410.23 0.420.02 0.13

484 R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Juftice 31 (2003) 475-492

from observers' expectations. These differences inexpectations might generate differences in officers'and observers' characterizations of citizens as disre-spectful; however, this proposition could not be testedwith this data set.

None of the measures of suspects' resistance inthe PSS data were without flaws. Each measure wasbased on observers' interpretations of police-citizenencounters rather than officers' interpretations. Nev-ertheless, these measures-though imperfect-wererepresentative of the measures used throughout theliterature to explain police decision making. Thestrength of these measures was that each captured aslightly different form and level of resistance towardpolice. Therefore, the following analyses exploreeach measure of resistance independently in an effortto better explain suspects' behavior toward police.

average age of officers encountering suspects was30.5 years old. A set of dichotomous interactionterms simultaneously captured the race of the officerand the suspect. Specifically, four variables werecreated that measured the following relationships:White officer/White suspect, White officer/non-White suspect, non-White officer/White suspect,and non-White officer/non-White suspect. A dichot-omous variable captured whether the encounter wasproactive (initiated by the officer) or reactive (dis-patched or otheJWise citizen initiated). FollowingKlinger (1994), a five-point ordinal scale was usedto measure the seriousness of "preinterventioncrime," where 0 = no crime, I = minor propertycrime, 2 = minor violent or major property crime,3 = moderate violent crime, and 4 = major violentcrime. I I

Table 4 also describes the variables believed to beassociated with social identities and the need to "saveface" during police-citizen encounters. A dichoto-mous variable captured whether the location of theencounter was public or private. In addition, thenumber of bystanders (those citizens who were pres-ent but did not participate in the encounter) and thenumber of additional officers present were measuredas continuous variables.

Independent variables

Variables hypothesized to relate to perceptions ofofficers' legitimacy are displayed in Table 4. Themajority of suspects were White (52.3 percent) andadults nineteen years and older (73.5 percent), whilethe majority of officers encountering suspects wereWhite (87.1 percent) and male (98.2 percent).IO The

Table 5Crosstabulations of ~~ect characteristics and measures of ~~t

Verbally resistant

(n= 141)Noncompliant(n= 135)

Physically resistant(n = 20)

Observer characterize as

disrespectful (n= 134)Suspect maleSuspect female

9.0 (104)10.0 (31)

10.3 (118)7.4 (23)

1.2 (14)1.9 (6)

8.6 (99)11.3 (35)

Suspect WhiteSuspect non-White

6.5 (SO). . .

12.2 (85)7.6 (58)..

11.9(83)1.2 (9)1.6 (II)

7.1(54)..11.5 (80)

Officer WhiteOfficer non-White

t.'); (117)~,., (i8)

9.4 (120)11.1 (21)

1.4 (18)1.1 (2)

8.7(111)12.2 (23)

Officer maleOfficer female

9.4 (135)0.0 (0)

9.8 (140)3.7 (I)

1.4 (20)0.0 (0)

9.3 (13j)3.7 {I)

Police initiatedCitizen initiated

7.2 (43)*10.6 (92)

7.7 (46)-11.0 (95)

1.3 (8)1.4 (12)

10.1(87)7.9 (47)

Public locationPrivate location

8.7 (84)10.4 (51)

9.S (92)10.0 (49)

1.2 (12)1.6 (8)

9.4(91)8.8 (43)

Suspect juvenileSuspect adult

8.5 (33)

9:S(1.~2)

6.5 (25). .10.8(1.16)

.3{S)

:~ (IS)7.5 (29)9.8 (105)

Not intoxicatedAlcohoVdrug use

6.3 (71)...18.7 (64)

7.0 (78)* * *

18.4 (63)2.6 (9).1.0 (II)

6.5 (73)- - -17.8 (61)

The numbers represent percentages and, in parentheses, the actual values.. P<.05... P< .01.... P<.OOI.

R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 3 I (2003) 475-492485

Variables hypothesized to influence resistancebased on their aggressive nature (e.g., suspect sex,intoxication, and conflict with other citizens) are alsodescribed in Table 4. The majority of suspects weremale (78.7 percent), while nearly one fourth wereunder the influence of drugs or alcohol (23.4 percent).Conflicts during encounters with police were mea-sured with a dichotomous variable that capturedwhether or not the suspect physically fought withother citizens in the officer's presence.

Findings

Bivariate

Table 5 reports the bivariate relationships betweenselected independent variables and different types ofresistance displayed toward police. Bivariate relation-ships show that non-White suspects are significantlymore likely to show all types of resistance with theexception of physical aggression. Contrary to expect-

Perceptions of legitimacyWhite suspect - 0.63* *

(0.S3)0.17(1.18)

-0.33

(0.72)-0.08

(0.92)

0.68

(1.97)-0.17

(0.8S)

White officer

0.67. .(1.96)0.22

(1.25)0.42

(1.51)-0.09

(0.91)-0.00

(1.00)0.17

(1.18)-0.15

(0.86)

0.36(1.44)0.37

(1.45)0.37

(1.44)0.21

(1.23)-0.00

(1.00)0.01

(1.01)-0.13

(0.87)

-0.77

(0.46)-4.89

(0.01)-0.32

(0.73)0.20

(1.22)0.13- -

(1.14)- 0.27

(0.76)0.95

(2.59)

White officer!non-White suspect

Non-White officer!White suspect

Non-White officer!non-White suspect

Age of suspect -0.09

(0.91)-0.00

(1.00)0.17

(1.18)-0.16

(0.85)

0.21(1.23)

-0.00

(1.00)0.01

(1.01)-0.14

(0.87)

0.23(1.25)0.13. .(1.13)

-0.27(0.76)0.95(2.58)

Age of officer

Seriousness

Police initiate

Protection of social identityPublic location -0.24

(0.79)0.01

(1.01)0;30.. .(1.34)

-0.24

(0.79)0.01

(1.01)0.30.. .(1.34)

-0.

(0.O.

(I.'O.

(I.

-0.08

(0.93)0.04

(1.04)0.30** *

(1.35)

-0.59

(0.56)0.10.. .(1.11)0.55.. .(1.73)

-0.63

(0.53)0.10-. .

(1.11)O.SS.. .(1.73)

Number of bystanders

Number of officers

Prone to aggressionMale suspect -0.22

(0.80)

1.17...(3.21)

~O.76(2.13)

118.8....17

-0.22

(0.80)

1.17...

(3.22)0.77

(2.16)119.2.. .

.17

0.34(1.41)0.93.. .

(2.54)0.56

(J.74)JI8.9*. .

.17

0.34(1.40)0.94** *

(2.55)0.56

(1.76)119.3** *

.17

-0.84

(0.43)1.27.

(3.56)1.31

(3.70)88.9.. .

.44

-0.85

(0.43)1.26.

(3.51)I.2S

(3.49)89.S.. ..44

AlcohoVdrug use

Suspect fight withcitizen

Model chi-squareNagelkerke K

Entries are unstandardized coefficients and, in parentJIeses, log odds.* P<.OS.

08

93)04

04)30...35)

.. P<.OI.

... P<.OOI.

R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 3 J (2003) 475-492486

ations, juveniles are not more likely than adultsuspects to be resistant toward police-in fact, adultsare significantly more likely to engage in verbalaggression. Somewhat surprisingly, male suspectsare not significantly more likely than female suspectsto display any type of resistance. Consistent with thehypotheses, suspects under the influence of drug oralcohol are significantly more likely to engage in allfortnS of resistance.

Table 7Logistic regression of observers' characterizations ofsuspects' disrespect (11= 1,461)Variable Disrespect-

Constant

Multivariate

0.4S.(I.S6)

0.44

(1.56)

0.84

(2.31)

1,14

(3.14)

0.60

(1.82)

0.63

(1.88)

-0.07

(0.93)0.00

(1.00)-0.13

(0.87)-0.03

(0.96)

-0.

(0.-0.

(0.-0,

(0.-0,

(1.

Protection of social identityPublic location 0.06

(1.06)Number of 0.03 -

bystanders (1.03)Number of 0.32-- -

officers (1.38)

0.06

(1.06)0.03.

(1.03)0.33...

(1.38)

0.31(1.36)

-0.01(0.99)0.27.. .(1.31)

Prone to aggressionMale suspect - 0.47.

(0.63)1.10.. .(2.99)1.37. .(3.95)

- 0.48.(0.62)1.10*..

(3.02)1.38. .

(4.01)

-0

(00

(2I

(5

To further examine these relationships, severallogistic regression equations exploring the predictorsof different fonns of suspects' resistance are dis-played in Tables 5 and 6.12 In Table 6, the regressioncoefficients, log odds, and significance levels ofcharacteristics that predict coded actions of resistanceare reported. For each dependent variable, two mod-els are estimated: (1) the base model and (2) the basemodel with officer/race interaction tenns included.

Contrary to expectations, the majority of in de pen-dent variables did not have a significant influenceacross all fonDS of resistance. The results displayed inTable 6 suggest that the only consistent predictors ofall suspects' resistant actions toward police (i.e.,noncompliance, verbal resistance, and physical resis-tance) are suspects' use of alcohol or drugs and thenumber of officers present. Specifically, the odds ofnoncompliance, verbal resistance, and physical resis-tance toward police are 3.2, 2.5, and 3.6 times morelikely when the suspect is under the influence ofdrugs or alcohol, respectively. The significant find-ings for the number of officers present must beinterpreted carefully because additional officers mayhave been called to the scene to provide assistanceafter suspects initially resisted police. That is, tem-poral ordering with this variable cannot be measured,and therefore the predictive validity of the presenceof officers over suspect resistance is unknown.

Slightly different patterns emerge that explainsuspects' resistance when different types of actionsare examined-the most important of these differ-ences is that non-White suspects are significantlymore likely to show resistance through noncompli-ance, but not through verbal or physical aggression.When the suspect/officer race interaction tenDS areentered into the equations, it becomes clear that onlynon-White suspects encountered by White officersare significantly more likely to be noncompliant. Therace interactions terms, along with the main raceeffects, are nonsignificant for more active forms ofresistance (e.g., verbal and physical resistance).

Slightly different patterns emerge when the char-acterization of suspects as disrespectful is examined.Table 7 displays the regression coefficients, log odds,

AlcohoVdroguse

Suspect fightwi citizen

Suspect actionsNoncompliant 1.64** *

(5.14)3.42** *

(30.69)2.39* *

(10.92)412.S*. .

0.54

Verbal resistance

Physicalresistance

Model chi-squareNagelkerke K

113.2***0.16

114.4.. .0.16

Entries are unstandardized coefficients and, in parentheses,log odds.

* P< .05... P<.OI.... P<.OOI.

34

71)01

99)25

78)04

04)

.99

.37'.78.17.69.39

..)...).

)

R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice J 1 (100J) 475-491 487

and significance levels for variables predictingobservers' characterizations of suspects as disrespect-ful. The results include three different models: (I) thebase model, (2) the base model with officer/raceinteraction tenns included, and (3) the base modelwith race interaction terms and citizens' actionsincluded. The third model (including citizens'actions) attempts to examine observers' character-izations of disrespect controlling for the actions ofthe suspect. As with suspects' resistant behaviors,intoxication and the presence of additional officerssignificantly influences disrespect. Unlike the previ-ous models, female suspects and suspects who are inconflict with other citizens are significantly morelikely to be characterized as disrespectful by observ-ers. Even after controlling for suspects' actions,suspects who are female, under the influence ofalcohol or drugs, or involved in a physical fight withother citizens are significantly more likely to becharacterized as disrespectful toward officers. Aswith verbal and physical aggression, the suspect/officer race interaction terms are not significantpredictors of suspects' disrespect as characterizedby the observer.

To control for the possibility that citizens werereacting to officers' punishment/control through dis-plays of resistance, the actions taken by officerstoward citizens (including arrest, use of force, anddisplays of disrespect) were captured as dichotomousvariables and included in separate models estimatingsuspects' resistance and disrespect. If citizens' resis-tance was determined by officers' actions, then onewould expect that the coefficients for the othervariables in the model would have been substantiallyreduced. The inclusion of these variables, however,did not alter the main findings reported. Although themodels including officer behavior explained morevariance, the coefficients for the other independentvariables remained relatively stable. These results arenot displayed in tabular form but are available fromthe author upon request.

Discussion

variables related to the protection of social identities(e.g., the presence of bystanders, location of theencounter, etc.) and measures of suspects' propensityfor aggression (e.g., gender, intoxication) could alsopredict suspect behavior. As reported above, howev-er, with the exception of suspects' propensity foraggression, most of these relationships withstood

empirical scrutiny.The proxy measures of citizens' perceptions of

officers' legitimacy have a mixed influence oversuspects' displays of resistance toward officers. Ofparticular importance is the fmding that non-Whitesuspects are significantly more likely to displaynoncompliance (i.e., passively resisting officers' au-thority by refusing to answer questions or otherwisecooperate) but not other more aggressive forms ofresistance toward officers' authority. More refmedanalyses of the officer/suspect race relationship showthat the odds of a non-White suspect acting in anoncompliant manner toward White officers are 2.0times greater compared to White suspects. Perhapsnon-White suspects are more likely to passivelychallenge White officers' authority simply by assert-ing their constitutional rights in situations that Tede-schi and Felson (1994) have described as involvinginteractive justice. For example, non-White suspectsmight be more likely to passively resist White offi-cers' authority by refusing to answer questions orrefusing to otherwise cooperate with officers'requests because they perceive (correctly or incor-rectly) that police are unfairly targeting them and thatthey have the right not to respond. Yet, when moreserious forms of resistance are examined-verbalaggression. physical aggression, and characterizationsof disrespect-it is clear that non-White suspects arenot significantly more likely to engage in suchactivities compared to White suspects. Other varia-bles thought to reflect perceptions of officers' legit-imacy did not have a significant influence oversuspects' resistance toward officers. Contrary toexpectations, juvenile suspects are not more likelyto resist officers' authority. Likewise, the seriousnessof the offense and police initiation of the encounterare not significant predictors of resistance.

The fmding that non-White suspects were signif-icantly more likely to be noncompliant toward offi-cers contradicted findings reported by Mastrofski etal. (1996). Specifically, Mastrofski et al. ~ thatnon-White suspects were significantly more likely tocomply with requests issued by White officers. Thereare several plausible explanations for the discrepancyin findings. First, the measure of compliance used inthe study of Mastrofski et al. differed significantlyfrom the measure of noncompliance in the CUn'entstudy. 1:1 Second, Mastrofski et al. examined the

compliance of all citizens (e.g., victims, wiblesses,

Applying Black's (1976) dteory of social control,Tyler's (1990) theory of citizen compliance, andTedeschi and Felson's (1994) theory of coerciveactions, it was hypodtesized that particular types ofsuspects, situations, and officers would lead to greaterdisplays of resistance during police-citizen encoun-ters. Specifically, it was hypothesized that proxymeasures of citizen's pe~eptions of legitimacy (i.e.,SUSpect and officer race, age, etc.) could predictresistance and disrespect displayed by suspects to-ward police. Likewise, it was hypothesized that

488 R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 31 (2003) 475-492

and suspects) whom the police instructed in someway, while the current study examined noncompli-ance of only those considered suspects. Thus, boththe sample and the phenomena that these studiessought to explain were different. A final explanationfor the discrepancy in the findings may be thatcitizens' responses to police have changed signifi-cantly over time. The Richmond data set utilized byMasb"ofski et al. was collected in 1990, while PSSdata were gathered in 1977. Note, however, that areplication effort with data collected from 1996 to1997 in two additional cities also did not reproducethe core finding ofMasb"ofski et al (McCluskey et al.,1999). Perhaps, Richmond's commitment to problemsolving and community policing policies representeda unique and more innovative form of policing, orpolice-minority relations in Richmond were betterthan those in other American cities. 14

The current findings also show that variablesmeasuring the protection of social identities do nothave consistent influences over most forms of resis-tance. There is limited support for the proposition thatsuspects are more resistant when the number ofbystanders increases; however, this relationship onlyapplies to displays of physical aggression. The natureof the location (public or private) does not influencedisplays of resistance by suspects. Finally, the pres-ence of other officers was consistently and signifi-cantly related to all forms of resistance displayed bysuspects; but due to the issues of temporal orderingpreviously noted, the predictive validity of this var-iable was unknown.

Measures of suspects' propensity for aggression(i.e., suspects' gender and intoxication) both have asignificant influence over resistance toward police.The strongest and most consistent predictor ofsuspects' resistance is the use of drugs and/oralcohol. As hypothesized, suspects' use of drugsor alcohol increases the likelihood of all forms ofresistance-noncompliance, verbal aggression, phys-ical aggression, and disrespect. This is consistentwith Muir's (1977) observation that intoxicatedcitizens were more likely to be irrational anddetached during their interactions with police. In-toxicated suspects were less aware of the conse-quences of their actions and were more likely torebel against officers' authority.

Contrary to expectations, males were not morelikely to be disrespectful toward police. Compared tomale suspects, the odds of being disrespectful forfemale suspects were increased by a factor of 1.6(odds ratio=O.63 for male suspects). Although fe-male suspects were significantly more likely thanmale suspects to be classified as disrespectful byindependent observers, they were not more likely toengage in resistant actions (i.e., noncompliance, ver-

bat aggression, or physical aggression) during theirencounters with police. It is possible that femalesuspects were more likely to engage in less-threaten-ing forms of disrespect (e.g., complaining, sarcasm.nonverbal cues of disrespect including body lan-guage) that were captured in observers' character-izations of disrespect, but not captured in codedactions of resistance. This finding is supported by alarger body of research that suggests women are lesslikely to comply with officers' requests (Mastrofski etal., 1996), more likely to complain (Kowalski, 1996),and more likely to show anger and other emotions inconflict situations (Brody, 1999) compared to men.

Alternatively, one could argue that observers'characterizations of disrespect have less validitythan measures of resistance. Researchers speculatedthat women who acted in a nonstereotypicallyfeminine manner were more likely to be sanctionedby police. That is, women who do not fit thestereotypical female role in one way or another(e.g., by being part of a minority group, engagingin prostitution, or acting in a hostile or aggressivefashion) are more likely to be arrested (Chesney-Lind, 1978). Perllaps trained observers-who aretypically middle-class college students-are morelikely to interpret nontraditional behavior fromfemale suspects as disrespectful compared to simi-lar behavior from male suspects. To disentanglethese relationships. additional studies examiningdifferences between coded actions and observers'characterizations of disrespect are needed.

Collectively. the current fmdings suggest that thefactors that influence displays of resistance anddisrespect toward police differ based on the type ofactions being considered. This supports Klinger's(1994, 1996a) suggestion that researchers need tobe more careful in their measures and conceptualiza-tion of demeanor. Future research should considerhow to better measure suspect disrespect from patrolofficers' rather than observers' perspectives. What isconsidered "disrespectful" behavior by an observermight be a typical-even expected-response to anexperienced police officer. Future research shouldalso explore these conceptualization and measure-ment issues through the use of debriefing techniquesand protocol analysis (Mastrofski & Parks, 1990;Worden & Brandl, 1990).

These fmdings have other important implicationsfor future research. It is clear that establishing tem-poral ordering for research-examining police-citizenencounters is critical. Tedeschi and Felson (1994)stressed the importance of the processes of interac-tions. Likewise, Sykes and Clark (1975) cautionedagainst intetpretations of police and citizen behaviorthat only consider the personal traits of the individ-uals rather than focusing on the interaction between

R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 3 J (1003) 475-491 489

ings in Atlanta. November 8-10, 2001. Specialthanks to Richard Felson, Eric Silver, Robert Worden.and Stephen Mastrofski for their helpful commentson an eartier draft of this article.

Notes

citizens and police. Unfortunately, the PSS data setdoes not establish time ordering of police-citizeninteractions. Therefore, it is possible that suspectswere acting in noncompliant, resistant, or disrespect-ful ways in response to officers' actions. Futureresearch should examine the interaction betweenofficers and citizens as it unfolds in time-thisapproach is the next step for the study of suspectand police demeanor. This may require the use ofqualitative data to aid in the interpretation of codedinformation gathered during systematic obsclVationof police officers (Mastrofski & Parks, 1990).

Analyses of more current data that examine therelationship of suspects' perceptions of officers' le-gitimacy and suspects' displays of resistance towardpolice are needed. Due to the dated nature of the datautilized in this research, generalizability of the find-ings to current police-citizen relationships is ques-tionable. These analyses, however, have createdbaseline comparisons for future analyses using morecurrent data. Furthennore, these analyses suggest thatthere are differences in the predictors of differentfonDS of resistance and disrespect that researchersshould further examine.

Of particular interest is whether variables mea-suring sb'atification and propensity for aggressioncontinue to predict suspects' actions toward police.In the past decade. concern regarding the relation-ship between minority citizens and police hasincreased. Community perceptions of officers en-gaging in racial profiling during b'affic and inter-rogation stops, coupled with several high profileuses of excessive force (e.g., Rodney King, AbnerLouima, Arnadou Diallo, Timothy Thomas), haveled to increased tension between minority citizensand police and race riots. Findings from datacollected in the late 1970s suggested that minoritysuspects showed passive fonDS of noncompliancetoward officers but did not engage in more activefonDS of resistance including verbal and physicalaggression. Applying Tyler's theory of citizen com-pliance, it was speculated that minority suspectswho showed resistance toward officers did so, inpart, because they questioned officers' legitimacyand authority. As minority citizens' discontent withpolice practices continues to grow, will more activefonDS of citizens' resistance and disrespect towardpolice be the result? Additional empirical researchbased on contemporary studies of policing is need-ed to further explore these relationships.

I. Black defined stratifICation as "any uneven dis1ri-bution of the material conditions of existence" (p. II).

2. Note, however, that only twenty encounters wereobserved with Black juveniles, six of which were considered

antagonistic.3. Social organization was measured as additive

index including multiple arrests during a single encounter,the nature of the relationship between suspects andvictims, and number of bystanders present. Sophisticationwas measured as an additive index including officers'experience, suspects' level of intoxication, if the disputebetween citizens was in progress when police arrived. ifthe encounter was visible to others, amount of evidence,use of a weapon, and injury to the victim (Greenleaf &

Lanza-Kaduce, 1995).4. The deference variable included the following three

categories: "( I) cases in which reversals predominated, (2)cases in which neither reversals nor reinforceR predomi-nated, and (3) cases in which reinforcers predominated"(Lanza-Kaducc & Greenleaf, 2000, p. 227).

5. The measUTe of norm resistance included "verbalattacks on officers, physical assaults on officers, refusal bycitizens to obey a lawful order, resisting arrest or interferingwith officers, and the use of force by police" (Lanza-Kaduce&. Greenleaf, 2000, p. 227).

6. Citizen compliance was measured as citizens whocomplied or indicated a willingness to comply in the futureto three types of officers' requests: (I) to discontinue illegalbehavior, (2) to leave another person alone or leave thepremises, or (3) to calm down or cease disorderly behavior(Mastrofski et aI., 1996).

7. Note however, that citizens' actual perceptions ofpolice will not be measured in the analyses to follow.Rather, suspects' characteristics are utilized as proxymeasures.

8. Two alternative arguments could be made. First, itcould be argued that suspects in more serious encounterswith police are more likely to be deferential, even extremelydeferential, because they recognize the gravity of thesituation and the strong possibility of police coen:ive action.Second. some ethnographic resean:h reported that officersdeflDed citizens as disrespectful based on the immediateinteraction between them rather than on the facts thatinitially led to the police-citizen encounter. As explaincd byVan Maanen (1978), "the police view of the asshole asdeviant is a product of the immediate transaction betweenthe two and nol a product of an act preceding thetransaction" (p. 228; emphasis added).

9. The list of possible demeanor codes included: (I)

businesslike, (2) friendly, (3) apologetic, (4) pleading, tlyingto enlist officer's aid, sympathy, (5) frightened, aftaid ofofficers, (6) cool, detached. could not care less, (7) sarcastic,disrespectful, hostile. (8) other, (9) do not know, not

Acknowledgements

A previous version of this article was presented atthe American Society of Criminology annual meet-

490 R.s. Engel! Journal of Criminal J/Lftice 3/ (2003) 475-492

ascertained, (10) unconscious, (II) citizen not present oruninvolved. Observers were given the following instruc-tions:

Note that these items specify demeanor toward theofficer. When in doubt code as other (08). As with theemotional state codes, we are trying to capture clearlyrecognizable demeanors in these items. Somewhatsubmissive behavior on the part of the citizen partic-ipants can be coded as businesslike (0 I ) and this may bea part of nomIaI police-citizen roles. (Police Services

Study, coding manual).10. Of the 1.8 percent of suspects encountered by

female officers, only one was coded as disrespectful. Due tothis limited sample size, the sex of the officer was excludedfrom the multivariate analyses that follow.

II. For each encounter, the observer recorded at leastone and up to three codes, selected from a list of 247problem codes, to characterize the nature of the problem ateach of three tirnes: (I ) as it was initially presented to police(usually by a dispatcher), (2) upon the officer's arrival at thescene, and (3) at the end of the encounter. The seriousnessscale was based on the most complete and accurateinformation available to the observer at the conclusion ofthe encounter.

12. The independent variables were measured atdifferent levels of analysis: officer and suspect. Althoughsome officers did encounter multiple suspects, only 17percent of the officers were involved in five or moreencounters, the minimum number necessary for the use ofhierarchical linear modeling (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).Therefore, nonhierarchical logistic regression was theappropriate technique to use for these analyses.

13. Mastrofski et al. measured citizen compliance ascitizens who complied or indicated a willingness to complyin the future to three types of officers' ~ts: (I)discontinue illegal behavior, (2) leave another personalone/leave the premises, or (3) calm down/cease disorderlybehavior. In contrast. the current measure of nonco"1'liancewas a more general measure that included "refusing toanswer questions" and "refusing to otherwise cooperatewith officers' requests."

14. The data collected from Mastrofski's study alsorevealed other rather unique findings that suggestedRichmond was different than other police departments. Forexample, Mastrofski et al. (1995) were the only researcherswho reported a statistically significant relationship betweenoffICers' ani tudes and behavior. In addition, this study wasone of only two that found suspects' demeanor did notinfluence officers' behavior (see also Klinger. 1994).

References

Albrecht, S. L., & Green, M. (1977). Attitudes toward thepoIic:c and the larger attitude complex, implicationsfor police-community relationships. Criminology, J 5,67-86.

Bayley, D. H., & Mendelsohn, H. (1969). Minorities andthe police. confrontation in America. New York: FreePress.

Bittner, E. (1974). Florence Nightingale in pursuit of Willie

Sutton: A theory of the police. In: H. Jacob (Ed.), 77repotential for reform of criminal justice (pp. 17-43).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Black, D. (1976). 77re behavior of law. New York: AcademicPress.

Black, D. (1980). The manners and customs of the police.New York: Academic ~.

Black, D., .t. Reiss, A. J. (1970). Police control of juveniles.American Sociological Review, 35, 63 - 77.

Brody, L. (1999). Gender; emotion and the family. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University ~.

Brown, M. K. (1981). Working the street: Police discretionand the dilemmas of reform. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Brown, P., &. Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some uni-versals in language usage. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Browning, S. L., Cullen, F. T., C~, L., Kopacbc. R., .t.Stevenson, T. J. (1994). Race and getting hassled bythe police: A research note. Police Studies, 17, I-II.

Bryk, A. S., &. Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierardticallinear models: Applications and data analysis methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Caldwell, E. (1978). Patrol observation: The patrol encoun-ter; potrol nOITative, and general shift information forms(police Services Study Report MR-Ol). Bloomington:Indiana University, Workshop in Political Theory and

Policy Analysis.Chesney-Lind, M. (1978). Chivalry re-examined: Women

and the criminal justice system. In: L. Bowker (Ed.),Women Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Lexing-ton, MA: D.C. Health.

Decker, S. H. (1981). Citizen attiwdes toward the police: Areview of past findings and suggestions for future policy.Journal of Police Science and Admini.ttration, 9, 80- 87.

Dunham, R. G., &. Alpert, G. P. (1988). Neigbborhocxl dif-ferences in attitudes toward policing: Evidence for amixed strategy model of policing in a multi-ethnic set-ting. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 79,5O4-S23.

Engel, R. S., Sobol, J. J., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Furtherexploration of the demeanor hypothesis: The interactioneffects of suspects' characteristics and demeanor on p0-lice behavior. Justice Quarterly, 17, 23S-2S8.

Fagan, J. (1990). Intoxication and aggression. In: M. Tonry,& J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime, crime andjustice, (Vol. 13, pp. 241-320). Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Greenleaf, R. G., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (I99S). Sophistica-tion, organization and authority-subject conflict: Redis-covering and unraveling Turk's theory of norm resislance. Criminology, 33, S6S-S8S.

Hurst, Y. G., & Frank, J. (2000). How kids view cops: Thenature of juvenile attitudes toward the police. JoUnlaI ofCriminal Justice, 18, 189-202.

Jacob, H. (1971). B lack and White perceptions of justice inthe city. Law and Society Review, 6,69-89.

Jesilow, P., Meyer, J.. &. Namazzi, N. (I99S). Public atti-

tudes toward police. American Journal o[ Police, 14,67-89.

Klinger, D. A. (1994). Demeanor or crime? Why 'hostile'

R.S. Engel / JournQI of Criminal Justice jJ (200J) 475-492491

citizens are more likely to be ~. Criminology, 12,

475-493.

Klinger, D. A. (1996a). Bringing crime back in: Toward abetter understanding of police an-est decisions. Joumal

of Researc;}, in Crime and Delinquency, 11, 333-336.Klinger, D. A. (l996b). More on demeanor and arrest in

Dade County. Criminology, 34, 61-82.Kowalski, R. M. (1996). Complaints and complaining:

Func~ antcce<blts, and consequences. Psydtologi-calBllilelin, //9,179-196.

Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Greenleaf. R. G. (2000). Age and racedeference reversals: Extending Turk on police-citi7a1conflict. Journal of Researr:h in Crime and Delinquency,37,22/-236.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. dilemmo.\' of theindividual in public services. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Lundman. R. J. (1974). Routine police arrest practices:A commonweal perspective. Social Problems, 22,127 -141.

Lundman. R. J. (1994). Demeanor or crime? The Midwest

city police-citizen encounters study. Criminology, 32,

631-656.

Lundman, R. J. (1996). Demeanor and anat: Additionalevidence from ~iously unpublished data. Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 306-323.

Lundman, R. J.. Sykes. R. E., & Clark:, J. P. (1978). Policecontrol of juveniles: A replication. Journal of ReseQlrhin Crime and Delinquency, 15, 74-91.

Mastrofski, S. D., & Parks, R. B. (1990). Improvingobservational studies of police. Criminology, 28,475-496.

Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B., Parks, R. B., & Maxwell,C. D. (2000). The helping hand of the law: Police con-trol of citizens on request. Criminology, 38. 307 - 342.

Mastrofski. S. D., Snipes, J. B., & Supina, A. E. (1996).Compliance on demand: The public's response to spe-cific police requests. Journal of Researr:h in Crime and

Delinquency, 33, 269-305.Mastrofski, S. D., Women, R. E., & Snipes, J. B. (1995).

Law enforcement in a time of community policing.

Criminology, 33, 539-563.McCluskey, J. D.. Mastrofski. S. D., & Parks, R. B. (1999).

To acquiesce or rebel: Predicting citizen compliancewith police requests. Police Quarterly. 2, 389-416.

Muir, W. K. Jr. (1977). Police: Streetconler Politicians.

Chicago: University of Chicago PreJs.Novak, K. J., Frank, J., Smith, B. W., & Engel, R. S. (2002).

Revisiting the decision to arrest. Crime and Delin-

quency, 48(1). 70-98.Parks. R. B., Mastrofski, S. D., DeJong. C., & Gray, M. K.

(1999). How officers spend their time with the commun-ity. Juslice Quarterly, /6.483-518.

Piliavin, I., & Briar, S. (1964). Police encounters with juve-niles. American Journal of Sociology, 70,206-214.

Scaglion, R., & Condon, R. G. (1980). The Structure ofBlack and White attitudes toward police. Human OIgan-

izalion, 39, 280-283.Skolnick, J. H. (1966). Justice without trial: Law enforce-

ment in a democratic society. New York: Wiley.Smith, D. A., & VISbcr, C. A. (1981). Street-level justice:

Situational determinants of p>lice arrest decisions. S0-cial Problems, 29, 167-177.

Sykes, R. E., & Clark, J. P. (1975). A theory ofdefcrence

exchange in p>lice-civilian encounters. American Jour-

nolofSociology, 8/, 584-600.Taylor, T. J., Turner, K. B., Esbensen, F., & Winfree, L. T.

(2001). "Coppin" an attitude: Attitudinal differencesamong juveniles toward police. Journal of Criminal Jus-tice, 29, 295-305.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). J-lolellce. aggres-sioll. alld coercive actiollS. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.Tuch, S. A., & Weitzel', R. (1997). The poils-trends, racial

differences in attitudes toward the police. Public Opill-ion Quarterly, 61, 642~663.

Turk, A. T. (1969). Criminolily and legal onler. Chicago:Rand McNally.

Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and proce-dural aspects of satisfaction with citizen - police encoun-ters. Ba.fic alld Applied Social Psychology, I, 281 - 292.

Van Maanen, J. (1974). Working the street: A developmentalview of police bd\avior. In: H. Jacob (Ed.), 77Ie potelltial

for rFfonll of criminal justice (pp. 83 -129). BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Van Maanen, J. (1978). The assbole. P. K. Manning, & J.Van Maaneo (Eds.), Policing: .4. view from the strFet(pp. 221 - 238). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing.

Velez, M. B. (2001). The role of public social control inurban neighb<Xboods: A multilevel analysis of victim-ization risk. Criminology, 39, 837-863.

Walker, S. (1999). The police in America. (3rd ed.). Boston;McGraw Hill.

Webb, V. J., & Marshall, C. E. (1995). The relative impor-tance of race and ethnicity on citizen attitudes toward the

police. American Journal of Police, 14(2),45-66.Weitzer, R. (2(KX). Racialized policing: Residents' pen:ep-

tions in three neighborhoods. Law alld Society, 34,129-155.

Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (1999). Race, class, and pen:ep-tions of discrimination by the p>lice. Crime alld Delin-

qumcy, 45, 494-507.Westley, W. A. (1953). Violence and the police. Americall

Journal of Sociology, 59, 34-41.Westley, W. A. (1970). Violence and the police: A socio-

logical stlldy of law, custom, and morality. Cambridge,MA; MIT Press.

Williams, H., & Murphy, P. (1990). The evolving strategyof police: A minority view. Penpectives Oil Policing,

(Vol 13, pp. I -15). Washington, DC: National Insti-tute of Justice.

Worden, R. E. (1989). Situational and attitudinal explana-tions of police behavioc A ~ reappraisal and

empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 23,667 - 711.

Worden, R. E., & Brandl, S. G. (1990). Protocol analysisof p>lice decision-making: Toward a theory of police

behavior. American Joumal of Criminal Justice, 14,297-318.

Worden, R. E., & Pollitz, A. A. (1984). Police am:sts in

R.s. Engel / JOIInIal of Criminal JrlStiu 3 J (1003) 475-491492

Worden, R. E., Si1q>ard, R. L., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1996).On the ~ing and measurement of suspects' demeanortoward the police: A comment on "Demeanor and Ar-rest". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

33,324-332.

domestic disturbances: A further look. Law and SocietyReview, 18, 105-119.

Worden, R. E., & Shepard, R. L. (1996). Demeanor, crime,and police behavior: A reexamination of the police serv-ices study data. Criminology, 34, 83 - 105.