Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:A:American Journal of Police:Vol14.Issue2.1995:
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
149
FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS: GENDER BIAS AND
PROFESSIONALISM
Mary Cuadrado
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Among the criteria that define a profession are the special and
technical expertise, a clearly delineated and permanent membership, the
overcoming of personal attitudes on the part of its members who replace
their attitudes with professional ones, and the public’s acknowledgment
that a field is a profession and consequently its members are
professionals. Therefore, anyone who meets the qualifications should be
considered a professional regardless of age, race or gender.
For a long time women have not been judged by the same
standards as men when trying to enter a trade or profession reserved
traditionally for men or even after becoming part of it. Women have long
been viewed by their peers and by the public as performing below the
standards set by their male counterparts. Studies (Goldberg, 1968;
Kaschak, 1978; Friend, Kalin and Giles, 1979; Lieberman, 1989) have
shown that men are rated as performing better in their fields than women,
although the work done was identical or comparable for both sexes. This
finding has been consistent regardless of the sex of the respondent. That
is, women also rated male performance higher than female performance.
Policewomen have not been able to escape this prejudice (Johns,
1979; Milton, 1978; Vega and Silverman, 1982). Balkin (1988) attributes
this negative attitude toward policewomen to the ways in which women
first came to the police department and the kind of work they did. The
earliest functions of women in police departments at the beginning of the
century were those of social worker: “preventive and protective work
with women and children” (Balkin, 1988:29). Hale (1992:126) states,
“there is little doubt that early policewomen were assigned to handle
children and their problems because of the female nurturing role.” A role,
which Hale indicates, coincided with societal values that made women
responsible for children growing up to be good citizens, and, the support
of national women’s groups (League of Women Voters and the General
150
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Federation of Women’s Clubs) as well as civic and social hygiene
associations (e.g., National Young Women, the Woman’s Christian
Temperance Union).
The preventive-protective role of policewomen is illustrated by
Odem and Schlossman’s (1991) account of the use of policewomen in
Los Angeles during the beginning of the century. Policewomen were used
to monitor young girls and intervene if any violated the social and sexual
etiquette of the time. This task, Hale (1992) indicates, was the product of
the concern the social hygiene movements had regarding the spread of
venereal diseases.
In 1972, due to the expansion of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act, women were permitted to enter the police force as
patrol officers. Thus, the work of policewomen during the past 20 years
moved from the “social worker function” to the police officer role by
placing women on patrol where they are exposed to violent situations.
Women moving into these traditionally male dominated roles challenge
the views held by many male police officers concerning the masculine
nature of police work (Milton, 1975; Johns, 1979; Balkin, 1988). Vega
and Silverman (1982:32) found that 48 percent of the male officers they
interviewed believed that “women should not be considered for jobs as
police patrol officers” (emphasis mine). The conceptions of police work
as a “man’s job” is not exclusive to male police officers. The general
public has held this view as well. Bell (1982) found that citizens thought
that male police officers were better in violent situations than female
officers. Bell’s findings are similar to those made by other researchers
such as Johns (1979) and Kennedy and Homant (1981).
The perception of required physical power for police work does
not agree with findings from studies conducted in the area. Sherman
(1975) concluded that most police duties do not involve confrontation in
violent situations and that the presence of a female officer may in fact
offset violence on the part of citizens. Kennedy and Homant (1983) found
that in cases of battering, the victims perceived policewomen as more
capable of calming the men and deflecting violence through discussions.
This makes policewomen an asset in violent situations instead of the
danger that many male officers and the public perceive. Contrary to views
of even female officers, studies have shown that in recent times there is
no substantial difference in performance between male and female police
officers (Bloch and Anderson, 1974; Sherman, 1975; Sichel et al., 1978).
Nonetheless, the perception of difference in performance bases solely on
the gender of the officer has persisted, as shown by Bell (1982), Vega and
Silverman (1982), Balkin (1988).
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
151
The issue of gender bias against policewomen should be of
importance to police officials. Top police officials have become
increasingly interested in overcoming the stereotype of the police officer
as a non-professional. It is important therefore that perceived professional
inadequacies due solely to gender be dealt with and resolved. Since
police departments must interact with virtually all components of the
criminal justice system, it is imperative that policewomen be viewed in
all contexts as professional as their male counterparts.
In this study we shall look at differences in the perceptions of
male and female police officers concerning appropriateness of action
taken on the job, apparent knowledge of police procedures and how
“professional” they appear to conduct themselves in certain situations.
The main hypothesis is that policewomen will be perceived as less
“professional” than male police officers.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample consisted of 194 persons: 150 graduate and
undergraduate students at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and 44
police officers. The students who cooperated with the study attended
classes in the following disciplines: public administration, law and police
science, substance abuse studies or criminal justice. The police officers in
the sample were contacted by a police officer liaison. Respondents were
told that their cooperation was strictly voluntary and were asked not to
mark the response sheets in any way that could identify them or their
department in order to assure the anonymity of their responses.
Because the sample was selected from a college of criminal
justice, we were able to compare findings to those of Lieberman (1989) in
a liberal arts college. In addition, this sample provides the opportunity to
compare possible gender bias of uniformed officers with other persons
with a criminal justice system perspective, many of who will go on to
careers in criminal justice.
Instruments and Administration
Each respondent was given a package containing a set of
instructions and three different police reports, each with an attached
152
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
response sheet. The cover sheet reiterated the verbal instructions given to
the respondents before they began. The respondents were told that the
packet contained three police reports with response sheets attached to
them. They were to become familiar with the response sheet, read the
report, then return to the response sheet to answer the four questions
related to the report and to provide their personal information consisting
of age, sex, highest level of education, occupation and number of years in
the occupation. This procedure was to be followed until all three response
sheets had been completed.
The reports were adapted from ones created and used by
Lieberman (1989) in a similar study. The reports were evaluated by police
officers, who considered them an adequate representation of what may be
found in actual police reports in many jurisdictions. The reports provided
the description of the findings and actions taken by an officer and partner
during a bank robbery, a drug arrest or a driving-while-intoxicated
incident. At the top of each report the name of the officer was clearly
indicated: one report was written by a policewoman (Jennifer Sharer or
Kathy Gray), one by a male police officer (Timothy Gray or Edward
Sharer), and, one written by an officer whose gender could not be
identified (A. Pelham). Information on the date, location, time and type of
incident was provided at the bottom of each report.
The respondents were asked to write the name of the officer
reporting the incident in a space provided on the rating sheets. They were
then to assess, using a 10 point rating scale, the three police reports —
one filed by male police officers, one by policewomen, and the third by
an officer whose gender could not be identified. Each respondent rated
the reports on: appropriateness of action taken, good detail in description,
apparent knowledge of police procedures and degree of professionalism.
Although not all respondents may have been qualified to answer all of the
questions with anything other than a lay person’s opinion, this should
apply equally to the assessment of both female and male police officer
reports.
The type of arrest assigned to the police officers was switched
between packets to avoid any effects produced by associating certain type
of arrests with female or male police officers (e.g., that women can
handle a DWI, but not a robbery).
Data was analyzed using the SPSS T-Test sub-routine as well as
chi-square.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
153
Description of Sample
The unit of analysis in this paper will alternate between
respondents (N=194) and rating sheets (N=388). Since the purpose of the
neutral police officer was to distract from the fact that there was a male
and a female police officer, the responses given for the neutral police
officer were not analyzed.
Table 1
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE
N
Sex
Female
Male
Age
22 years old or less
22-27 years old
28-36 years old
37 years old or more
Mean = 30.2
Education
High School
College
Graduate School
Occupation
Law Enforcement Officer
Clerical
Management/Professional
Blue Collar
Full time student/unemployed
Years in Occupation
One year
2-5 years
6-8 years
9 years or more
Mean = 6.42
%
75
119
194
39
61
100
40
55
49
49
21
29
25
25
193
100
27
145
18
190
14
76
10
100
82
27
36
8
25
178
46
15
20
5
14
100
30
59
37
33
159
19
37
23
21
100
154
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Sixty-one percent of the respondents were male. The mean age of
the respondents was 30 years old. Over four-fifths (86%) had some
college education. (Of the remaining 27 persons, 19 were college
freshman whose highest grade completed was 12 years of high school.)
Approximately half (46%)were police or corrections officers and the
mean number of years for all occupations was 6.42 (see Table 1).
FINDINGS
The first item analyzed is the total score obtained for the male and
the female officer reports. For this task a variable of the mean of the total
of all scores was created and dichotomized into “High” and “Low.” As
shown in Table 2A, respondents tended to rate female officers higher than
their male counterparts (57% vs. 47% respectively).
Contrary to expected findings, for each indicator the mean score
for female officers was higher than for the males – a finding contrary to
similar studies of gender bias using similar techniques (Goldberg, 1968;
Kaschak, 1978; Friend, Kalin and Giles, 1979; Lieberman, 1989).
Furthermore, the difference in the “Professionalism” score was
statistically significant. The relative lack of bias found in this study may
be attributed to the fact that the sample consists of people who are part of
and/or familiar with the criminal justice system and the professional
status that women occupy. They not only have had experiences with
women in the criminal justice system (i.e., police and corrections officers,
judges, etc.), but may have become sensitized to the issues of sex bias in
police departments. In addition, evaluating actions of policewomen as
“Professional” does not necessarily challenge the idea of police being
“man’s work.” On the contrary, it may allow for policewomen to continue
to be accepted although, differently than their male counterparts.
Table 2A
TOTAL EVALUATION SCORES BY SEX OF POLICE OFFICER IN REPORT
Score
Low (1-7)
High (8-10)
Chi Square = 42.50, p = 0.279
Female Officer
N
%
Male Officer
N
%
84
43
103
53
110
194
57
100
91
194
47
100
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
155
Table 2B
EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICER IN REPORT FOR ALL
RESPONDENTS (N=388)
Mean
T Value
2-Tail
Probability
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.00
7.26
0.81
0.421
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.71
7.74
0.12
0.904
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.48
6.91
1.32
0.188
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.78
7.49
2.36
0.019*
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.99
7.36
1.48
0.138
* Sig. at .05 level
The scores given to the officers in these reports were then
examined according to the characteristics of the respondents’ age, gender,
and occupation in order to determine if these characteristics are related to
bias against females in law enforcement.
Age
Age appears to have an effect on the score respondents will assign
to officer reports. Older respondents (over the age of 27) were less likely
to give high scores to officers, male or female, than younger respondents –
46 percent and 57 percent, respectively. Furthermore, when examining
the scores assigned to reports we found that the mean scores assigned to
the male officers decreases for each age category, except in the “37+”
age category where the mean score for male officers rose sharply
156
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
(see Table 3). Only among those in age category 22-27 was there a
statistically significant difference in scoring.
Gender
Examination of the data by the sex of the respondent shows that
female respondents were more likely to assign higher scores than did
male respondents (61% vs 46% respectively). This difference was found
to be significant at the .001 level.
Table 4 below shows that female respondents assigned higher
mean scores than the male respondents, but they did so for both the
female and male officer reports. Therefore, the responses cannot be
attributed to female respondents favoring female officers in the report.
Although, the female respondents rated female officer reports higher than
male officer reports the differences are too small to be significant.
However, the finding that women respondents consistently gave higher
scores than male respondents may reflect a traditional female deference
to authority translated into not wanting to be too critical of actions
described as being taken by police officers regardless of the officer’s
Table 3
TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICERS IN REPORTS BY AGE
OF RESPONDENTS
Mean
T Value
2-Tail
Probability
Under 22 Years of Age
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.61
7.65
0.09
0.929
22-27
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.75
7.84
2.42
0.017*
28-36
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.49
7.06
1.01
0.313
37+ Years of Age
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.26
6.85
–0.80
0.425
* Sig. at .05 level
Table 4
EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICERS IN REPORT BY SEX OF THE RESPONDENTS
Female Respondents
(N=148)
Male Respondents
(N=238)
T Value
2-Tail
Mean
T Value
2-Tail
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.63
8.01
0.90
0.372
6.62
6.79
0.40
0.693
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.92
7.85
–0.19
0.849
7.58
7.67
0.28
0.780
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.38
7.59
0.48
0.633
7.58
6.50
1.30
0.196
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.84
0.80
0.424
7.49
7.28
6.34
2.32
0.021*
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.60
7.81
0.60
0.551
6.60
7.08
1.40
0.162
157
* Sig at .05 level
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Mean
158
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
described as being taken by police officers regardless of the officer’s
gender.
Of interest is the finding that male respondents consistently
scored female officer reports higher than male officer reports, with the
largest (and statistically significant) difference being in the male
respondents’ scoring in the “Professionalism” category. This may be due
to the fact that women’s bias issues are often presented in the mass media
as well as in the classrooms of a large portion of the sample. Thus, female
discrimination issues may be salient in the minds of male respondents in
particular who may feel they must heighten their awareness to these
issues in order not to be offensive to women. This “reverse bias” may be
a temporary but necessary product of the anti-discrimination campaigns
that feminists and other groups have conducted for the past decade to help
obtain equality for women on the job. The awareness of discrimination
against women may cause some males to compensate for underlying
long-held views of women as inferior in “male” roles by viewing female
competence on the police force as higher than males, in particular in
categories that do not define police work through use of physical
strength.
Occupation
Responses from law enforcement and non-law enforcement
individuals were also analyzed. Respondents in law enforcement were far
less likely to assign high scores than those in other occupations. Overall
high scores assigned by law enforcement respondents was 37 percent
compared to professional 54 percent, clerical 67 percent and students 70
percent. These differences were found to be statistically significant at the
.0001 level. This difference may be due to the fact that law enforcement
respondents more accurately evaluate the actions taken by officers in the
reports than other respondents.
In Table 5, we find that male officer reports were scored higher
than the female officer reports by respondents working in law
enforcement (with the exception of “Professionalism”). However, none
of the variables were statistically significant. On the other hand, when we
look at the ratings of respondents in “Other” occupations we find that
female officer reports were assigned higher scores than male officer
reports in all categories with the “Good Detail,” “Professionalism,” and
“Average All Evaluation Score” being statistically significant at the .05
level.
Table 5
EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICERS IN REPORT BY RESPONDENT’S OCCUPATION
Law enforcement (N=164)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Other (N=191)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.11
5.95
–0.28
0.780
7.83
8.28
1.40
0.162
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.36
6.94
–1.07
0.205
7.86
8.52
2.54
0.012*
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
5.61
5.60
–0.02
0.983
7.34
8.02
1.93
0.055
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.13
6.63
0.95
0.346
7.39
8.17
2.17
0.031*
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.30
6.28
–0.05
0.961
7.59
8.26
2.44
0.016*
159
*Sig at .05 level
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Area of Evaluation
160
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Are these higher scores for the female officer reports due to a
larger proportion of women in the “Other” occupation group? Table 6
shows that respondents did not tend to favor those in their own gender
group. Both female and male respondents in the “Other” occupation
category consistently assigned higher scores to the female officers, while
those in law enforcement assigned mixed scores, regardless of the sex of
the respondent. It is interesting to note that males in “Law Enforcement”
did not significantly discriminate against the female officers in the report.
This may be an indication that the efforts made at many police
departments and academies throughout the country may be having an
effect on how policewomen are viewed by their colleagues. On the other
hand, males in “Other” occupations assigned statistically significant
higher scores to females in the “Good Detail” and “Professionalism”
categories.
Female law enforcement respondents assigned a higher total score
to male officer reports than they did to male officer reports (6.44 vs.
6.30). However, there was only a .02 mean difference assigned by male
respondents. This might suggest that because women are more recent
arrivals to patrol duty, many female officers may still look to the more
experienced officers for guidance (who are more likely to be males).
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that policewomen
are perceived as less professional when compared to their male
counterparts. Based on findings from past studies in which comparable
work by females had been scored lower than males it was hypothesized
that female officer reports would be scored lower in the categories of
appropriateness of action, use of good detail, apparent knowledge of
police procedure and professionalism than male police officer reports.
The data indicate that this is not the case. Female officer reports were
consistently scored higher than male officer reports, although, most of the
differences in scores where not statistically significant. This may be an
indication of acceptance of females in the role of law enforcement
officers.
It should be noted that a sample was obtained that is already part
of the criminal justice system or in the process of obtaining an education
to become part of it. While Lieberman (1989), in a study using the same
police officer reports with a non-criminal justice sample found some bias
against female officers in a general population, the present study did not
Table 6
EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICERS IN REPORT BY OCCUPATION (CONTROLLING FOR SEX OF RESPONDENT)
FEMALE RESPONDENTS
Other (N=104)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
5.93
6.43
0.38
0.705
8.08
8.42
0.90
0.370
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.44
6.31
–1.31
0.267
7.90
8.32
1.15
0.252
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
5.94
5.75
–0.14
0.890
7.77
7.96
0.44
0.660
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.44
6.69
0.21
0.835
7.73
8.15
0.90
0.370
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.44
6.30
–0.14
0.889
7.87
8.22
1.00
0.321
161
Law enforcement (N=32)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Area of Evaluation
162
MALE RESPONDENTS
Law enforcement (N=132)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Other (N=88)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.15
5.74
–0.64
0.521
7.54
7.93
0.69
0.493
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.23
7.09
–0.31
0.754
7.82
8.75
2.58
0.012*
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
5.53
5.56
0.05
0.962
6.50
7.55
1.58
0.117
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.06
6.51
0.77
0.444
6.82
8.00
1.99
0.050*
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.24
6.22
–0.03
0.975
7.17
8.06
1.90
0.061
*Sig at .05 level
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Area of Evaluation
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
163
find significant bias against female officers, even among male uniformed
officer respondents. On the contrary, policewomen were consistently
found to be more “professional” than their male counterparts. Although
this is a promising finding for policewomen who have been consistently
discriminated against based on their gender, it should also be a message
to police departments that police officers of different genders are not yet
viewed as equal.
This study has also shown that when evaluations of officer
competence are based on professionalism dimensions rather than
confrontational issues, bias against women does not appear since the
main focus of the questions is not on violent situations an officer may
encounter, as was done by previous studies (Vega and Silverman, 1982;
Bell, 1982). Evaluation variables based on potentially violent situations
promotes the belief that police officers are constantly in violent
confrontation and that perhaps women could not do the job as well.
Violence, although an inevitable occurrence in the life of a law
enforcement official, hardly occupies the majority of an officer’s working
time. Besides, when violence is present female officers have been shown
to abate possible confrontations. Police departments may benefit if the
public, in particular, were made more aware of these facts.
During the last decade police departments throughout the country
have begun to promote a professional image. Female officers can be a
great asset in the pursuit of this goal, for they may help dispel the myth of
the “brute force” requirement in order to do an effective job as an officer.
Police departments must be cautious, though, not to present two separate
images: one as a “brute force” composed of men and another of a
“professional force” composed of women. Further studies are needed to
monitor if the changing image of the police department may be now
creating discrimination against male officers.
The findings in this study may be an encouraging indication that
existing perceptions of the police force can be changed through increased
recruitment of women, gender sensitivity training provided at the
academies, and higher level of education. These may pay off for police
departments as they help them achieve their goals to be viewed as
professionals, in particular among those working within the Criminal
Justice System. Now that many police departments are trying to move
toward community policing the full acceptance of the female officer by
these departments as well as by the public is essential.
164
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
NOTE
The author wishes to thank Joel D. Lieberman, Department of
Psychology, University of Arizona for allowing the modification and use
of his forms for this study.
REFERENCES
Balkin, J. (1988). “Why Policemen Don’t Like Female Police Officers,” Journal
of Police Science and Administration, 16(1):29-38.
Bell, D. (1982). “Policewomen: Myth and Reality,” Journal of Police Science and
Administration, 10:112-120.
Bloch, P. and D. Anderson (1974). Policewomen on Patrol: Final Report:
Methodology, Tables and Measurement Instruments. Washington, D. C.: Urban
Institute.
Friend, P.; R. Kalin and H. Giles (1979). “Sex Bias in the Evaluation of Journal
Studies: Sexism in England,” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
18: 77-78.
Goldberg, P. (1968). “Are Women Prejudiced Against Women?,” Transaction, 5:
28-30.
Hale, D. (1992). “Women in Policing.” In G. Cordner and D. Hale (eds.), What
Works in Policing: Operations and Administration Examined. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing.
Johns, C. (1979). “The Trouble with Women in Policing: Attitudes Aren’t
Changing,” Criminal Justice Review, 4: 33-40.
Kaschak, E. (1978). “Sex Bias in Student Evaluation of College Professors,”
Psychology of Woman Quarterly, 2(3), 235-243.
Kennedy, D. and R. Homant (1981). “Nontraditional Role Assumption and the
Personality of the Policewoman,” Journal of Police Science and Administration,
9(3):346-355.
Lieberman, J. (1989). The Effects of Sex Bias in the Evaluation of Police Reports.
(Unpublished Manuscript).
Milton, C. (1978). “The Future of Women in Policing.” In A. Cohn (ed.), The
Future of Policing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
165
Odem, M. and S. Schlossman ( 1991). “Guardians of Virtue: The Juvenile Court
and Female Delinquency in Early Twentieth-Century Los Angeles,” Crime and
Delinquency, 37:186-203.
Sherman, L. (1975). “Evaluation of Policewomen on Patrol in a Suburban Police
Department,” Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3(4):434-438.
Sichel, J.; L. Friedman; J. Quint and M. Smith (1978). Women on Patrol: A Pilot
Study of Police Performance in New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of
Justice.
Vega, M. and I. Silverman (1982). “Female Police Officers as Viewed By Their
Male Counterparts,” Police Science, 5: 31-39.
149
FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS: GENDER BIAS AND
PROFESSIONALISM
Mary Cuadrado
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Among the criteria that define a profession are the special and
technical expertise, a clearly delineated and permanent membership, the
overcoming of personal attitudes on the part of its members who replace
their attitudes with professional ones, and the public’s acknowledgment
that a field is a profession and consequently its members are
professionals. Therefore, anyone who meets the qualifications should be
considered a professional regardless of age, race or gender.
For a long time women have not been judged by the same
standards as men when trying to enter a trade or profession reserved
traditionally for men or even after becoming part of it. Women have long
been viewed by their peers and by the public as performing below the
standards set by their male counterparts. Studies (Goldberg, 1968;
Kaschak, 1978; Friend, Kalin and Giles, 1979; Lieberman, 1989) have
shown that men are rated as performing better in their fields than women,
although the work done was identical or comparable for both sexes. This
finding has been consistent regardless of the sex of the respondent. That
is, women also rated male performance higher than female performance.
Policewomen have not been able to escape this prejudice (Johns,
1979; Milton, 1978; Vega and Silverman, 1982). Balkin (1988) attributes
this negative attitude toward policewomen to the ways in which women
first came to the police department and the kind of work they did. The
earliest functions of women in police departments at the beginning of the
century were those of social worker: “preventive and protective work
with women and children” (Balkin, 1988:29). Hale (1992:126) states,
“there is little doubt that early policewomen were assigned to handle
children and their problems because of the female nurturing role.” A role,
which Hale indicates, coincided with societal values that made women
responsible for children growing up to be good citizens, and, the support
of national women’s groups (League of Women Voters and the General
150
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Federation of Women’s Clubs) as well as civic and social hygiene
associations (e.g., National Young Women, the Woman’s Christian
Temperance Union).
The preventive-protective role of policewomen is illustrated by
Odem and Schlossman’s (1991) account of the use of policewomen in
Los Angeles during the beginning of the century. Policewomen were used
to monitor young girls and intervene if any violated the social and sexual
etiquette of the time. This task, Hale (1992) indicates, was the product of
the concern the social hygiene movements had regarding the spread of
venereal diseases.
In 1972, due to the expansion of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act, women were permitted to enter the police force as
patrol officers. Thus, the work of policewomen during the past 20 years
moved from the “social worker function” to the police officer role by
placing women on patrol where they are exposed to violent situations.
Women moving into these traditionally male dominated roles challenge
the views held by many male police officers concerning the masculine
nature of police work (Milton, 1975; Johns, 1979; Balkin, 1988). Vega
and Silverman (1982:32) found that 48 percent of the male officers they
interviewed believed that “women should not be considered for jobs as
police patrol officers” (emphasis mine). The conceptions of police work
as a “man’s job” is not exclusive to male police officers. The general
public has held this view as well. Bell (1982) found that citizens thought
that male police officers were better in violent situations than female
officers. Bell’s findings are similar to those made by other researchers
such as Johns (1979) and Kennedy and Homant (1981).
The perception of required physical power for police work does
not agree with findings from studies conducted in the area. Sherman
(1975) concluded that most police duties do not involve confrontation in
violent situations and that the presence of a female officer may in fact
offset violence on the part of citizens. Kennedy and Homant (1983) found
that in cases of battering, the victims perceived policewomen as more
capable of calming the men and deflecting violence through discussions.
This makes policewomen an asset in violent situations instead of the
danger that many male officers and the public perceive. Contrary to views
of even female officers, studies have shown that in recent times there is
no substantial difference in performance between male and female police
officers (Bloch and Anderson, 1974; Sherman, 1975; Sichel et al., 1978).
Nonetheless, the perception of difference in performance bases solely on
the gender of the officer has persisted, as shown by Bell (1982), Vega and
Silverman (1982), Balkin (1988).
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
151
The issue of gender bias against policewomen should be of
importance to police officials. Top police officials have become
increasingly interested in overcoming the stereotype of the police officer
as a non-professional. It is important therefore that perceived professional
inadequacies due solely to gender be dealt with and resolved. Since
police departments must interact with virtually all components of the
criminal justice system, it is imperative that policewomen be viewed in
all contexts as professional as their male counterparts.
In this study we shall look at differences in the perceptions of
male and female police officers concerning appropriateness of action
taken on the job, apparent knowledge of police procedures and how
“professional” they appear to conduct themselves in certain situations.
The main hypothesis is that policewomen will be perceived as less
“professional” than male police officers.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample consisted of 194 persons: 150 graduate and
undergraduate students at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and 44
police officers. The students who cooperated with the study attended
classes in the following disciplines: public administration, law and police
science, substance abuse studies or criminal justice. The police officers in
the sample were contacted by a police officer liaison. Respondents were
told that their cooperation was strictly voluntary and were asked not to
mark the response sheets in any way that could identify them or their
department in order to assure the anonymity of their responses.
Because the sample was selected from a college of criminal
justice, we were able to compare findings to those of Lieberman (1989) in
a liberal arts college. In addition, this sample provides the opportunity to
compare possible gender bias of uniformed officers with other persons
with a criminal justice system perspective, many of who will go on to
careers in criminal justice.
Instruments and Administration
Each respondent was given a package containing a set of
instructions and three different police reports, each with an attached
152
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
response sheet. The cover sheet reiterated the verbal instructions given to
the respondents before they began. The respondents were told that the
packet contained three police reports with response sheets attached to
them. They were to become familiar with the response sheet, read the
report, then return to the response sheet to answer the four questions
related to the report and to provide their personal information consisting
of age, sex, highest level of education, occupation and number of years in
the occupation. This procedure was to be followed until all three response
sheets had been completed.
The reports were adapted from ones created and used by
Lieberman (1989) in a similar study. The reports were evaluated by police
officers, who considered them an adequate representation of what may be
found in actual police reports in many jurisdictions. The reports provided
the description of the findings and actions taken by an officer and partner
during a bank robbery, a drug arrest or a driving-while-intoxicated
incident. At the top of each report the name of the officer was clearly
indicated: one report was written by a policewoman (Jennifer Sharer or
Kathy Gray), one by a male police officer (Timothy Gray or Edward
Sharer), and, one written by an officer whose gender could not be
identified (A. Pelham). Information on the date, location, time and type of
incident was provided at the bottom of each report.
The respondents were asked to write the name of the officer
reporting the incident in a space provided on the rating sheets. They were
then to assess, using a 10 point rating scale, the three police reports —
one filed by male police officers, one by policewomen, and the third by
an officer whose gender could not be identified. Each respondent rated
the reports on: appropriateness of action taken, good detail in description,
apparent knowledge of police procedures and degree of professionalism.
Although not all respondents may have been qualified to answer all of the
questions with anything other than a lay person’s opinion, this should
apply equally to the assessment of both female and male police officer
reports.
The type of arrest assigned to the police officers was switched
between packets to avoid any effects produced by associating certain type
of arrests with female or male police officers (e.g., that women can
handle a DWI, but not a robbery).
Data was analyzed using the SPSS T-Test sub-routine as well as
chi-square.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
153
Description of Sample
The unit of analysis in this paper will alternate between
respondents (N=194) and rating sheets (N=388). Since the purpose of the
neutral police officer was to distract from the fact that there was a male
and a female police officer, the responses given for the neutral police
officer were not analyzed.
Table 1
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE
N
Sex
Female
Male
Age
22 years old or less
22-27 years old
28-36 years old
37 years old or more
Mean = 30.2
Education
High School
College
Graduate School
Occupation
Law Enforcement Officer
Clerical
Management/Professional
Blue Collar
Full time student/unemployed
Years in Occupation
One year
2-5 years
6-8 years
9 years or more
Mean = 6.42
%
75
119
194
39
61
100
40
55
49
49
21
29
25
25
193
100
27
145
18
190
14
76
10
100
82
27
36
8
25
178
46
15
20
5
14
100
30
59
37
33
159
19
37
23
21
100
154
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Sixty-one percent of the respondents were male. The mean age of
the respondents was 30 years old. Over four-fifths (86%) had some
college education. (Of the remaining 27 persons, 19 were college
freshman whose highest grade completed was 12 years of high school.)
Approximately half (46%)were police or corrections officers and the
mean number of years for all occupations was 6.42 (see Table 1).
FINDINGS
The first item analyzed is the total score obtained for the male and
the female officer reports. For this task a variable of the mean of the total
of all scores was created and dichotomized into “High” and “Low.” As
shown in Table 2A, respondents tended to rate female officers higher than
their male counterparts (57% vs. 47% respectively).
Contrary to expected findings, for each indicator the mean score
for female officers was higher than for the males – a finding contrary to
similar studies of gender bias using similar techniques (Goldberg, 1968;
Kaschak, 1978; Friend, Kalin and Giles, 1979; Lieberman, 1989).
Furthermore, the difference in the “Professionalism” score was
statistically significant. The relative lack of bias found in this study may
be attributed to the fact that the sample consists of people who are part of
and/or familiar with the criminal justice system and the professional
status that women occupy. They not only have had experiences with
women in the criminal justice system (i.e., police and corrections officers,
judges, etc.), but may have become sensitized to the issues of sex bias in
police departments. In addition, evaluating actions of policewomen as
“Professional” does not necessarily challenge the idea of police being
“man’s work.” On the contrary, it may allow for policewomen to continue
to be accepted although, differently than their male counterparts.
Table 2A
TOTAL EVALUATION SCORES BY SEX OF POLICE OFFICER IN REPORT
Score
Low (1-7)
High (8-10)
Chi Square = 42.50, p = 0.279
Female Officer
N
%
Male Officer
N
%
84
43
103
53
110
194
57
100
91
194
47
100
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
155
Table 2B
EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICER IN REPORT FOR ALL
RESPONDENTS (N=388)
Mean
T Value
2-Tail
Probability
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.00
7.26
0.81
0.421
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.71
7.74
0.12
0.904
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.48
6.91
1.32
0.188
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.78
7.49
2.36
0.019*
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.99
7.36
1.48
0.138
* Sig. at .05 level
The scores given to the officers in these reports were then
examined according to the characteristics of the respondents’ age, gender,
and occupation in order to determine if these characteristics are related to
bias against females in law enforcement.
Age
Age appears to have an effect on the score respondents will assign
to officer reports. Older respondents (over the age of 27) were less likely
to give high scores to officers, male or female, than younger respondents –
46 percent and 57 percent, respectively. Furthermore, when examining
the scores assigned to reports we found that the mean scores assigned to
the male officers decreases for each age category, except in the “37+”
age category where the mean score for male officers rose sharply
156
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
(see Table 3). Only among those in age category 22-27 was there a
statistically significant difference in scoring.
Gender
Examination of the data by the sex of the respondent shows that
female respondents were more likely to assign higher scores than did
male respondents (61% vs 46% respectively). This difference was found
to be significant at the .001 level.
Table 4 below shows that female respondents assigned higher
mean scores than the male respondents, but they did so for both the
female and male officer reports. Therefore, the responses cannot be
attributed to female respondents favoring female officers in the report.
Although, the female respondents rated female officer reports higher than
male officer reports the differences are too small to be significant.
However, the finding that women respondents consistently gave higher
scores than male respondents may reflect a traditional female deference
to authority translated into not wanting to be too critical of actions
described as being taken by police officers regardless of the officer’s
Table 3
TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICERS IN REPORTS BY AGE
OF RESPONDENTS
Mean
T Value
2-Tail
Probability
Under 22 Years of Age
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.61
7.65
0.09
0.929
22-27
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.75
7.84
2.42
0.017*
28-36
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.49
7.06
1.01
0.313
37+ Years of Age
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.26
6.85
–0.80
0.425
* Sig. at .05 level
Table 4
EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICERS IN REPORT BY SEX OF THE RESPONDENTS
Female Respondents
(N=148)
Male Respondents
(N=238)
T Value
2-Tail
Mean
T Value
2-Tail
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.63
8.01
0.90
0.372
6.62
6.79
0.40
0.693
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.92
7.85
–0.19
0.849
7.58
7.67
0.28
0.780
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.38
7.59
0.48
0.633
7.58
6.50
1.30
0.196
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.84
0.80
0.424
7.49
7.28
6.34
2.32
0.021*
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.60
7.81
0.60
0.551
6.60
7.08
1.40
0.162
157
* Sig at .05 level
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Mean
158
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
described as being taken by police officers regardless of the officer’s
gender.
Of interest is the finding that male respondents consistently
scored female officer reports higher than male officer reports, with the
largest (and statistically significant) difference being in the male
respondents’ scoring in the “Professionalism” category. This may be due
to the fact that women’s bias issues are often presented in the mass media
as well as in the classrooms of a large portion of the sample. Thus, female
discrimination issues may be salient in the minds of male respondents in
particular who may feel they must heighten their awareness to these
issues in order not to be offensive to women. This “reverse bias” may be
a temporary but necessary product of the anti-discrimination campaigns
that feminists and other groups have conducted for the past decade to help
obtain equality for women on the job. The awareness of discrimination
against women may cause some males to compensate for underlying
long-held views of women as inferior in “male” roles by viewing female
competence on the police force as higher than males, in particular in
categories that do not define police work through use of physical
strength.
Occupation
Responses from law enforcement and non-law enforcement
individuals were also analyzed. Respondents in law enforcement were far
less likely to assign high scores than those in other occupations. Overall
high scores assigned by law enforcement respondents was 37 percent
compared to professional 54 percent, clerical 67 percent and students 70
percent. These differences were found to be statistically significant at the
.0001 level. This difference may be due to the fact that law enforcement
respondents more accurately evaluate the actions taken by officers in the
reports than other respondents.
In Table 5, we find that male officer reports were scored higher
than the female officer reports by respondents working in law
enforcement (with the exception of “Professionalism”). However, none
of the variables were statistically significant. On the other hand, when we
look at the ratings of respondents in “Other” occupations we find that
female officer reports were assigned higher scores than male officer
reports in all categories with the “Good Detail,” “Professionalism,” and
“Average All Evaluation Score” being statistically significant at the .05
level.
Table 5
EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICERS IN REPORT BY RESPONDENT’S OCCUPATION
Law enforcement (N=164)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Other (N=191)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.11
5.95
–0.28
0.780
7.83
8.28
1.40
0.162
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.36
6.94
–1.07
0.205
7.86
8.52
2.54
0.012*
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
5.61
5.60
–0.02
0.983
7.34
8.02
1.93
0.055
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.13
6.63
0.95
0.346
7.39
8.17
2.17
0.031*
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.30
6.28
–0.05
0.961
7.59
8.26
2.44
0.016*
159
*Sig at .05 level
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Area of Evaluation
160
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Are these higher scores for the female officer reports due to a
larger proportion of women in the “Other” occupation group? Table 6
shows that respondents did not tend to favor those in their own gender
group. Both female and male respondents in the “Other” occupation
category consistently assigned higher scores to the female officers, while
those in law enforcement assigned mixed scores, regardless of the sex of
the respondent. It is interesting to note that males in “Law Enforcement”
did not significantly discriminate against the female officers in the report.
This may be an indication that the efforts made at many police
departments and academies throughout the country may be having an
effect on how policewomen are viewed by their colleagues. On the other
hand, males in “Other” occupations assigned statistically significant
higher scores to females in the “Good Detail” and “Professionalism”
categories.
Female law enforcement respondents assigned a higher total score
to male officer reports than they did to male officer reports (6.44 vs.
6.30). However, there was only a .02 mean difference assigned by male
respondents. This might suggest that because women are more recent
arrivals to patrol duty, many female officers may still look to the more
experienced officers for guidance (who are more likely to be males).
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that policewomen
are perceived as less professional when compared to their male
counterparts. Based on findings from past studies in which comparable
work by females had been scored lower than males it was hypothesized
that female officer reports would be scored lower in the categories of
appropriateness of action, use of good detail, apparent knowledge of
police procedure and professionalism than male police officer reports.
The data indicate that this is not the case. Female officer reports were
consistently scored higher than male officer reports, although, most of the
differences in scores where not statistically significant. This may be an
indication of acceptance of females in the role of law enforcement
officers.
It should be noted that a sample was obtained that is already part
of the criminal justice system or in the process of obtaining an education
to become part of it. While Lieberman (1989), in a study using the same
police officer reports with a non-criminal justice sample found some bias
against female officers in a general population, the present study did not
Table 6
EVALUATION SCORE MEANS FOR OFFICERS IN REPORT BY OCCUPATION (CONTROLLING FOR SEX OF RESPONDENT)
FEMALE RESPONDENTS
Other (N=104)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
5.93
6.43
0.38
0.705
8.08
8.42
0.90
0.370
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.44
6.31
–1.31
0.267
7.90
8.32
1.15
0.252
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
5.94
5.75
–0.14
0.890
7.77
7.96
0.44
0.660
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.44
6.69
0.21
0.835
7.73
8.15
0.90
0.370
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.44
6.30
–0.14
0.889
7.87
8.22
1.00
0.321
161
Law enforcement (N=32)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Area of Evaluation
162
MALE RESPONDENTS
Law enforcement (N=132)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Other (N=88)
Mean T Value
2-Tail
Appropriateness of Action
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.15
5.74
–0.64
0.521
7.54
7.93
0.69
0.493
Good Detail
Male Officer
Female Officer
7.23
7.09
–0.31
0.754
7.82
8.75
2.58
0.012*
Knowledge of Procedure
Male Officer
Female Officer
5.53
5.56
0.05
0.962
6.50
7.55
1.58
0.117
Professionalism
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.06
6.51
0.77
0.444
6.82
8.00
1.99
0.050*
Average All Evaluation Score
Male Officer
Female Officer
6.24
6.22
–0.03
0.975
7.17
8.06
1.90
0.061
*Sig at .05 level
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
Area of Evaluation
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
163
find significant bias against female officers, even among male uniformed
officer respondents. On the contrary, policewomen were consistently
found to be more “professional” than their male counterparts. Although
this is a promising finding for policewomen who have been consistently
discriminated against based on their gender, it should also be a message
to police departments that police officers of different genders are not yet
viewed as equal.
This study has also shown that when evaluations of officer
competence are based on professionalism dimensions rather than
confrontational issues, bias against women does not appear since the
main focus of the questions is not on violent situations an officer may
encounter, as was done by previous studies (Vega and Silverman, 1982;
Bell, 1982). Evaluation variables based on potentially violent situations
promotes the belief that police officers are constantly in violent
confrontation and that perhaps women could not do the job as well.
Violence, although an inevitable occurrence in the life of a law
enforcement official, hardly occupies the majority of an officer’s working
time. Besides, when violence is present female officers have been shown
to abate possible confrontations. Police departments may benefit if the
public, in particular, were made more aware of these facts.
During the last decade police departments throughout the country
have begun to promote a professional image. Female officers can be a
great asset in the pursuit of this goal, for they may help dispel the myth of
the “brute force” requirement in order to do an effective job as an officer.
Police departments must be cautious, though, not to present two separate
images: one as a “brute force” composed of men and another of a
“professional force” composed of women. Further studies are needed to
monitor if the changing image of the police department may be now
creating discrimination against male officers.
The findings in this study may be an encouraging indication that
existing perceptions of the police force can be changed through increased
recruitment of women, gender sensitivity training provided at the
academies, and higher level of education. These may pay off for police
departments as they help them achieve their goals to be viewed as
professionals, in particular among those working within the Criminal
Justice System. Now that many police departments are trying to move
toward community policing the full acceptance of the female officer by
these departments as well as by the public is essential.
164
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
NOTE
The author wishes to thank Joel D. Lieberman, Department of
Psychology, University of Arizona for allowing the modification and use
of his forms for this study.
REFERENCES
Balkin, J. (1988). “Why Policemen Don’t Like Female Police Officers,” Journal
of Police Science and Administration, 16(1):29-38.
Bell, D. (1982). “Policewomen: Myth and Reality,” Journal of Police Science and
Administration, 10:112-120.
Bloch, P. and D. Anderson (1974). Policewomen on Patrol: Final Report:
Methodology, Tables and Measurement Instruments. Washington, D. C.: Urban
Institute.
Friend, P.; R. Kalin and H. Giles (1979). “Sex Bias in the Evaluation of Journal
Studies: Sexism in England,” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
18: 77-78.
Goldberg, P. (1968). “Are Women Prejudiced Against Women?,” Transaction, 5:
28-30.
Hale, D. (1992). “Women in Policing.” In G. Cordner and D. Hale (eds.), What
Works in Policing: Operations and Administration Examined. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing.
Johns, C. (1979). “The Trouble with Women in Policing: Attitudes Aren’t
Changing,” Criminal Justice Review, 4: 33-40.
Kaschak, E. (1978). “Sex Bias in Student Evaluation of College Professors,”
Psychology of Woman Quarterly, 2(3), 235-243.
Kennedy, D. and R. Homant (1981). “Nontraditional Role Assumption and the
Personality of the Policewoman,” Journal of Police Science and Administration,
9(3):346-355.
Lieberman, J. (1989). The Effects of Sex Bias in the Evaluation of Police Reports.
(Unpublished Manuscript).
Milton, C. (1978). “The Future of Women in Policing.” In A. Cohn (ed.), The
Future of Policing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 2 1995
165
Odem, M. and S. Schlossman ( 1991). “Guardians of Virtue: The Juvenile Court
and Female Delinquency in Early Twentieth-Century Los Angeles,” Crime and
Delinquency, 37:186-203.
Sherman, L. (1975). “Evaluation of Policewomen on Patrol in a Suburban Police
Department,” Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3(4):434-438.
Sichel, J.; L. Friedman; J. Quint and M. Smith (1978). Women on Patrol: A Pilot
Study of Police Performance in New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of
Justice.
Vega, M. and I. Silverman (1982). “Female Police Officers as Viewed By Their
Male Counterparts,” Police Science, 5: 31-39.