Response decision, emotions, and victimization of police officers

Abstract

This study explores the question of whether response decision and situation-dependent emotions, concepts of the Social Information Processing model of Crick and Dodge (1994), are useful in explaining differences involving the victimization of police officers. Officers from five regional police forces in the Netherlands completed a digital questionnaire, based partially on the Social Information Processing Interview. Results indicated that victimization involving verbal violence, threats, and physical violence were associated with response decision but not with negative emotions. Police officers who had more negative outcome expectations of aggressive or assertive responses, or who selected an aggressive rather than a passive or assertive response, were more likely to report being a victim of violence than were other police officers. Not all results were as hypothesized, and associations were discussed in the context of police officers' work situations, protocols, and training.

Second-Order Sexual Harassment: Violence Against the Silence Breakers Who Support the Victims

“…Very little research has focused on the repercussions faced by people who intervene in incidents of gender violence. The consensus is that bystanders who intervene are exposing themselves to real danger (Hamby et al, 2016;Liebst et al, 2018;van Reemst et al, 2015). However, there is no consensus as to the level of that risk or the repercussions.…”

On the Actual Risk of Bystander Intervention: A Statistical Study Based on Naturally Occurring Violent Emergencies

“…Among police officers, van Reemst, Fischer and Zwirs (2015) show that aggressive types of involvement enhance the victimization risk, and studies on bouncers suggest that ruleenforcing behavior, where the bouncer enters into a direct conflict with an unruly bar patron, is riskier than situations where the bouncer intervenes in order to stop a conflict between bar patrons (Graham and Homel 2012;Geoffrion et al 2015).…”

On the Actual Risk of Bystander Intervention

“…The bystander’s intervention type was captured with a binary variable, where 1 = bystander who used at least one escalatory intervention act and 0 = bystander who only used conciliatory behaviors. The behavioral distinction between escalatory and conciliatory interventions is in accordance with previous bystander research (Levine et al 2011; Parks et al 2013) and is included in our model in view of evidence suggesting that the type of intervention act, in particular aggressive and confronting behaviors, shapes the victimization risk (van Reemst et al 2015). Escalatory behaviors included threatening gestures, hauling, punching, kicking, shoving, and weapon use.…”

“…Finally, studies suggest that the type of intervention act influences the victimization risk. Among police officers, van Reemst, Fischer, and Zwirs (2015) show that aggressive types of involvement enhance the victimization risk, and studies on bouncers suggest that rule-enforcing behavior, where the bouncer enters into a direct conflict with an unruly bar patron, is riskier than situations where the bouncer intervenes in order to stop a conflict between bar patrons (Geoffrion et al 2015; Graham and Homel 2012).…”