ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: WHEN “TOUGH” COPS DIVERT AND “SOFT” COPS CHARGE: TRAIT ATTITUDES VS. STATE SITUATIONAL NARRATIVES IN A FOCAL CONCERNS PROCESS OF POLICE DECISION-MAKING Molly P. Slothower, Doctor of Philosophy, 2019 Dissertation directed by: Distinguished Professor Dr. Lawrence Sherman, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland Research Question Do police officers’ overall “tough” or “soft” attitudes toward crime and defendants determine how they handle discretionary cases, or does each officer look at the elements in each case to see whether they should act “tough” or “soft” in the given situation? This study tests whether police decisions to divert cases from prosecution into diversionary out-of-court disposals are driven by “trait attitudes”—each officer’s overall “tough” or “soft” attitudes toward defendants, which are stable characteristics of each officer regardless of the situation—versus officers’ “state attitudes”—their narratives about the meaning of specific elements present in each case as they make decisions. Methods Thirty-four officers in a large urban force completed attitudinal surveys and 20 case study vignettes. For each vignette, officers recorded: each relevant element (e.g. criminal history, alcohol involvement); whether each element pushed them toward prosecution or diversion, and why; and whether they would prosecute or divert the case. Officers recorded 2,241 elements across 645 case responses. Using primarily hierarchical logistic regression models, this study tests the impact of trait attitudes versus state narratives on recommended case outcomes. Results Officer decision-making was more influenced by officers’ interpretations of whether elements signaled each defendant was “reformable” or “incorrigible” than by their overall “tough” or “soft” attitudes. Officers often disagreed on how they interpreted the same elements in the same cases, leading to different outcomes. State narratives were strong predictors in most models regardless of officers’ overall attitudes, including predicting diversion. Trait attitudes had little or no impact in most models, except for one subset of officers—officers in the “toughest” quartile of attitudes were more likely to perceive defendants as incorrigible and less likely to divert. Implications This study provides evidence against the theory that officers are primarily driven by their overall attitudes toward defendants, and instead suggests their narratives interpreting case elements are important drivers of differences between officers in decision-making—officers try to pick the “correct” outcome in each case using these narratives. Therefore, research and police departments should explore officers’ interpretation of situational elements, and test mechanisms to provide feedback regarding accuracy of assumptions. WHEN “TOUGH” COPS DIVERT AND “SOFT” COPS CHARGE: TRAIT ATTITUDES VS. STATE SITUATIONAL NARRATIVES IN A FOCAL CONCERNS PROCESS OF POLICE DECISION-MAKING by Molly P. Slothower Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2019 Advisory Committee: Professor Lawrence Sherman, Chair Professor Greg Midgette Professor Laura Dugan Professor Lauren Porter Professor Ritu Agarwal © Copyright by Molly P. Slothower 2019 Dedication To my Dad. ii Table of Contents Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1: Introduction: Understanding Police Decisions.................................................. 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 7 2.1. Background: The Study of Police Discretion ........................................................ 7 2.2. Focal Concerns .................................................................................................... 18 2.3. Weighing Pros and Cons ..................................................................................... 24 2.4. Proposed Model: Expanding a Focal Concerns Process Theory on Police Decision-Making ................................................................................................. 29 Chapter 3: Methods ........................................................................................................... 35 3.1. Sample ................................................................................................................. 37 3.2. Selection of Vignette Case Studies ..................................................................... 39 3.3. Measures .............................................................................................................. 43 3.4. Analysis ............................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 67 4.1. Descriptive Analysis ............................................................................................ 67 4.2. Modeling Trait and State Factors ........................................................................ 82 4.3. Qualitative Exploration of Officer Reasoning ..................................................... 92 Chapter 5: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 163 5.1. Unpacking the Officer Decision to Divert ........................................................ 163 5.2. Limitations ......................................................................................................... 179 5.3. Theoretical and Policy Implications .................................................................. 182 Appendices .......................................................................................................................188 Appendix A – Correlations Between Variables .........................................................188 Appendix B – Survey Instrument ..............................................................................189 Appendix C – Table 3 Full Fixed vs. Mixed Effects Models ....................................234 Appendix D – Hypothesis 1-5 Models.......................................................................235 References ....................................................................................................................... 243 iii List of Tables Table 1: Level/Type Vignette Combinations .................................................................... 42 Table 2: Element Category Codes .................................................................................... 48 Table 3: Predicting Overall Recommendation of Diversion, Fixed vs. Mixed Effects Model ........................................................................................................................ 57 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................... 68 Table 5: Officer recommended outcomes for each case ................................................... 69 Table 6: Percent of Vignette Case Responses in Which Each Element Category Pushes the Officer Toward Charge vs. Diversion, out of All Cases in Which the Element Is Mentioned ................................................................................................................. 73 Table 7: Percent of Vignette Case Responses Officers Ultimately Recommended for Diversion or Recommended for Charge, out of All Cases in Which the Officer Mentioned that Element Pushed that Officer in the Same Direction ........................ 73 Table 8: Degree of Agreement on Whether Each Element Is Relevant in a Given Case . 74 Table 9: Degree of Agreement on Whether Each Element Pushes Toward Diversion or Charge ....................................................................................................................... 74 Table 10: Percent of Case Responses Recommended for Diversion in Each Quartile of Officers by ATP Score .............................................................................................. 75 Table 11: Percent of Case Responses with Mention of Incorrigibility or Reformability by ATP Quartile ............................................................................................................. 77 Table 12: Odds Ratios of Trait Variables Predicting Mention of State Attitudes ............ 82 Table 13: Odds Ratios of Trait Factors Predicting Mention of Elements ......................... 84 Table 14: Predicting Overall Sum of Case Focal Concerns Salience ............................... 86 Table 15: Exp(b) Predicting Perception of High or Low Salience for Each Element ...... 87 Table 16: Odds Ratios Predicting Recommendation of Diversion ................................... 90 Table 17: Odds Ratios Predicting Recommendation of Diversion by Heuristic Type ..... 91 Table 18: Hypothesis Testing