“Please don't be too nice”: the role of political ideology in the approval of police use of force

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
John C. Navarro, Michael A. Hansen
{"title":"“Please don't be too nice”: the role of political ideology in the approval of police use of force","authors":"John C. Navarro, Michael A. Hansen","doi":"10.1108/pijpsm-03-2023-0035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore the ideological gaps on police use of force.Design/methodology/approachIn a national-level survey distributed via Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (n = 979), the authors explore the role that respondents' political ideology plays in the approval of police use of force across a range of scenarios.FindingsAcross all scenarios, self-identified conservative respondents maintain strong approval of police use of force. In comparison, liberal respondents provide more variance in their views on approval of police use of force based on the scenario. The scenarios where there are small gaps in approval between the two ideologies are when reasonable force is used toward a violent threat.Social implicationsThere are specific circumstances where the messaging surrounding use of force can create agreement (reasonable) or disagreement (excessive) among conservatives and liberals.Originality/valueConservatives and liberals demonstrate gaps across an even larger set of use of force scenarios.","PeriodicalId":47881,"journal":{"name":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-03-2023-0035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore the ideological gaps on police use of force.Design/methodology/approachIn a national-level survey distributed via Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (n = 979), the authors explore the role that respondents' political ideology plays in the approval of police use of force across a range of scenarios.FindingsAcross all scenarios, self-identified conservative respondents maintain strong approval of police use of force. In comparison, liberal respondents provide more variance in their views on approval of police use of force based on the scenario. The scenarios where there are small gaps in approval between the two ideologies are when reasonable force is used toward a violent threat.Social implicationsThere are specific circumstances where the messaging surrounding use of force can create agreement (reasonable) or disagreement (excessive) among conservatives and liberals.Originality/valueConservatives and liberals demonstrate gaps across an even larger set of use of force scenarios.
“请不要太好”:政治意识形态在批准警察使用武力中的作用
目的探讨警察使用武力的意识形态差异。通过Mechanical Turk (MTurk)进行的一项全国性调查(n = 979)中,作者探讨了受访者的政治意识形态在一系列场景中对警察使用武力的认可中所起的作用。在所有情况下,自我认定为保守派的受访者都强烈支持警察使用武力。相比之下,自由派受访者在支持警察使用武力的观点上,则根据不同的情景表现出更大的差异。两种意识形态之间存在小差距的情况是,对暴力威胁使用合理的武力。社会影响在某些特定的情况下,围绕使用武力的信息可以在保守派和自由派之间产生一致(合理)或分歧(过度)。原创性/价值保守主义者和自由主义者在更大范围的武力使用场景中表现出差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
15.00%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: ■Community policing ■Managerial styles and leadership ■Performance measurement and accountability ■Pursuit guidelines ■Crime trends and analysis ■Crisis negotiation ■Civil disorder ■Organized crime ■Victimology ■Crime prevention ■Career development ■High risk police activities ■Routine policing ■Traffic enforcement ■Civil litigation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信