GOOD COP, BAD COP: COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION, PERCEPTION, AND TRUST IN ...

96 Pages·2012·5.55 MB·English

GOOD COP, BAD COP: COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION,
PERCEPTION, AND TRUST IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT-SUSPECT
ENCOUNTERS

by
ANDY C. KWON
CAROL B. MILLS, COMMITTEE CHAIR
JANE STUART BAKER
REBECCA HOWELL

A THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of Master of Arts in the
Department of Communication
in the Graduate School of
The University of Alabama

TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

2012
Copyright Andy C. Kwon 2012
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ABSTRACT
Since the 1980s, community policing has been embraced as the dominant police
strategy. Thompson (1983) estimates that 97% of an officer’s time is spent
communicatively interacting with the public, which indicates a strong incentive to study
how communication affects those involved in police interaction. Utilizing
Communication Accommodation Theory as a theoretical framework, this study examines
the relationship between communication accommodation, perception, and trust and poses
the following question: How does a police officer’s communication accommodation
affect the communicative relationship between a police officer and his or her suspect?
An online questionnaire was distributed to 257 students at a large, southeastern
University, and their responses were analyzed. The data indicates that accommodative
behavior can lead suspects to be more trusting of the police, but did not have a significant
effect on police perception. Overall, this study helps fill a significant research gap in the
police communication literature and provides pragmatic implications to improve the
police-suspect interaction.

i i
DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my family. The hardships I have experienced
throughout the process of writing this thesis pales in comparison to the work, sacrifice,
and commitment you all have made to give me opportunities you never had. To my
grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, and brother, there are no words to describe the
important role you all have in my life. The strongest people I have ever known, I love
you all very much.

ii i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

α Alpha, level of acceptable significance; in statistical hypothesis testing,
the probability of making a Type I error; Cronbach’s index of internal
consistency (a form of reliability)
ATP Attitudes toward police
β Beta, Standardized Coefficient; in statistical hypothesis testing, the
probability of making a Type II error
B Beta, Unstandardized Coefficient
BAC Blood alcohol content
CAS Communication Accommodation Scale
CAT Communication Accommodation Theory
DUI Driving under the influence
F F distribution, Fisher’s F ratio
FIPS Faith in People Scale
ITS Individualized Trust Scale
M Sample mean, arithmetic average
n Sample size; number of cases
NCIS Naval Criminal Investigative Service (television show)
p Probability associated with the occurrence under the null hypothesis of a
value as extreme as or more extreme than the observed value
iv
r r statistic or r value; estimate of the Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient
r2 r2 statistic or r2 value : coefficient of determination; measure of strength of
relationship; estimate of the Pearson product-moment correlation squared
SAT Speech Accommodation Theory
SD Standard deviation
SE B Standard Error
Sig. Significance
UCR Uniformed Crime Reporting Program

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several people who I owe a tremendous debt for their help in
completing this thesis. First, thank you to the Department of Communication Studies, Dr.
Beth S. Bennett, and my committee for giving me this opportunity. To Dr. Carol B. Mills,
thank you for the encouraging words and countless lunches where you refused to let me
pay. I greatly appreciate the time you took to meet, teach, and feed me. To Dr. Jane Stuart
Baker, whose door was always open to discuss research, school applications, and other
procrastinatory topics, I am truly thankful. To Dr. Rebecca Howell, who provided
valuable insight on descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and linear regressions,
thank you for giving me a crash course on the exciting world of statistics. The perfect
combination of mentorship, wisdom, and character, I am extremely honored to have been
led through this journey by all of you. Second, although not officially affiliated with this
project, I thank Dr. Meredith M. Bagley, who gives value to the word teacher. I am
grateful for your insight, cheerful support, and for teaching me that on defense,
everybody should pick up a person, not a man. To Diane Luong, who sat next to me the
entire time acting like you were also studying, and to my good friend Daniel Turner,
whose high level of character has no match, thank you for being the best parts of me.
Finally, to Elbert Denina, Jeff Sonza, Karen Manio, Angeles Burke, and Alexandria
Smith: though some of you are thousands of miles away and will never read this
document, thank you for providing laughs, love, and support – the most critical
ingredients in completing this project.
v i
CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………...……ii

2. DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………...……iii

3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS …………………………………….iv

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………….....…vi

5. LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….ix

6. Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION.…………………………………………………..……1

7. Chapter 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………7

a. Communication Accommodation Theory………………………...……………7

b. Basic Principles of CAT………………………………………….……………8

c. Convergence…………………………………………………………..………10

d. Divergence……………………………………………………………………14

e. Shaping Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement…………….…………..………15

f. The Media……………………………………………………………………..16

g. Personal Experiences……………………………….…………………………17

h. Sociodemographic Factors…………………………………….………………19

i. Communication and Law Enforcement………………………………….……21

j. Perception and Law Enforcement………………………………………..……22

k. Hypothesis 1..……………………………………………………………..…..24

l. Trust and Law Enforcement………………………………..…………………24

m. Hypothesis 2………………………………………...…………………....….25
vi i
8. Chapter 3 - METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………26

a. Recruitment……………………………………………………………...……28

b. Participants……………………………………………………………………29

c. Instruments...…………………………………………………………….……30

d. Measures...…………………………………………………………….……...31

9. Chapter 4 – RESULTS………………………………………………….…………….36

a. Descriptive Statistics………………………………….………………………36

b. Bivariate Correlations…………………………………………...……………37

c. Data Analysis……………..……………………………..……………………40

10. Chapter 5 – DISCUSSION……………………………………………………….…43
a. Summary of Study……………………………………………….……………43
b. Implications……………………………………………………………...……44
c. Limitations and Future Research Directions...…………………..……………47
d. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………50
11. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………...………52
12. APPENDIX A: Institutional Review Board Certification………..…………………62
13. APPENDIX B: Email Invitation Manuscript…………………………….………….66
14. APPENDIX C: Subject Questionnaire………………………………………………68

vi ii
LIST OF TABLES

a. Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics for Hypothetical Contexts……...……………………38

b. Table 2 – Bivariate Correlations (n = 257).………………...…………………………39

c. Table 3 – Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between
Communication Accommodation and Perception (n = 257)……….……….41

d. Table 4 – Summary of Linear Regression Analysis for the Relationship Between
Communication Accommodation and Trust (n = 257)…………………..…42

ix