“Speculate before you accumulate. I am a long term regular writer and advertiser in 'Your Expert Witness - the Solicitor’s Choice'. This investment pays me substantive dividends; I get more Expert Witness work with every issue. Not only solicitors and barristers but also judges seem to read it. It is a win-win situation. Success breeds success; I must continue to write and advertise.”
The emotional needs of 230 law enforcement personnel in the urban Midwest were compared with a control group of 316 persons using the Contextual Needs Assessment, an instrument designed to assess the emotional needs of persons in accordance with William Glasser's Choice Theory.
Groups were compared in a number of life contexts including needs with extended family, home, friends, peers, supervisors, subordinates, strangers in social settings and strangers in work settings. Multivariate Analysis of Variance and post hoc statistical analysis showed significant differences between groups on subscales and situations. Most statistical and clinical differences were found on Love and Belonging and Power subscales across situations.
Since the early 1930s, when the Wickersham Commission urged the development of professional police forces (Monroe & Garrett, 1931), police departments have used tests to assess aspiring police officers who wish to "serve and protect" their communities. Historically, assessment has taken the form of psychological tests designed to prevent persons with undesirable characteristics from being hired, namely individuals who are likely to behave inappropriately, to be violent, abusive or dishonest, and to predict job-related behavior (Dwyer, Prien, & Bernard, 1990). Recent data (Cochrane, Tett, & Vandecreek, 2003) suggest that 90% of the police departments require psychological evaluation of applicants. Forensic literature tends to focus on the use and characteristics of those instruments and provides insight into the ability of tests to predict the future behavior of persons expected to succeed in law enforcement (Detrick, Chibnall, & Luebbert, 2004; McQuilkin, Russell, Frost, & Faust, 1990; Cutler & Muchinsky, 2006; Varela, Boccaccini, Scogin, Stump, & Caputo, 2004).
Understandably, most discussions are from the perspective of work, but persons can be best understood in all of life's contexts. On one hand, one's experiences in law enforcement influence how that person understands life, much as one's experience in any occupation. Constant contact with the underside of society and the responsibility to control behavior of members of the public who may lack controls contribute to the development of cynical attitudes, serving to insulate police from civilians (Richardson, 1974). On the other hand, police as members of the community at large have families, belong to church and service organizations and carry on their lives as anyone else in the community. Law enforcement personnel live full lives, working to make personal meaning of life in a variety of settings. Assessments serve us best when they help us understand how persons function in a number of settings.
By looking at law enforcement persons from a more normative, less pathological perspective, acknowledging that police are essentially no different from others in terms of their basic emotional needs, the pathological perspective ordinarily implicit in psychological assessment can be put aside. In this study, we attempt to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement personnel across a variety of settings in order to find clues that will help us understand how law enforcement persons manage and meet basic emotional needs. In this way, we can simultaneously appreciate the unique place that law enforcement personnel play in the context of their work and how that interacts with other, non-police functions.
The theoretical basis of this investigation is found in William Glasser's Choice Theory (Glasser Institute, 2006). In Choice Theory, Glasser maintains that persons have five basic needs: survival, power, love and belonging, fun, and freedom. In all of life's contexts, persons choose behaviors and situations in which those needs will be satisfied, but different needs are met in varying degrees in different situations. The Contextual Needs Assessment (CNA) is an adjective checklist that requires the individual to identify those personal characteristics that best describe him/her in a variety of settings, ranging from relationships with family and extended family, to work contexts and relationships in non-work and non-family settings. The CNA has been shown to be a valid and reliable instrument for use with groups and individuals (Brown & Swenson, 2005), and it has been used in a variety of settings, most recently comparing school superintendents and how they make decisions in a variety of contexts (Brown, Swenson, & Hertz, 2007).
Design
This study compares two groups of individuals who completed the CNA. The first group was comprised of 230 law enforcement persons from a large urban area who were advanced undergraduate and graduate students. Their median age was 36 years old, and their median length of time in law enforcement was 10 years. Males comprised 78% of the group.
The second group was an aggregate of 316 persons, 198 of whom were college undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in non law enforcement programs, and 118 were professional educators. These individuals and their characteristics are reported in Brown and Swenson (2005) and Brown, Swenson, and Hertz (2007).
Results
A 5 (Scales: Survival, Power, Belonging, Fun, Freedom) x 8 (Situations: Extended Family, Home, Friends, Peers, Supervisor, Subordinates, Social Strangers, Work Strangers) x 2 (Groups: Police, Control) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted. Significant main effects were found on Scales, df = 4, F = 387.442, p = .000, and Situations, df = 4, F = 70.011, p =.000. Significant interaction effects were also found with Scales x Groups, d f= 4, F = 2.642, p < .032, Situations x Groups, df = 7, F = 8.588, p = .000, Scales x Situations, df = 28, F = 285.441, p = .000, and Scales x Situations x Groups, df = 28, F = 15.940, p = .000.
Post hoc t-tests, as shown on Table 1, suggested that police and controls differ in the way they meet basic emotional needs, particularly as measured in Belonging and Power, and to a lesser degree in Survival, Fun, and Freedom.
Analysis of Effects
ScalesThe data in this study show that police and controls score highest in Belonging, followed by Fun with extended family, home, and friends. In all contexts, these scales are followed by Survival, Power, and Freedom. This is consistent with Glasser (2006), who reports that the most important need is Belonging, because closeness with persons whom we care about is the beginning of satisfying all other needs. Both police and the control group tend to rely less on work relationships to meet Belonging needs..
Situations
The Belonging and Fun scales vary the most across all situations, with both groups choosing to meet those needs with extended family, in the home, and with friends. The Belonging means were substantially lower in work contexts than other situations for both groups. The highest Belonging mean score fell at 6.90 in the home situation with controls, and the lowest at 1.88 in the supervisor situation with police.
Power scale scores also vary across situations, but the variance is not as extreme as with Belonging. Generally, both groups view home, work peers, subordinates, and work relationships with strangers as meeting Power needs more successfully than relationships with extended family, friends, work supervisors, and strangers in social settings. Survival scores vary even less among both groups, but both groups view home relationships as more salient for meeting Survival needs than extended family and friends.
Freedom scales were the lowest for both groups, with highest means falling at 2.14 for the control group at home, but with all other means falling between .98 and 1.97 for both groups in all other situations.
Scales x Situations x Groups
There are more similarities than differences between the police and the control group, with 25 of the 40 scales showing no significant difference. In general, law enforcement personnel and the control group use various life situations in similar ways to meet needs. Nevertheless, there are significant differences. We will compare differences on scales, then situations.
Survival
There is a non-significant but consistent tendency for police to focus more on Survival needs in all contexts. In all but one situation, subordinates, scores were higher for police than the control group. Mean Survival scores were significantly higher for police than the control group when dealing with strangers in work situations, t(410.137) = 2.300, p <.022, a phenomenon that carries into dealing with strangers in social settings where police score significantly higher than the control group, t(407.447) = 2.38, p <.018.
Power
As with Survival, there is a consistent but non-significant tendency for police to focus more on Power needs in relationships with extended family, home relationships, friends, and peers. Police are significantly more focused on Power needs with strangers in work settings than the control group t(394) = 4.5, p = .000, but as with Survival, that carries into dealing with strangers in social settings, where police score significantly higher than the control group, t(378.69) = 3.191, p < .002.
Police scored the highest with meeting Power needs in home relationships, which was followed by meeting Power needs with subordinates. With the control group, this relationship is reversed, with the control group scoring higher in meeting Power needs with subordinates first, then in home relationships. The difference between police and the control group in meeting Power needs at home approached statistical significance, t(460.7311) = 1.686, p < .092.
Belonging
Police scored significantly lower in Belonging than the control group in all situations but one: home. These data suggest reluctance among police to use other resources to meet Belonging needs, including extended family, friends, social strangers, as well as work relationships. Both groups meet most Belonging needs with extended family, home, and friends, but police use strangers in social situations significantly less than the control group to meet those needs, t(543) = -3.529, p < .0001.
Fun
The control group meets more Fun needs with subordinates than do police, t(543) = -2.715, p < .007, but there are no significant differences between mean Fun scores in other situations. Data suggest that the control group is able to meet more Fun needs with work relationships than are police, but both groups meet Fun needs with extended family, home, and friends, and to a lesser extent, with peers.
Freedom
Generally, these data suggest that Freedom needs for both the control group and police tend to be low. For both groups, Freedom mean scores fell between 1.01 (for the control group working with subordinates) to 1.81 (for police among friends).
Analysis by Situations
Although many of the observations reported below were previously reported, an analysis by situation may prove helpful in understanding how police and the control group incorporate need satisfaction into their daily lives.
Extended Family
The scoring pattern for this situation is consistent with mean scores: Both groups score highest in Belonging and Fun. They are able to fill these needs in that setting and with their extended families. On the other hand, police scored significantly lower than the control group in using the extended family to meet Belonging needs but significantly higher in using that situation to meet Power needs.
Home
As with extended family, both groups scored highest in Belonging and Fun needs at home. In this setting, the control group meets more Freedom needs than police, t(543) = 2.519, p < .012 .
Friends
Generally, both groups meet Belonging and Fun needs through friends, but the differences between police and the control group were highly significant, with the control group using friends to meet Belonging needs more than police, t(543) = 5.081, p < .0001.
Peers
The needs profile tended to be flattened for both groups, who use peers about equally to meet Belonging, Power, Survival and Fun needs. The control group used peer relationships significantly more than police to meet Belonging needs, t(543) = 5.081, p < .0001.
Supervision
Both groups scored slightly higher on Survival needs among supervisors, which suggests that surviving that relationship has particular need satisfying value, but neither group focuses on the use of supervisor relationships to satisfy Power, Fun, or Freedom needs.
As with other settings, the control group scored significantly higher in using supervisory relationships to meet Belonging needs than police, t(515.230) = -4.795, p = .000.
Subordinates
The control group scores significantly higher on using the work subordinate relationship to meet Belonging needs than do police, t(543) = -8.232, p < .0001. Nonetheless, both groups tend to score lower than 3.5 on using the work subordinate relationship to meet Survival, Power, Fun, or Freedom needs.
Strangers at Work
Neither group scores above 3.13 in using relationships with strangers to meet needs, particularly Fun or Freedom needs, which fall below 1.50 for both groups.
When working with strangers, police are shown to be much more sensitive to meeting Survival needs, t(410.137) = 2.3, p < .022, and Power needs, t(394.588) = 4.52, p = .000. As with other situations, the control group uses relationships with strangers at work to meet Belonging needs more than police, t(543) = -3.529, p =.0001.
Strangers in Social Situations
The scoring profile is slightly more elevated for both groups on Survival scores, but police tend, more than the control group, to use this situation to meet Survival needs, t(407.447) = 2.381, p <.018. Although using social situations with strangers to meet Power needs is de-emphasized for both groups, police score significantly higher than the control group in meeting Power needs through relationships with strangers in social situations, t(378.69) = 3.191, p < .002.
As in previous contexts, the control group scores significantly higher in its use of relationships with strangers in social settings to meet Belonging needs than police, t(543) = -3.723, p = .000.
Neither group tends to use relationships with strangers in social settings to meet Fun or Freedom needs.
Discussion
SurvivalSurvival need satisfying behaviors can be expected to remain constant across all situations. Individuals are not likely to demonstrate high Survival needs in one situation and low in another. However, with law enforcement personnel, a marked difference can be found in Survival needs as they are experienced in dealing with strangers in both work and social situations. This finding makes good sense in light of the high level of threat to police officers in situations where strangers may be engaged in unpredictable behaviors. The significant difference demonstrated by police in the areas of strangers in the work situation and strangers in social situations indicate an appreciation of the dangers involved in their interactions with individuals unknown. It is healthy that these differences exist, because it encourages a level of care and attentiveness that serves to protect law enforcement personnel as they go about their daily interpersonal encounters.
Power
A similar distinction between law enforcement personnel and the control group is evidenced in Power need satisfying behaviors. Once again, police evidence a significantly high need for Power when experiencing situations involving strangers in both work and social situations. The similarity to Survival is compelling. As with Survival need satisfying behaviors, police demonstrate Power need satisfying behaviors acutely when unfamiliar individuals are involved. Frequently, police are in positions of authority when dealing with strangers. Therefore, it is important that they recognize this as an appropriate situation to demonstrate Power need behaviors. Individuals who do not exhibit the need to demonstrate Power behaviors in dealing with strangers would most likely be ineffective in law enforcement.
Belonging
The results of this study are likely more striking in similarities than in differences. The most significant similarity is the reinforcement of Glasser's theory that Belonging needs are the very foundation of need satisfaction in healthy adults. Because this study in no way addresses the unique characteristics of unhealthy individuals, but chooses to focus on healthy adult behavior, it seems to support Glasser's theory that Belonging is the primary need to be satisfied regardless of occupation. In every group studied by these authors, Belonging has always been the need reported as primary.
Although the need for Belonging is pre-eminent in its presence, the need is met in different ways with different individuals. Herein lie some of the differences evidenced between the police group and the control group. Law enforcement personnel seem to count on their relationships at home to be the primary site for meeting their Belonging needs. Therefore a stable, supportive, happy home environment would seem to be critical to the need satisfaction of successful law enforcement personnel. More than members of the control group, police officers do not seem to count on relationships with extended family, friends, and colleagues at work to satisfy their Belonging needs. Difficulties in home relationships, therefore, may be a greater burden to law enforcement personnel than to others. By focusing on the home environment as the single, largest site of Belonging need satisfaction, police officers may be limited in their ability to successfully cope if and when those relationships become strained.
Fun
While all individuals, according to Glasser, have a fundamental need for Fun, those needs are met by various people in different ways. A significant difference between law enforcement personnel and the control group is evident in Fun need satisfying behaviors. Law enforcement personnel do not experience Fun need satisfying behaviors with their subordinates at work as much as does the control group. The hierarchical nature of police department organizations may well account for this significant difference. The line-staff relationship between individuals within the structure of the police hierarchy makes clear distinctions between bosses and subordinates. These clear lines create distinctions that are respected by all individuals within the organization. Most individuals within the control group experience work situations that are much less structured and well defined. The blurred lines that exist between supervisors and subordinates in work life outside the world of law enforcement allow for more relationship building between and among various levels within the organization.
Freedom
For both law enforcement personnel and members of the control group, the basic need for Freedom represents the lowest number of need satisfying behaviors. The structure of the work life of most people, certainly those involved in the highly structured world of police work, would not be need satisfying to the high Freedom need individual. High Freedom need individuals would seldom find any structured work environment satisfying, much less the highly structured, regimented, and disciplined environment of the police workplace.
Conclusion
Individuals entering law enforcement would be well advised to appreciate the differences that exist in need satisfaction that are unique to their occupation. Persons in this occupation demonstrate a high level of support from their immediate families at home. They are wary of strangers in both work and social situations. They do not form close, supportive relationships with those beneath them in the organizational structure of their work environment. Their behaviors in each of these areas set them apart from the larger population and distinguish them as being competent and successful. Future studies comparing new members of the law enforcement occupation with more experienced police officers would prove helpful to anyone seeking police work as a potential life commitment. Such a comparison would also address the question of stability of needs over time.