Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

US SWAT operator experience, personality, cognitive-emotion regulation and decision-making style

Andy Young, Chris Hennington, Dane Eggleston,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Andy Young, Chris Hennington, Dane Eggleston, "US SWAT operator experience, personality, cognitive-emotion regulation
and decision-making style", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/
PIJPSM-10-2016-0156
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-10-2016-0156
Downloaded on: 15 March 2018, At: 13:30 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9 times since 2018*
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:123756 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 1

US SWAT Operator Experience, Personality, Cognitive-Emotion Regulation and

Decision-Making Style

It is important for police officers involved in high-risk SWAT callouts to be well trained

and to be able to operate with excellence under the pressure, danger, and stressors that come with

this profession. Furthermore, every member must be in sync with each element brought to bear

on such incidents. Each SWAT officer, on-scene command staff, and negotiator squad must

function seamlessly and effectively, for there is no room for breakdown or error due to the
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

delicate and high stakes nature of SWAT callouts.

SWAT teams are typically deployed on high-risk warrant service operations, and in other

situations too difficult, complicated, or dangerous for a contingent of patrol officers. Examples of

these dangerous situations include, but are not limited to hostage situations, barricaded subjects,

suicidal subjects and situations in which someone is actively harming or shooting other people

(“active shooters”). SWAT is typically deployed to contain and respond with the appropriate

force and tactics needed to save lives and stop threats.

The police officers in the United States serving as SWAT operators in these situations are

trained in and tasked with precision shooting, dynamic building entry, proficiency in the use of

less-lethal weaponry, and demanding physical, mental and emotional requirements. Examples of

these requirements include discriminating between innocent people and lethal threats, being in

exceptional physical condition and having endurance for callouts lasting over 12 hours, and

critical planning and decision-making skills when preparing and executing a dynamic entry into

a hostile situation that also includes innocent people.

SWAT operators are part of a larger contingent of officers who respond to these special

threat situations. When deployed there is a command and control element of supervisors and
 2

commanders reviewing and making operational decisions, and there is a contingent of hostage

negotiators who are charged with gathering information and trying to engage subjects in a dialog

with the hope of peaceful resolution of the situation. All of these elements, though coming from

different training and philosophies, try to work in harmony to change and resolve the dangerous

situation at hand.

Very little scholarly research has been conducted on SWAT teams, their operation, or

their members. What are the common characteristics of SWAT operators and how do these
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

characteristics compare with patrol officers, or hostage negotiators? In an effort to better

understand the officers involved in SWAT callouts, obtain baseline scores, and hopefully glean

something useful in the overall function of a SWAT callout response, a national survey was

recently conducted of hostage negotiators, patrol officers, and then of SWAT operators that

specifically examined the callout experience, personality (via the Big 5 Personality Test),

Cognitive-Emotion regulation (via the Cognitive-Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, CERQ),

and decision-making (via the General Decision-Making Style survey, GDMS) of these groups of

officers. The SWAT, hostage negotiator, and patrol officer surveys attempted to answer two key

questions: What are the similarities and differences in these officers across each of the survey

domains? What has been their callout experience and how have these callouts resolved?

Research on Police Officers and Police Negotiators

The notion of a “police personality” has been examined previously (Abrahamsen and

Strype, 2010). Cortina et al., (1992) found police academy applicants had elevated defensiveness

scores, social deviance scores, and unwillingness to acknowledge distress scores according to

their MMPI results. Kornfeld (1995) studied police academy applicants using the MMPI-2 and

found that applicants were less likely to worry and less likely to have difficulty making
 3

decisions. They were confident, sociable, extroverted, friendly, psychologically well-adjusted

and comfortable with people. Detrick, Chibnall, and Rosso (2001) studied police academy

applicants using the MMPI-2 and found elevated defensiveness scores, low levels of depression,

and low levels of introversion.

Two studies (Black, 2000; Detrick, Chibnall and Luebbert, 2004) examined the

performance of police recruits throughout police academy training by employing the NEO

Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa and McRae, 1992), which is based on the Big 5 personality
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

model. Black found Conscientiousness (organized, deliberate, efficient, reliable, hard-working,

precise, determined, self-disciplined) was a very good overall positive predictor of performance

in the police academy, while Detrick, Chibnall and Luebbert (2004) found Openness (creative,

open to change, experimenting, imaginative, curious, artistic, psychologically minded,

intelligent, insightful, cognitively flexible) and Extraversion (sociable, warm, cheerful, energetic,

adventurous, assertive) were the strongest predictors of academic success in the police academy.

They also found Neuroticism (vulnerability to stress, difficulty handling pressure, more likely to

panic, and dependence) was the strongest predictor of nongraduation from the police academy.

Finally, Black (2000) stated Extraversion (because of interactions with the public) and

Agreeableness (altruistic, warm, generous, cooperative, sympathetic, compliant, trusting,

helpful) are traits that may be of importance in the successful performance of law enforcement

job duties.

Sanders (2003) analyzed previous studies of police and personality and found the Big 5

trait of Conscientiousness to consistently have the strongest correlation with good police

performance, and Agreeableness, Extroversion, and Neuroticism to be somewhat related to good

police performance. Cuttler and Muchinsky (2006) found dysfunctional job behaviors in police
 4

officers significantly correlated with lower Conscientiousness and was predictive of social

deviance in officers.

Sanders (2007) employed the Big 5 personality test as a way to select “good” police

officers and found personality characteristics did not help predict officer performance. Part of the

difficulty with this study was measuring what a good police officer is and in measuring police

officer performance, and the authors discuss other problems with their research hypotheses (e.g.

the validity of supervisor performance ratings and variability across police department cultures
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

and standards). An interesting finding was a cynical work attitude (which can be construed as a

personality trait) was a better predictor of officer job performance in that a cynical attitude

negatively impacted performance. Sanders (2007) also found a non-linear relationship between

age and job performance.

Henson, Reyns, Klahm and Frank (2011) examined how to predict police recruit

performance during police academy training and after graduation, and found that, aside from

ethnicity, demographic variables were not predictive. These authors also found experience

variables (e.g. education and military or prior law enforcement experience) did not predict recruit

or officer performance.

Beutler et al., (1985) evaluated officers and their personalities and found an obvious

difference between officers who had high ratings for interpersonal ability and those who received

high ratings for technical ability. Those officers high on interpersonal ability were not aggressive

in interpersonal relationships, and they were still able to express intimacy and warmth. Those

who were high on technical ability had a tendency to be depressed, suspicious, and inefficient in

their use of time.

 5

A number of studies have examined personality using the Big 5 personality inventory, or

the related NEO Personality Inventory (Beutler, Nussbaum, and Meredith 1989; Barrick and

Mount, 2005; Detrick and Chibnall, 2006; Judge and Ilies, 2002; Lau et al., 2006; Lester et al.,

1980). Barrick and Mount (2005) used the Big 5 personality survey and found the characteristic

of Conscientiousness correlates with work motivation across various job categories. They also

found the personality characteristics of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness are good

predictors of performance in specific job descriptions. Detrick and Chibnall (2006) studied these
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

same personality characteristics in entry-level police officers and found additional evidence that

these personality characteristics are crucial in the selection of future officers.

Research on SWAT Negotiators

Published writing about police hostage negotiators focuses on the strategies for

conducting negotiations or the skills and knowledge needed to be a police hostage or crisis

negotiator (Greenstone, 2007; Grubb, 2010; Lanceley, 2004; McMains and Mullins, 2014;

Vecchi, Van Hasselt, and Romano, 2004). However, very little has been written about the

personality, cognitive or emotion regulation, and decision-making style of a good negotiator.

Grubb, Brown, and Hall (2015) conducted a study similar to the current study and

examined the personality, coping style and cognitive emotion regulation of police officers,

hostage negotiators, and university students using the Big 5 Personality Inventory, the Coping

Skills Test-Revised, and the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ). These

authors note the need for a selection process for specialty units within police departments. They

found a “police profile” that emerged from their comparison of a college student sample with

their hostage negotiator and police officer samples. They found higher Extraversion (e.g.

sociable and adventurous), Agreeableness (e.g. altruistic and sympathetic), and

 6

Conscientiousness (e.g. organized and hard-working), and lower Neuroticism (e.g. depressed or

anxious) in the hostage negotiator and police officer samples. They also found no significant

difference between the personality profiles of the hostage negotiators and police officer samples.

Grubb and Brown (2012), the inspiration for the current study, recommends specific

ways of investigating the personality, decision-making style, and coping style of police

negotiators. These recommendations are inspired by the “dearth of literature focusing on the

competencies of the negotiator” (p. 42). They note, “there is no such research which establishes
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

whether hostage negotiators exist as a unique, characteristically similar group of individuals” (p.

42). They propose using a number of constructs in an effort to form a hostage negotiator profile.

Among these constructs are the Five Factor Model (the basis for the Big 5 personality test) to

investigate personality, the General Decision-Making Style Questionnaire (Scott and Bruce,

1995) to investigate decision-making styles, and the Cognitive Emotion Regulation

Questionnaire (Garnefski and Kraaij, 2007) to investigate cognitive coping styles and emotion

regulation.

Research on SWAT Teams

Kraska and Paulsen (1997) is a rare example of research on police SWAT teams. They

discovered SWAT teams had a more military-style culture, a greater thirst for danger, and really

enjoyed SWAT team activities. Another, more recent example is Marques-Quintero et al., (2013)

who examined the dynamics within SWAT teams during stressful and dangerous situations.

They examined implicit coordination, which is “a team’s ability to anticipate the actions and

needs of their colleagues, and of the task at hand, and dynamically adjust their own behavior

accordingly without having to communicate directly with each other or plan the activity” (p.
 7

195). After studying 42 police SWAT teams they found team implicit coordination can help

performance of tasks that are not routine.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Tactical Officers

Association conducted a comprehensive study of US SWAT teams and detailed their findings in

their report: National Assessment of Critical Trends and issues from 2009 to 2013. This report

provides basic statistics on SWAT team utilization, incidents responded to, training, operation

parameters, and other general information from 254 law enforcement agencies in the United
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

States. Additional information on how SWAT callouts resolved was missing from this report and

would be beneficial.

The research on police personality supports the use of the Big 5 Personality Inventory

and indicates recruits are less likely to worry (or ruminate), less likely to have difficulty making

decisions are sociable (extroverted), and have low levels of depression (neurotic). Recruits who

are neurotic are less likely to graduate from a police academy, and recruits who are extroverted

and open are more likely to be successful in a police academy. Extroversion, openness and

agreeableness were also found to be good predictors of performance in specific job descriptions

and seem to be important factors to be considered in officer selection. Previous research also

indicates officers who are conscientious will perform well in their duties and are more motivated.

Though there is some research on the police personality and how can it be applied, what

about research on officers in highly trained special divisions like SWAT or negotiators and on

characteristics that might predict successful job performance or even successful callout

resolution? It is hypothesized that these specially trained officers have distinct characteristics that

help them survive and perform well in a high-stress and delicate job; that SWAT operators are

able to control their emotions, remain calm when in dangerous situations, and are able to be
 8

conscientious when needed. Furthermore it seems likely that individual functioning will affect

team functioning and will thus affect SWAT callout resolution.

The current study endeavored to employ the recommendations of Grubb and Brown

(2012) in an effort to provide empirical research on SWAT operators and hostage negotiators.

The intent of the current study was to measure personality, cognitive emotion regulation, and

decision-making styles across a national sample and obtain baseline scores. The current study

also hoped to identify the experience and personal characteristics of SWAT operators and
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

hostage negotiators that might be necessary for being able to operate successfully.

Method

The current study was initiated through an introductory letter that was emailed through

the website of the 539 largest federal, state, county, and city law enforcement agencies and to

state and national hostage negotiator and SWAT operator associations. This was done in order to

reach as many officers as possible, including those at smaller law enforcement agencies. This

letter introduced the research project and overviewed the requirements for participation.

There were three stages of data collection. First, agencies were contacted in order to

survey hostage negotiators, in keeping with the recommendations of Grubb and Brown (2012).

Once that data was obtained it became clear a comparison sample would be helpful, so these

agencies were contacted a second time in order to survey patrol officers. The data obtained from

these first two stages was analyzed and has been published (Young, 2016). The third stage was to

contact these same agencies in order to survey SWAT operators.

For the SWAT survey, of the 539 agencies and associations contacted via email, 151

agencies (28%) responded. Seven of the responding agencies indicated they did not have a

SWAT team. Of the 151 responding agencies, 94 (17%) agreed to participate in this research and
 9

provided a contact person. This contact person was then emailed the survey and told how to

return completed surveys. Of the 94 agencies and that agreed to participate, 48 (51%) in 21 states

returned completed surveys.

Participants in this study were active law enforcement personnel who also serve as

members of a SWAT team. They were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire, which

included questions about SWAT experience and callout experience, the Big Five Personality

Test (Big 5), the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ), and the General
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Decision-Making Model questionnaire (GDMS). Completed questionnaires were returned to the

researcher, (by email, fax, and postal service), coded, and kept in a locked file cabinet.

When examining the overall operation of these very different and specialized units on a

SWAT callout, the notion of “cross-trained” or “dual-trained” SWAT operators should be

considered. NYPD, LAPD, Phoenix, Dallas, and other departments train their SWAT operators

in negotiations, even when some of these departments also have negotiating teams. These

departments were not part of the national SWAT survey summarized here, nor were dual-trained

operators, though some SWAT survey participants may have had some exposure to negotiator

training or operation. It can be argued that it is better to have one person focused on the job of

negotiating while another person is focused on the job of a tactical response. This is particularly

true if these two roles might be in conflict with each other, on a personal or psychological level.

The current study focused on SWAT operators who are not “dual-trained” because most

departments in the United States employ separate and specially trained SWAT and Negotiator

units.
 10

Instruments

Based on the recommendations of Grubb and Brown (2012), the Big 5, the CERQ, and

the GDMS were employed in this study. The version of the Big 5 (John, and Srivastava, 1999)

used in this study was the 44-item version that employs a five-point Likert scale with each

question. This measure examines five domains of personality: Conscientiousness (organized,

deliberate, efficient, reliable, hard-working, precise, determined, self-disciplined), Agreeableness

(altruistic, warm, generous, cooperative, sympathetic, compliant, trusting, helpful), Openness

Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

(creative, open to change, experimenting, imaginative, curious, artistic, psychologically minded,

intelligent, insightful, cognitively flexible), Neuroticism (depressed, anxious, angry, pessimistic,

impulsive, uncertain, self-conscious), and Extraversion (sociable, warm, cheerful, energetic,

adventurous, assertive). Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann, (2003) found test-retest reliabilities for

these scales between .76 and .83, with a mean of .80.

The CERQ test booklet defines each of the personality domains: Self-blame (holding

oneself responsible for causing an experience, preoccupied with mistakes, and experiencing guilt

feelings), Acceptance (accepting what has happened, “life goes on,” and possibly resigned to the

outcome of a situation), Rumination (preoccupied with the thoughts and feelings associated with

a negative event), Positive Refocusing (thinking about the pleasant things associated with an

event), Refocus on Planning (thinking about the steps to take in order to deal with an event or

thinking up a plan to change a situation), Positive Reappraisal (attributing positive meaning to an

event, for example, believing an event will lead to personal growth and makes one stronger),

Putting into Perspective (playing down the seriousness or severity of an event when compared to

other events), Catastrophizing (focusing on how terrible an event was), and Other-blame (putting

blame onto others for what one has experienced, holding others responsible for an experience, or
 11

thinking about the mistakes others have made). The CERQ is a 36-item inventory that employs a

five-point Likert scale as a response to each question. The Cronbach Alpha coefficients for these

scales in adults were between .75 and .86 (Garnefski, Kraaij and Spinhoven, 2002).

The GDMS examines five styles for decision-making and consists of 25 items that

employ a five-point Likert scale for each question. The five styles for decision-making are:

Rational (thoroughly searching for and logically evaluating alternatives in decision-making,

assessing the long-term effects of decisions and have a strong fact-based orientation to decision-
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

making, feeling personally responsible for decisions, systematically gathering information,

deliberate, logical, and confident in decisions), Intuitive (relying on hunches and feelings in

decision-making; decisions are made relatively quickly, with limited information, and are often

changed if the intuition was in error), Dependent (searching for advice, support, and direction

from others in decision-making; decision-making is viewed as the responsibility of others, and

this type of decision-maker may feel less confident in their decision-making ability), Avoidant

(the avoidant style of decision-making is characterized by delay and denial, and is the opposite of

decisiveness), and Spontaneous (a strong sense of immediacy and an interest in getting through

the decision-making process as quickly as possible.). Scott and Bruce (1995) found the scales of

the GDMS are reliable with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.77–0.85 for the Rational scale,

0.78 to 0.84 for the Intuitive scale, 0.62–0.86 for the Dependent scale, 0.84–0.94 for the

Avoidant scale and 0.83–0.87 for the Spontaneous scale.

Results

Two hundred and seventy-seven SWAT operators from across the United States

participated in this survey (see Table I for demographic, rank, and departmental information).

Participants were asked about the number of callouts to which they have responded (n=33,280
 12

total callouts for this survey) and how these callouts resolved. Of these callouts, n=27,989 were

resolved “peacefully” (84.1%) and n=32,182 were resolved “successfully” (96.7%). “Peacefully”

was defined in the survey question as “without force,” and successful resolution of a SWAT

callout was defined as “without injury to officers or innocent parties.” Participants were also asked

about how long they have been on SWAT, as well as about their callout experience (see Table II

for this information). Participant years of experience in law enforcement ranged from one to 35

years (M=12.74 SD=6.74), and they ranged in age from 23 to 57 years (M=37.81, SD=7.1).
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

INSTERT TABLE I AND II ABOUT HERE

The size of these departments ranged from 16 members to 10,000 members (M=549.17,

SD=811.77). The majority (n=143) of participants (53%) belonged to a Police Department, n=89

were with a Sheriff’s Office (33%), n=21 were State Troopers (7.8%), n=3 were with a Unified

department (1.1%), and n=1 was a federal officer (.4%). Twenty respondents left this question

blank.

Personality, Cognitive-Emotion Regulation, and Decision-Making Style

The Big Five Personality Test indicated that participants, n = 276, had a moderate score

of Extraversion (M=3.52, SD = 0.65). In Agreeableness participants yielded a moderate score

(M=3.86, SD = 0.55). Scores were higher for Conscientiousness (M=4.31, SD = .45) and scores

for Neuroticism were lower (M= 2.05, SD = 0.55). Participants scored moderately for Openness

(M=3.42, SD = 0.47). The CERQ and GDMS descriptive statistics are displayed in Table III as

well.

INSERT TABLE III ABOUT HERE

 13

SWAT Correlation

Age negatively correlated (r (271) = -.143, p = .02) with Perspective Taking and indicates

that as SWAT officers’ age they take events more seriously. Marital status negatively correlated

(r (273) = -.184, p = .002) with an officer’s rank and indicates higher ranked officers are less

likely to be married. There is also a negative relationship (r (273) = -.217, p = .00) between

marital status and years of experience in law enforcement. This indicates more experienced are

less likely to be married.

Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Rank was positively correlated (r (272) = .123, p = .04) with a Rational Decision-Making

Style, and indicates higher ranked officers employ a Rational Decision-Making style. Rank was

negatively correlated (r (272) = -.182, p = .003) with an Avoidant Decision-Making Style, and

indicates higher ranked officers do not utilize an Avoidant Decision-Making Style. Rank was

also negatively correlated (r (272) = -.134, p = .03) with a Spontaneous Decision-Making Style,

and indicates higher ranked officers are less likely to use a Spontaneous Decision-Making Style.

Years of experience as a SWAT officer correlated negatively (r (272) = -.135, p = .03)

with a Dependent Decision-Making Style and an Avoidant Decision-Making Style (r (272) = -

.138, p = .02). This means that the longer an officer is on SWAT, the less they use a Dependent

or Avoidant Decision-Making Style. Years of experience as a SWAT officer also negatively

correlated (r (271) = -.126, p = .04) with the Cognitive-Emotional regulation style of Putting into

Perspective. The longer one is on SWAT the less likely they are to downplay the seriousness and

severity of an event; they seem to take events more seriously.

The number of callouts a SWAT team responds to and the size of their department were

positively correlated (r (255) = .468, p = .000) and indicates that the larger the department the

more SWAT callouts the department receives. Department size also positively correlated with a
 14

peaceful resolution (r (233) = .442, p = .00) and a successful resolution (r (241) = .454, p = .00)

to the callout and indicates that the larger the department, the more likely a peaceful and

successful outcome will result. These findings also indicate that more callout experience leads to

more callouts resolving peacefully and successfully.

Department size is also positively correlated (r (269) = .150, r = .01) with the Big 5

personality style of Conscientiousness, which indicates the larger the department, the more

Conscientious the officer in that department tends to be. Department size negatively correlated (r
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

(266) = -.152, p = .01) with Catastrophizing, which indicates officers at larger departments have

less of a tendency to focus on how terrible an event was across the range of situations they

encounter. Finally, department size is negatively correlated (r (267) = -.182, p = .003) with an

Avoidant Decision-Making Style, which indicates as department size increases Avoidant

decision-making decreases.

There were numerous other correlations found in this study, some of which may be of

particular interest to SWAT operators and commanders. SWAT team members were asked a few

questions for which they could answer on a five-point Likert scale with one being “below

standards,” three being “average,” and five being “above standards.” These questions asked

about how well they maintained fitness, firearms proficiencies, and how much they enjoy being a

SWAT operator.

There were a number of statistically significant correlations between the peaceful and

successful resolution of a SWAT callout and officer level of fitness (r (271) = .132, p = .04) and

firearms proficiency (r (271) = .343, p = .000). This supports having high standards for officers

in both fitness and firearms proficiency. Fitness (r (261) = .222, p = .01) and firearms proficiency

(r (263) = .202, p = .000) also correlated strongly with SWAT officers who enjoy being a SWAT
 15

operator. There was also a correlation between department size and maintaining fitness (r (266) =

.181, p = .003), which indicates larger departments do a better job of maintaining operator

fitness.

Officers who had the CERQ characteristics of Planning (r (260) = .130, p = .037) and

Positive Reappraisal (r (260) = .155, p = .012), and did not have the characteristics of Blaming

Others (r (260) = -.163, p = .009) and having an Avoidant Decision-making style (r (261) = -

.183, p = .003), enjoyed being a SWAT operator. Operators who had the CERQ characteristic of
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Catastrophizing reported fewer successful SWAT callout experiences (r (242) = -.128, p = .047).

Interestingly, there was a negative correlation between being a “SWAT instructor” and enjoying

being a SWAT operator (r (259) = -.144, p = .05). For some reason(s) being a SWAT instructor

decreases the enjoyment of being an operator.

The Big 5 characteristic of Conscientiousness correlated with successful callout

resolutions (r (245) = .139, p = .03), enjoyment of being on SWAT (r (263) = .135, p = .03),

fitness (r (271) = .206, p = .001), and firearms proficiency (r (273) = .142, p = .02) . The Big 5

characteristics of Agreeableness (r (263) = .148, p = .016) and Openness (r (263) = .200, p =

.001) correlated with enjoying SWAT, and Neuroticism negatively correlated with fitness (r

(271) = -.122, p = .044) and firearms proficiency (r (273) = -.198, p = .001). Once again, these

findings support the use of the Big 5 in selecting future SWAT operators and could have direct

effect on the success of SWAT callouts and the level of morale and enjoyment of the officers on

the team.

Comparison of Patrol Officers, Negotiators, and SWAT team members

The sample for the comparison between patrol officers, negotiators, and SWAT team

members was 863 participants. See Table IV for demographic, rank, and departmental
 16

information about this combined group of officers and surveys. The years of experience in law

enforcement for this large group of participants ranged from less than one year to 50 years.

INSERT TABLE IV ABOUT HERE

For negotiators the mean age was 41 (SD 7.44), for patrol officers 33 (SD 9.01), and for

SWAT 38 (SD 7.25). Seventy-eight percent of negotiators were male, 85% of patrol officers, and

99.5% of SWAT were male. Seventy-four percent of negotiators were white, 88.5% of patrol

officers and 86% of SWAT were white. Ten percent of negotiators and patrol officers were
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Hispanic, and 4.5% of SWAT was Hispanic. Nine percent of negotiators were African American,

less than 1% of patrol officers, and 4% of SWAT were African American. Seventy-seven percent

of negotiators were married, 68% of patrol officers, and 80.6% of SWAT were married.

Negotiators had an average of 15.28 (SD 7.5) years of experience in law enforcement, whereas

patrol officers had an average of 8.15 (SD 8.27) years and SWAT operators had 13.1 (SD 6.95)

years of experience.

The size of the departments surveyed ranged from six officers to 10,000 officers. Five

hundred and sixty-seven participants were from Police Departments (66%), 185 from a Sheriff’s

Office (21.5%), 66 State Troopers (7.7%), and 21 were from a Unified department (2.4%). Other

agencies (less than 3% of the sample) included Hospital District, Air National Guard, School

Districts, “Metro,” Prosecutor’s Office, or a federal officer.

For more about the related national survey of hostage negotiators see Young (2016). This

article reports demographic information (including the average size of a negotiating team),

callout experience (e.g. the majority of these negotiators had not responded to an incident

involving hostages, or a “jumper”), experience with the different roles a negotiator fulfills on a

callout (e.g. primary negotiator, secondary negotiator, intelligence gathering, etcetera),

 17

personality, cognitive-emotion regulation, and decision-making styles of 514 negotiators. It also

provides some correlations and recommendations for the training and selection of negotiators. A

comparison group of police officers was also included in this study. Participating departments

were contacted after the negotiator survey and asked if they would distribute the same survey,

minus the questions about being a negotiator, to patrol officers who were not negotiators.

Thirteen departments agreed to participate, and 72 surveys were obtained from five departments.

Personality, Cognitive-Emotion Regulation, and Decision-Making Style

Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

The mean score for Extraversion in this sampling was 3.53 (SD = .443), for

Agreeableness was 3.63 (SD = .417), for Conscientiousness was 3.78 (SD = .50), for

Neuroticism was 3.02 (SD = .77), and for Openness was 3.49 (SD = .36)

ANOVA

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA, multiple comparisons, and effect size were

calculated to compare the differences between hostage negotiators, SWAT team members, and

patrol officers. On the Big Five Personality test there was a significant difference in

Agreeableness [F(2, 856) = 78.82, p = .000], Conscientiousness [F(2, 856) = 489.34, p = .000],

Neuroticism [F(2, 856) = 1276.31, p = .000] and Openness [F(2, 856) = 14.69, p = .000]. The

differences between the subscales were significant at the p < .05 level between the three groups

and the Games-Howell analysis for multiple comparisons revealed significant differences as

well.

Statistical analysis of the data collected from SWAT team members, negotiators and

patrol officers showed a statistically significant difference in the Big 5 Personality Test subscales

of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness. The subscale for

Agreeableness showed mean differences in which patrol officers scored lower in Agreeableness
 18

than negotiators. The mean difference between patrol officers and SWAT was significant as

well, in that patrol officers scored lower in Agreeableness than SWAT operators.

There was also a significant difference between SWAT team members, negotiators, and

patrol officers on the Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness subscales. SWAT team

members scored higher in Conscientiousness than patrol officers, and patrol officers scored

higher in Conscientiousness than negotiators. For Neuroticism, negotiators scored higher than

patrol officers and SWAT members, with SWAT operators scoring the lowest. Negotiators
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

scored highest in Openness, Patrol officers next, and SWAT team members scored lowest.

Statistical analysis of the differences between hostage negotiators, SWAT team members,

and patrol officers using the CERQ found differences between SWAT team members and

negotiators for Rumination in that SWAT team members are lower in Rumination than

negotiators. Analysis of the CERQ subscale Planning revealed negotiators had higher planning

tendencies, followed by Patrol officers, and SWAT members had the lowest planning tendencies.

Analysis of the CERQ subscale Putting into Perspective, found SWAT team members were less

likely to use this coping strategy than Patrol officers.

The GDMS analysis found one significant subscale difference between hostage

negotiators, patrol officers, and SWAT team members. On the Spontaneous Decision-Making

Style scale, it was found SWAT members were the most spontaneous group, while negotiators

were the least spontaneous, and Patrol officers fell somewhere in-between.

Our multivariate analysis did not produce any significant results, as was the case with a

binomial logistic regression.

 19

Limitations

Recruiting research participants from law enforcement, much less from a closed group

such as SWAT operators, is a difficult task “fraught with methodological limitations” (Cuttler

and Muchinsky, 2006, p. 19). The International Association of Chiefs of Police was able to

gather information about SWAT team from 254 agencies, and the current study from 151

department’s SWAT teams. The response rate for this study was low, and was due in part to the

agency themselves declining to participate or not having a SWAT or negotiating team.

Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Regardless, the generalizability of these findings is inhibited greatly by the low response rate and

low sample size relative to the overall size of the law enforcement population in the United

States.

The current study relied on honest self-report, which is always a limitation of this type of

survey research. Another limitation was that lack of statistically significant findings for our

multivariate and our binomial logistic regression analysis. No extrapolation of the relationship

between personality, cognitive-emotion regulation, and decision-making styles and the outcome

and resolution of callouts is possible based on these findings.

In sum, extreme caution must be taken when considering the generalizability of these

results. All extraneous variables were not controlled for, the patrol officer sample was

significantly younger and had less experience in law enforcement than the other two groups, and

there are limitations to the application of bivariate correlations and ANOVA. Henson, Reyns,

Klahm and Frank (2011) found demographic variables were not predictive of general police

officer performance, and Sanders (2007) found a non-linear relationship between age and police

officer performance, so this provides some evidence that demographic variables did not produce
 20

our statistically significant findings. It is suggested that future research focus on the possibly

predictive characteristics outlined in the current study via experimental design.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Though previous research has been conducted on the “police personality,” and some

research has been conducted on SWAT teams, the current study focused on the experience and

specific personality, coping style, and decision-making styles of SWAT operators in order to

provide empirical research and obtain baseline scores on SWAT operators and hostage
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

negotiators across a national sample. The current study also hoped to identify the experience and

personal characteristics of SWAT operators and hostage negotiators that might be necessary for

and even predict successful job performance and successful callout resolution. The implications

and applications of these findings, in conjunction with a discussion of the negotiator survey

results will be considered here.

There are numerous personality, cognitive emotion regulation, and decision-making style

differences between SWAT operators and hostage negotiators. When compared with negotiators

the personality of these SWAT operators were more Conscientiousness and less Neurotic and

Open. Obviously, no one involved with SWAT operations wants a SWAT operator who is

Neurotic (depressed, anxious, angry, pessimistic, impulsive, uncertain, self-conscious), and it

would be wise to screen SWAT team applicants for this personality trait using The Big 5

Personality Inventory.

The trait most important to look for in a SWAT operator is Conscientiousness

(organized, deliberate, efficient, reliable, hard-working, precise, determined, self-disciplined).

The evidence for this recommendation comes from the correlation found between large
 21

departments that have experienced SWAT operators who are Conscientious and most often had

their SWAT callouts resolve peacefully and successfully.

SWAT operators scored lowest on Openness (creative, open to change, experimenting,

imaginative, curious, artistic, psychologically minded, intelligent, insightful, cognitively flexible)

when compared with negotiators and patrol officers. It is recommended that the qualities of

Openness be discussed in training and practiced in exercises in order to develop this

characteristic because these qualities may be valuable in certain tactical situations, especially
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

ones that require outside-the-box thinking and adaptation beyond what has been covered

repeatedly in training. Negotiators had the highest levels of Openness and this can be a valuable

perspective for SWAT operators and commanders to incorporate because SWAT operators and

commanders who come from a SWAT background are not naturally creative, imaginative,

psychologically minded or cognitively flexible. A peaceful and successful resolution to a SWAT

operation may require tactics outside of the routine, adaptation made on the fly, and a creative

and psychologically minded approach to callout resolution.

SWAT operators scored lower than negotiators in Planning on the CERQ, and were

higher on the Spontaneous Decision-Making Style on the GDMS. Here is another area in which

these two groups are very different, but each style can be very beneficial in a SWAT operation. It

makes sense that SWAT operators feel a strong sense of immediacy and an interest in getting

through the decision-making process as quickly as possible because action must be taken.

However, if this decision-making style is applied inappropriately, the outcome of an operation

can be disastrous. There are times where the luxury of planning does not exist, but if the situation

allows, a strength of negotiators is making a plan and employing a Rational, and even Intuitive

Decision-Making Style (quick, based on limited information, flexible, and can change as needed
 22

as more information presents itself), with the later not being a common characteristic found in

SWAT operators. Similarly, experienced negotiators also employ a Dependent Decision-Making

Style (looking to others when making a decision) because they are trained to brainstorm together

in order to make the best plan and find the best strategy and resolution. Experienced SWAT

operators and SWAT commanders do not use a Dependent Decision-Making Style. They are not

naturally going to ask for help in making decisions or work with others in decision-making. If

SWAT operators and commanders can make room for these other decision-making styles and the
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

ability to plan, along with relying on the Rational and Spontaneous Decision-Making styles that

come naturally to them, then all the angles in decision-making can be covered and all options

and perspectives can be brought to bear on the situation at hand. Incorporating these other

decision-making styles should be practiced and rehearsed in training because human nature will

take over during callout operations and it will be easy to revert to natural ways of doing business.

Based on the results of this survey, and specifically the correlations found regarding

experienced SWAT operators and the peaceful and successful resolutions of callout operations,

the following characteristics should be considered when interviewing applicants for a SWAT

team. Officers with the Big 5 characteristics Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and who are not

Neurotic, could make excellent SWAT operators. A Rational Decision-Making Style is often

found among experienced operators, a Spontaneous Decision-Making Style is found among

many operators, and an Avoidant or Dependent Decision-Making Style are not commonly found.

Consideration of the strengths and drawbacks of a Spontaneous decision-making style is

encouraged in the on-going training of SWAT operators. Being one who takes action and moves

through the decision-making process as quickly as possible can be both an asset and a detriment
 23

in SWAT operations. In short, it is recommended that SWAT team applicants take the Big 5

Personality Test and the GDMS questionnaire.

A police tactical response to an incident is a dangerous and delicate matter with a diverse

array of moving parts. The current study attempts to fill a void in the current research and

understanding of SWAT team members, and seeks to provide a personality, cognitive-emotional

regulation, and decision-making profile that can help guide the selection of and future training of

SWAT operators. The comparison of the SWAT survey with the results of the survey of hostage
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

negotiators also helps illuminate the personal differences between these groups. Even with these

operational and personal differences, these two distinct groups working in concert are able to

approach life-threatening situations by employing their many different personality, cognitive-

emotion regulation, and decision-making styles. This diversity is a strength when facing such

dynamic and even impossible call-out situations. Command, every SWAT element, and each

negotiator squad must function seamlessly and effectively, and the results of this research hopes

to support the bringing together of these diverse elements for the benefit of all involved in

SWAT operations.
 24

References

Abrahamsen, S., and Strype, J. (2010), “Are they all the same? Norwegian police officers’

personality characteristics and tactics of conflict resolution”, Policing and Society, Vol.

20, pp. 99-123.

Barrick, M. R., and Mount, M. K. (2005), “Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more

important matters”, Human Performance, Vol. 18, pp. 359-372.

Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Beutler, L., Storm, A., Kirkish, P., Scogin, F., and Gaines, J. (1985), “Parameters in the

prediction of police officer performance”, Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, Vol. 16, pp. 324-335.

Beutler, L., Nussbaum, P., and Meredith, K. (1989), “Changing personality patterns of police

Officers”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 19, pp. 503-507.

Black, J. (2000), “Personality testing and police selection: Utility of the ‘Big Five’”, New

Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 2-9.

Cortina, J., Doherty, M., Schmitt, N., Kaufman, G., and Smith, R. (1992), “The ‘Big Five’

personality factors in the IPI and MMPI: Predictors of police performance”, Personnel

Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 119-140.

Costa, P., and McRae, R. (1992), NEO-PI-R professional manual, Psychological Assessment

Resources, Odessa.

Cuttler M., and Muchinsky, P. (2006), “Prediction of law enforcement training performance and

dysfunctional job performance with general mental ability, personality, and life history

variables”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 3-25.

Detrick, P., and Chibnall, J. (2006), “NEO PI-R personality characteristics of high-performing

entry-level police officers”, Psychological Services, Vol. 3, pp. 274-285.

 25

Detrick, P., Chibnall, J., and Luebbert, M. (2004), “The revised NEO personality inventory as

predictor of police academy performance”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 31, pp.

676-94.

Detrick, P., Chibnall, J., and Rosso, M. (2001), “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2

in police officer selection: Normative data and relation to the Inwald Personality

Inventory”, Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, Vol. 32, pp. 484-90.

Garnefski, N., and Kraaij, V. (2007), “Psychometric features and prospective relationships with
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

depression and anxiety in adults”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol.

23, pp. 141-9.

Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., and Spinhoven, P. (2002), Manual for the Use of the Cognitive-

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, Leiderdrop, The Netherlands.

Gosling, S., Rentfrow, P., and Swann, W. (2003), “A very brief measure of the Big-Five

personality domains”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 37, pp. 504-28.

Greenstone, J. (2007), “The twenty-five most serious errors made by police hostage and crisis

Negotiators”, Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, Vol. 7, pp. 107-16.

Grubb, A. (2010), “Modern day hostage (crisis) negotiation: The evolution of an art form within

the policing arena”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 341-8.

Grubb, A., and Brown, S. (2012), “Hostage (crisis) negotiation: The potential role of negotiator

personality, decision-making style, coping style and emotional intelligence on negotiator

success”, International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, Vol. 14, pp. 41-55.

Grubb, A., Brown, S., and Hall, P. (2015), “Personality traits and coping styles in UK police

officers: Do negotiators differ from their non-negotiator colleagues?”, Psychology, Crime

and Law, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 347-74.

 26

Henson, B., Reyns, B., Klahm, C., and Frank, J. (2011), “Do good recruits make good cops?

Problems predicting and measuring academy and street-level success”, Police Quarterly,

Vol. 13, pp. 5-26.

Internet - International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Tactical Officers

Association, “A national assessment of critical trends and issues from 2009 to 2013”,

Retrieved from https://ntoa.org/pdf/swatstudy.pdf

John, P., and Srivastava, S. (1999), “The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

theoretical perspectives”, Pervin, L., and John, O., Handbook of personality: Theory and

research volume 2, Guilford Press, New York.

Judge, T. A. and Ilies, R. (2002), “Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A

meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 797-807.

Kornfeld, A. (1995), “Police officer candidate MMPI-2 performance: Gender, ethnic, and

normative factors”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 536-40.

Kraska, P., and Paulsen, D. (1997), “Grounded research into U.S. paramilitary policing: Forging

the iron fist inside the velvet glove”, Policing and Society, Vol. 7, pp. 253-270.

Lanceley, F. (2004), “Negotiation lessons learned by an FBI hostage negotiator”, The Negotiator

Magazine, December, pp. 1-6.

Lau, B., Hem, E., Berg, A., Ekeberg, O., and Torgersen, S. (2006), “Personality types, coping,

and stress in the Norwegian police service”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.

41, pp. 971-82.

Lester, D., Babcock, S., Cassisi, J., Genz, J., and Butler, A. (1980), “The personalities of English

and American police”, The Journal of Social Psychology, pp. 153-154.

 27

Marques-Quinteiro, P., Curral, L., Passos, A., and Lewis, K. (2013), “And now what do we do?

The role of transactive memory systems and task coordination in action teams”, Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 194-206.

McMains, M. and Mullins, W. (2014), Crisis negotiations: Managing critical incidents and

hostage situations in law enforcement and corrections, 5th Edition, Anderson Publishing,

Cincinnati, OH.

Sanders, B. (2003), “Maybe there’s no such thing as a ‘good cop’: Organizational challenges in
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

selecting quality officers”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and

Management, Vol. 26, pp. 314-328.

Sanders, B. (2007), “Using personality traits to predict police officer performance”, Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 31, pp. 129-147.

Scott, S. and Bruce, R. (1995), “Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a

new measure”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55, pp. 818-31.

Vecchi, G., Van Hasselt, V., and Romano, S. (2005), “Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current

strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution”, Aggression and Violent Behavior,

Vol. 10, pp. 533-51.

Young, A. (2016), “Police Hostage (Crisis) Negotiators in the US: A National Survey”, Journal

of Police and Criminal Psychology, pp. 1-12.

Biographies

Dr. Andrew Young has been a professor in Behavioral Sciences at Lubbock Christian University

since 1996. He has worked with the Lubbock police department since 2000 and is the

coordinator and a founding member of the Lubbock Police Department’s Victims Services Crisis
 28

Team. He is also a SWAT Negotiator with the Lubbock Police Department and Lubbock County

Sheriff’s Office. He has published a book about this work called Fight or Flight: Negotiating

Crisis on the Frontline, has published research on the topics of crisis intervention and hostage

negotiating, and has spoken at many professional and academic conferences on related topics.

Dr. Chris Hennington is an Associate professor in Behavioral Sciences at Lubbock Christian

University since 2003. He is a certified school counselor and licensed professional counselor
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

supervisor. He is the program coordinator for Counseling at LCU and director of the School

Counselor program. He engages in multi-disciplinary research in various areas including

counseling, psychology, education, biology and chemistry.

Mr. S. Dane Eggleston grew up in El Paso, Texas and lived there until he graduated high school

and attended Lubbock Christian University. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology

with a minor in Family Studies, he went on to Abilene Christian University (ACU) for his

Masters in Marriage and Family Therapy. He will graduate from ACU in August 2017, and from

there he plans on getting his Ph.D. He has also been a member of the Lubbock Police

Department’s Victim Services Crisis Team since 2014.

 1

Table I. SWAT Survey Demographic Information

Gender Marital Status Ethnicity Rank

Male = 272 Married = 220 (80.6%) Caucasian = 213 (85.9%) Ofc./Dep. = 110 (40.1%)

Female = 1 Unmarried = 53 (19.4%) Hispanic = 12 (4.5%) Senior Ofc. = 39 (14.2%)

Left Blank = 4 Left Blank = 4 Black = 11 (4.1%) Corporal = 18 (6.6%)

Asian = 3 (1.1%) Sergeant = 55 (20.1%)

Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Other = 5 (1.9%) Lieutenant = 20 (7.3%)

Left Blank = 33 Captain = 3 (1.1%)

Chief = 1 (.4%)

Detective = 22 (8%)

K-9 = 2 (.7%)

Special Agent = 1 (.4%)

Left Blank = 6
 2

Table II. SWAT Experience and Callout Experience

Years on SWAT Callout Experience

0 to 6 Years = 51 (18.5%) No Callout Experience = 6 (2.3%)

6 to 11 Years = 69 (24.8%) 1 to 20 SWAT Callouts = 100 (35.3%)

11 to 16 Years = 78 (28.1%) 21 to 40 SWAT Callouts = 39 (14%)

16 to 36 Years = 79 (28.5%) 41 or more SWAT Callouts = 132 (47.5%)

Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)
 3

Table III. SWAT Scores on the Big 5, CERQ, and GDMS

Minimum Maximum Mean (SD) N

Big Five

Extraversion 2.00 5.00 3.52 (.653) 276

Agreeable 2.33 5.00 3.86 (.546) 276
Conscient. 3.00 5.00 4.31 (.450) 276
Neurotic 1.00 3.88 2.05 (.546) 276
Open 2.00 4.60 3.42 (.468) 276
Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

CERQ

Self-Blame 3 18 8.70 (2.68) 273

Acceptance 4 19 10.76 (3.03) 273
Rumination 2 17 8.27 (2.70) 273
Pos. Refocus. 2 17 8.84 (2.86) 273
Planning 4 20 12.97 (3.22) 273
Reappraisal 4 20 14.49 (3.26) 273
Perspective 2 20 11.85 (3.47) 273
Catastrophizing 3 15 6.53 (2.33) 273
Other-Blame 0 18 4.15 (4.22) 274

GDMS

Rational 10 25 19.34 (2.77) 274

Intuitive 5 24 17.26 (2.76) 274
Dependent 6 23 14.82 (3.02) 274
Avoidant 4 19 8.90 (3.23) 274
Spontaneous 5 21 12.93 (3.22) 274
 4

Table IV. SWAT, Negotiator, and Patrol Officer Survey Demographic Information

Gender Marital Status Ethnicity Rank

Male = 738 (85.7%) Married = 666 (77.3%) Cauc. = 666 (75%) Ofc./Dep. = 375 (43%)

Female = 123 (14.3%) Unmarried = 196 (22.7%) Hisp. = 69 (8.3%) Sen. Ofc. = 63 (7.3%)

Left Blank = 2 Left Blank = 1 Black = 59 (6.8%) Corporal = 47 (5.5%)

Other = 35 (4%) Sergeant = 181 (21%)

Downloaded by Kent State University At 13:30 15 March 2018 (PT)

Left Blank = 34 Lt. = 48 (5.6%)

Captain = 9 (1%)

Det. = 113 (13.2%)

Other = 27 (3.4%)