Police Psychology

Posted by permission of Dr. Thomas O’Connor. Copyright by T. O’Connor.

“Police officers have to be a ‘lawyer, scientist, medic, psychologist, athlete, and public servant’.” Ramsey Clark

The application of psychology to law enforcement and public safety is a rapidly growing area increasingly recognized as vital to many aspects of police work and the academic study of policing. However, the field suffers from something of an identity complex. British authors like to call it “applied psychology” (Ainsworth 2002), and in other parts of the world, whenever a psychologist helps the police, it is called “occupational psychology” (Brown & Campbell 1994). Whenever the distinctive phrase “police psychology” is used, it is usually by people like Bartol (1996; 2004) and others (Chandler 1990) who are recognizing the pioneer Dr. Martin Reiser (Reiser 1972; 1982; Reiser & Klyver 1987) as America’s first police psychologist, and who was hired by the LAPD full-time in 1968. Other psychologists may have worked with police before Reiser’s time, but records of their contributions have been lost in history and/or they were most likely part-time consultants. In 1971, NYPD police officer Harvey Schlossberg became the first known police officer to have earned a doctorate in psychology and to have become NYPD’s first police psychologist (Reese 1995). Most big-city and some medium-sized police departments have a full-time police psychologist on staff today, but they are far outnumbered by the vast majority of psychologists who work part-time for police departments.

Dr. Martin Reiser, America’s First Police Psychologist

Dr. Martin Reiser, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, in addition to his usual counseling and testing duties as a police psychologist, is probably best remembered for having carried out the most extensive studies on so-called “police psychics” and finding absolutely no evidence they helped solve a case (Reiser 1994). In fact, he blew the whistle on some of the parlor tricks psychics use. To this day, most police departments will listen politely to psychics who voluntarily offer information on a case, but will under no circumstances let them get involved with a case. Dr. Reiser also is known for his “retrieval theory” in hypnosis, and practically invented the field of forensic hypnosis, which looked like it was going to become a police specialty area in the early 1980s until the fateful State v. Brown decision in 1983, in which he testified as an expert witness. You see, Dr. Reiser claimed it was better for police officers to carry out the hypnosis of witnesses during an investigation to produce “hypnosis enhanced” testimony, but the courts have distinguished between “hypnotically induced recollection” (which is largely inadmissible and involves a significant change from their pre-hypnosis recollection), and “hypnotically-refreshed testimony” (which is admissible in some states such as New Jersey and New Mexico on grounds it does not significantly alter prior testimony). Dr. Reiser was also a pioneer in the area of police stress and the techniques now known as Critical Incident Stress Debriefing.

PERSONNEL SELECTION

The oldest known usage of psychology in policing was for mental testing, which was soon followed by personality testing (Bartol & Bartol 2004). During the early 20th Century, several prominent psychologists tested the intelligence of police officers. For example, the well-known psychologist Louis Terman in 1917 found that the average IQ of some California officers was only 80, and for many years, 80 was the IQ cutoff for being able to be hired in a public safety job. The psychologist Louis Thurstone in 1922 found some Michigan officers with an average IQ of 71, and other studies found officers with IQs as low as 55. All this led to the “high IQ” or “college cop” movement started by August Vollmer in police history and lasted from 1921-1943 with mixed success. Women and blacks actually found some of their first jobs in policing because their IQs were higher than most white applicants and employees. According to Poland (1978), it wasn’t until the late 1960s or early 1970s when most police officers achieved at least an average score; i.e., an IQ of 100, on intelligence tests. Intelligence testing today is still quite controversial, with some studies saying that IQ only helps with academy performance, but the majority of studies saying IQ tests do have some predictive utility for field performance (Bartol & Bartol 2004).

Personality testing was urged by the many Crime Commissions which were formed in the 1960s. An organization known as LEAA (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration) provided funds which infused police work with the ability to hire psychologists. From 1969-1978, LEAA was the largest bureaucratic agency in U.S. government, and what’s left of it is the NCJRS (National Criminal Justice Reference Service). At first, police departments only appeared to be using personality testing to appease the public, and by far, the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) was the most frequently used test (Murphy 1972). This was eventually followed by other testing instruments, for which a list appears below, but it should be noted that little consensus exists over which test is most useful for personnel purposes. It should also be noted that one must be a licensed psychologist, have a graduate degree in psychology, or have had some psychometric training to administer these tests.

• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Revised (MMPI-2)

• Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI)

• California Psychological Inventory (CPI)

• Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)

• NEO Personality Inventory – Revised (NEO PI-R)

• Sixteen Personality Factor – Fifth Edition (16-PF)

The Variety of Personality Tests

1. The MMPI-2 contains 567 multiple choice items, and is the most-used and most-studied test. It was designed to discover abnormal or pathological traits, but shows promise with predictive validity for other purposes.
2. The IPI contains 310 true-false items, and is used in about 12% of police departments. It was designed to predict normal as well as deviant job performance patterns, and has high face validity.
3. The CPI contains 462 true-false items, and is used in about 25% of police departments. It was designed to measure normal personality traits, and rather consistently predicts style of interpersonal behavior.
4. The PAI contains 344 four-point scale items with self-contained validity measures. It was designed to detect serious psychopathological disorders as well as some characterological disorders.
5. The NEO PI-R contains 240 five-point scale items and measures differences in personality traits based upon a five-factor model of personality. To what extent it measures police performance is largely unknown.
6. The 16-PF contains 185 three-point scale items, and is used by about 19% of police departments. It detects bipolar differences among sixteen factors of personality, and is popular for its on-line administration format.

The typical psychologist involved with personnel selection would use personality test results to assist selection boards to either “screen-in” or “screen-out” applicants for police work, with the understanding that these results would not be used as the sole criterion for selection (Talley & Hinz 1990). “Screening-in” usually refers to predicting who will be above-average employees, and “screening-out” usually refers to predicting who will be below-average employees. Most personality testing under such circumstances is, unfortunately, aimed at “screening-out” those with such severe, maladaptive personality traits that those applicants are deemed “unsuitable” for police work (Hiatt & Hargrave 1988). However, the academic research on the subject can be easily divided into those studies which examine the personality traits of “unsatisfactory” officers and those studies which examine the traits of “superior” officers. It should be noted that the terms used here; i.e., “unsatisfactory,” “superior,” etc., are oversimplifications of the actual personality types (for which there are many) found in the research literature and vary somewhat by convention depending upon which psychological test is used.

Regarding the unsatisfactory officer, Bartol (1982), among others (e.g. Hiatt & Hargrave 1988), have found that police applicants who consistently score low on personality tests AND are later involved in misconduct, accidents, deadly force, and/or resignation tend to fall into one of two (2) groups:

• antisocial personality — characterized by narcissism, suspiciousness, cynicism, tough-mindedness, insensitivity, defensiveness, rigidity, irritability, resentfulness, sensation seeking and hyperactivity

• ineffectual personality — characterized by indecisiveness, introversion, dependency, cautiousness, oversensitivity, and tended to be quiet individuals who went through the motions and failed to make a difference on the street

Regarding the superior officer, Bartol (1982), among others (e.g. Azen et al. 1974; Mills & Bohannon 1980) have found that police applicants who score the “best” on personality tests AND are later evaluated by their supervisors and peers as superior police officers tend to have the following personality traits:

• superior personality — bright, assertive, autonomous, self-assured, responsible, level-headed, achievement-oriented, accepting of society’s values and standards, has fewer problems with authority and supervision, and is generally more guarded about self-revelation than unsuccessful officers. In addition, the superior officer tends to be less tense, anxious or worrisome, recovers more quickly from stress and threat, and demonstrates better social skills in dealing with the public.

To be useful, a personality test in law enforcement should have an alpha coefficient of .69 or higher, and because many psychological tests either fail to reach this benchmark or have high levels of predictive validity, some police departments have turned to an alternative method of personnel selection — the assessment center — sometimes called “situational testing” or “stress interviewing.” Briefly, an assessment center method involves the role playing of actual job simulations to judge the “in character” actions of the candidate. There is tremendous variation in length, time, and selection of exercises, but the most common task is to have the candidate pretend they are working the front desk of a police department and then have all sorts of a walk-in “crisis” occur. Psychologists are NOT normally much involved in these methods, but they should be, since it is unwise to rely upon the judgments of police officers as the sole observers. Assessment centers are most frequently used to select candidates for promotion in the police ranks, but one occasionally hears of their use as a variation on oral board exams or as an alternative to polygraphs in screening entry-level candidates.

Personality testing is also sometimes used to identify corruption-prone officers, and the online version of the 1992 PERSEREC Study is illustrative of such efforts. This study looked at the correlations between personality traits, as measured by four instruments (the MMPI-2, IPI, 16-PF, and CPI), and employees who were forced to resign, were fired, disciplined, or prosecuted. While the overall results were not promising for a sole testing approach to root out corruption, the following are some personality traits which had high correlation:

Prior occupation, in the PERSEREC Study, appeared to exhibit some influence over a employee’s willingness to participate in acts of corruption. Occupational categories dominated by the non-corrupt employees included military (55%), police (55%), clerical (57%) and management (60%). Corrupt employees were more prevalent in categories such as security (55%), construction (72%), food service (71%), driver/delivery (60%) and manual laborer (88%).

POLICE COUNSELING

A common, everyday function for the police psychologist is police counseling. In the vast majority of departments, police officers usually receive free, in-house counseling as often as they need it, and confidentiality is sometimes an issue, so external sources for counseling are sometimes obtained. Some 55% of police departments use in-house counseling (Delprino & Bahn 1988), and a few departments have the position of chaplain who also does counseling. The job of “police counselor” can be filled by someone with a degree in social work (or a related field), but a master’s in psychology is frequently preferred. Duties include being available for crisis situations on a 24-hour basis, research and development of police training programs, providing advisory assistance in personnel management, crisis intervention including suicidology and post-trauma, stress management, and referral of departmental personnel and their families to sources of counseling for specialized or long-term treatment.

Police stress is perhaps the most common problem a police psychologist deals with, although a variety of other problems exist, ranging fromcompassion fatigue to marital problems to alcoholism to suicide. PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) or burnout (sometimes called cumulative stress reaction) are common, as is “burst stress”, which means that there is no steady stressor. Officers go from periods of complete calm to periods of high activity in sudden bursts, much like a military “hurry up and wait” drill. The Heavy Badge web site has a good explanation of burst stress. Sometimes good stress (eustress) is just as bad, if not worse, than bad stress. The families of police officers also suffer stress, a kind of vicarious occupational stress. The unpredictability, shiftwork, fear (of death, injury, kidnapping), isolation, and low pay all cause family problems. Children of officers are held to higher standards by the community, spouses are often at odds in figuring out how to communicate with one another, and both groups must deflect the never-ending stream of public inquiry whenever the police department is in the news. Relationships in police families are often distant and alienative (NIJ 1991).

The stressors of police work have been the subject of much effort at categorization. For example:

• Stressors Internal to the Police Organization: Poor Supervision (too lenient/too tough); Absence of Upward Mobility; Absence of an Extrinsic Reward System; Offensive (annoying & silly) Policies and Procedures; Excessive Paperwork; and Poor Equipment.

• Stressors External to the Police Organization: Absence of Career Development & Lateral Entry; Jurisdictional Turf Battles; an Ineffective Criminal Justice System; Biased Press; Minority Attitudes; Derogatory Remarks; Political Interference; and Lack of Community Resources/Referral Agencies.

• Stressors Task-related to Police Work: Role Conflict and Strain; Rotating Shiftwork; Fear & Danger; Relinquishing Cases to the Detective Division; Victim Pain & Anguish; and Employee Review Boards.

• Stressors Associated with Personal Problems: Marital and family relationships, health problems, addictions, peer group pressure, depression, discrimination, harassment, and lack of accomplishment.

The history of employee assistance programs is informative:

• Traditional Programs — (1950 era) The supervisory attitude was to (1) ignore it; (2) assign the employee to a desk job; (3) refer the employee to Alcoholic’s Anonymous; or (4) refer the employee to the Chaplain. Unfortunately, most paper-pushing desk jobs these days are being taken over by civilians.

• EAP Officers — (1960 era) A staff person, usually the Public Information Officer, would be in charge of granting employees, who requested it, a sick leave with no questions asked (and no pay while on leave). The employee assistance person would refer the officer to some outside mental health agency or counselor.

• In-House Stress Units — (1970 era) A staff person, usually in conjunction with a union official, would meet with the employee to attempt some resolution, mediation, or arbitration of the problem. The idea was to turn stressed employees into change agents. Sometimes, an outside counselor would be brought in, but this was usually for debriefing purposes after some major incident. Often, the unit would also be responsible for conducting stress seminars within the department, but again, this was sometimes contracted out.

• Ministry Programs — (1980 era) Employees would be assigned/referred to a victim survivor group, a police officer support group of some kind like Concerns of Police Survivors, a chaplain’s group, a church-sponsored retreat, or some other kind of religion-, group-based program. Rarely were these programs used exclusively, but the notion of pastoral counseling was something that caught on during this time period.

• Critical Incident Stress Debriefing or CISD — (1990 era) Critical incidents include line-of-duty deaths, suicide of a co-worker, death of a child, failed rescue attempts, mass casualty incidents, and where victim is known to responder. A critical incident is presumed to be a precursor for PTSS if not responded to within 24-48 hours by a debriefing team usually consisting of one mental health professional or a member of the clergy and one to three peer support personnel. Visitthis site for an overview of what CISD is all about.

FITNESS FOR DUTY ASSESSMENT

Certain kinds of psychological assessments are done as a matter of standard procedure with some aspects of police work. For example, SWAT team members and officers working undercover, narcotics, vice, or internal affairs are frequently required to undergo some sort of periodic psychological assessment to ensure they are “fit” to continue working in these high-stress positions. Normally, these assessments are done on a yearly basis, and typically consist of little more than an interview, although methods vary, and little has been written on the psychological services needed or effective for special police units.

Assessment is also automatically done after any police officer shoots a person in the line of duty. The kind of psychological service provided here is generally of a more long-term and continuously-monitored nature, since the emotional complex which occurs after a shooting is called Post-Shooting Traumatic Reaction (PSTR). The symptoms include a heightened sense of danger, anger, sleep difficulties, isolation/withdrawal, and flashbacks (Bartol & Bartol 2004). Officers may be angry at the person they shot, their department, their colleagues, or society at general for putting them in a position of having to shoot someone. Employees involved in shooting incidents frequently have to take a leave of absence and/or get assigned to “administrative duties.” The psychologist sometimes plays a role in determining if such an employee is ready to re-assume their normal duties. More and more police departments are experimenting with peer group counseling for shooting (critical) incidents.

A full-blown Fitness-For-Duty Evaluation (FFDE) is the most extensive and specialized set of psychological services a police psychologist can provide. An FFDE can usually be ordered by any upper-rank employee on a lower-rank employee whenever the lower-rank employee engages in “suspicious” behavior which raises serious questions about whether they are fit to carry out public safety work. It is the typical way many police departments handle it when an employee receives too many excessive force complaints from the public, although Stone (1995) found that only 19% of departments admitted using FFDE in this fashion.

The full work-up required by an FFDE involves an intensive background investigation, a battery of psychological tests, frequent mental status exams, the collection of testimonials by fellow officers, follow-up on citizen complaints, examination of medical records, and an internal affairs investigation. Because they are so intrusive, most police unions and professional associations have gone on record saying Fitness-for-Duty evaluations should be used with care. At least one model policy and IACP guidelines sets the following criteria:

• one or more citizen complaints regarding excessive force, inappropriate verbal conduct, or inability to exercise self control and self discipline

• abrupt and negative change in customary behavior

• irrational verbal conduct or behaviors, including delusions and hallucinations

• suicidal statements or behaviors, or personal expressions of mental instability

• unexplained and excessive tiredness or hyperactivity

• dramatic change in eating patterns, sudden weight loss or gain, diagnosis of life threatening disorder

• change in attention to personal hygiene and health

• inappropriate use of alcohol, medications or other drugs, including symptoms of illegal drug use

• memory losses

• impatience or impulsiveness, especially with loss of temper

• inability to defuse tense situations, or tendency to escalate situations and create confrontations

• unexplained and inappropriate excessive lateness or absenteeism

• any other factor or combinations of factors that causes a supervisor to reasonably suspect that a fitness for duty evaluation may be necessary

It should be noted that Fitness-for-Duty assessments not only apply to sworn police officers, but to unsworn personnel, such as dispatchers, administrative assistants, and other civilians who may work for the police department. Although the examination process is not disciplinary in nature, it will be perceived that way, unfortunately, and the psychologist is often put in the tough position of having to both “compell and counsel” completion of the process, since serious disciplinary consequences are at stake for refusal to cooperate with the process (Fischler 2001).

HOSTAGE NEGOTIATION

Approximately 40% of police departments use psychologists as consultants, advisors, or (less frequently) as full-time members of a crisis/hostage negotiation team (Hatcher et al. 1998). Clinical psychologists with a Ph.D., or (less frequently) licensed psychologists with a Masters degree are typically used, as opposed to psychiatrists, social workers, or other mental health professionals. It is a known fact that by using psychologists, police departments can significantly reduce the number of incidents resulting in injury or death (Butler et al. 1993). The on-scene psychologist in a crisis/hostage situation would be expected to profile and assess the hostage-taker, determine their motivation, vulnerabilities, and dangerousness, suggest dialogue strategies or psychological tactics which would defuse the situation, and spend equal time analyzing which hostages might engage in behaviors that diminish or enhance their chances for survival. Some 50% of all hostage-takers suffer from a mental disorder (Borum & Strentz 1993), and analysis of the hostages is important not just because of Stockholm syndrome possibilities, but because in many cases, the hostage taker has one of the hostages do the talking for them during negotiations. A top-notch hostage negotiator will be able to advise police on whether the nature of the hostage taker’s mental illness or their personal sense of life crisis is such that they are attempting to commit “suicide by cop.” A determination along these lines will have life-or-death consequences, and may get the situation over with quickly since a police commander will likely order snipers to take the first available shot. A few good hostage negotiators also participate in the debriefing sessions held for the victims or former hostages once released. As the dynamics change depending upon how long the incident lasted, so do the types of debriefings provided for victims.

Today’s typical “third generation” (Bartol & Bartol 2004) crisis/hostage teams usually consist of at least five (5) personnel:

• the primary negotiator (the primary talker)

• the secondary negotiator (monitors negotiations and makes suggestions)

• the intelligence officer (seeks and organizes incoming information)

• the psychologist (usually serving as consultant or advisor)

• the tactical liaison (maintains communications with SWAT and command)

The psychologist is usually only allowed to be the primary negotiator (do the talking) about 7% of the time (Fuselier 1988), as police departments generally prefer to have someone with many years of law enforcement experience fulfill that primary role. This means that the primary negotiator will usually be a senior police officer or a retired officer who perhaps has, at best, a masters degree in criminal justice or some other field. There are exceptions to this, of course, depending upon the circumstances and in other cases where the psychologist is allowed to pick their own team. There are circumstances in which a female should be the primary negotiator (and may simply be a social worker or some kind of mental health professional), and there are specialized situations calling for someone who knows how to deal with a specific terrorist group. Some of the world’s best hostage negotiators don’t work for police departments at all, but work for executive protection firms or private insurance companies as part of the emergency evacuation insurance that Americans usually purchase when they travel oversees.

Federal government agencies and foreign government entities also usually have hostage negotiation teams. These teams are usually larger than what most police departments have. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons maintains 15 members in SORT (Special Operations and Response Teams), and there are about 45 SORTs nationwide. Each branch of the military also has special operations units trained in hostage negotiation. Much of contemporary hostage negotiation training today is focused on antiterrorism, with one of today’s hottest controversies being whether or not the terrorist hostage-taker should be negotiated with. The terrorist is only one of four types who usually take hostages, and although typologies can be found in the literature with as many as six types (which include the riot situation and the situationally rash, non-criminal offender), the following is the most commonly-reproduced typology of hostage-takers in criminal justice textbooks:

• political activist or terrorist (their causes and demands are beyond control of negotiator)

• prisoners who have grievances (their plan is usually to “talk” to someone in the press)

• criminals who have been cornered (they usually want “escape” but are easily neutralized)

• individuals with mental disorders (they are often worn-down or talked-down)

A typical (short) hostage scenario: From the hostage’s standpoint, the first 15 to 45 minutes are the most dangerous because this is when the hostage-takers are still going through a panic reaction. This is when most hostages get injured or killed, either because they tried to be a hero, made some remark or suggestion, stood out in some symbolic way, or were just picked at random to make a point. Unless the hostage-takers are under the influence of some chemical stimulant, they will “calm down” after awhile, appear to be exhausted, and tell everyone to get some rest. Hostages will be traded for food, drink, and/or toilet facilities, and these “escapees” will be interviewed for what they observed (i.e., numbers, weapons, routine, chain of command). Sleep may occur, and this is not uncommon, especially when there is a small number of perpetrators or a solo suspect who has had to handle all the details alone. Authorities will be using surveillance devices to tell when everyone falls asleep, and you’d be surprised how many incidents come to an end when authorities awaken everybody with the perpetrator in handcuffs. From the hostage-taker’s standpoint, being arrested while asleep is a face-saving tactic.

OTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES

Psychologists may be used on a consulting basis to help police departments comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and/or comply with other federal laws or court mandates regarding racial or gender discrimination. A psychologist may be involved, for example, in helping determine if a reasonable accomodation can be found within the workplace allowing someone with a handicap or disability to work as a police officer. Also, a psychologist may be hired to help determine if a certain police procedure is racist or sexist, although other than helping to determine if fairness exists in testing, that would be a fairly rare role for the psychologist to fill.

Sometimes, a psychologist is used in policing to help police try to obtain a confession from a suspect, or in other words, to help tailor the methods and techniques of interrogation to the personality and style of the suspect. However, this is the type of psychological service usually provided in investigative psychology, the topic of a subsequent lecture. Bartol & Bartol (2004) make a good argument, however, for the role of police psychology in helping out police training about the dangers of false confession.

False confession can occur for a variety of reasons, ranging from the suspect feeling “overpowered” by police questioning to someone who is “psychologically vulnerable” admitting to something they didn’t do. Kassin’s (1997) typology is probably the most-reproduced list of false confession types, and appears below:

• voluntary confessors — seekers of fame or recognition; usually come forward in celebrity cases

• coerced-compliant — suspect confesses to just get the police interrogation over with

• coerced-internalized — people who come forward out of guilt, and really believe they did it

The above illustrates some of the many types that police departments come in contact with, and psychologists in policing can be of service in dealing with such types and more.

REFERENCES
Aamodt, M. (2004). Research in Law Enforcement Selection. Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker Press.

Arrigo, B. (2000). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Issues andControversies in Crime and Justice. NY: Academic Press.

Azen, S., Snibbe, H., Montgomery, H., Fabricatore, J., & Earle, H. (1974). “Predictors of Resignation and Performance of Law Enforcement Officers.” American Journal of Community Psychology 2:79-86.

Ainsworth, P. (2002). Psychology and Policing. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.

Bartol, C. (1982). “Psychological Characteristics of Small Town Police Officers.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 10:58-63.

Bartol, C. (1996). “Police Psychology: Then, Now, and Beyond.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 23, 70–89.

Bartol, C. & Bartol, A. (2004). Introduction to Forensic Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blau, T. (1994). Psychological Services for Law Enforcement. NY: Wiley.

Borum, R. & Strentz, T. (1993). “The Borderline Personality: Negotiation Strategies.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (April): 6-10.

Brewer, N. & Wilson, C. (Eds.) (1995). Psychology and Policing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, J. & Campbell, E. (1994). Stress and Policing: Sources and Strategies. NY: Wiley.

Butler, W., Leitenberg, H. & Fuselier, G. (1993). “The Use of Mental Health Professional Consultants to Police Hostage Negotiation Teams.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 11: 213-221.

Chandler, J. (1990). Modern Police Psychology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Delprino, R. & Bahn, C. (1988). “National Survey of the Extent and Nature of Psychological Services in Police Departments.” Professional Psychology 19:421-425.

Fischler, G. (2001). “Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Examinations.” Illinois Law Enforcement Executive Forum 1: 77-92.

Fuselier, G. (1988). “Hostage Negotiation Consultant: Emerging Role for the Clinical Psychologist.” Professional Psychology 19:175-179,

Hatcher, C., Mohandie, K., Turner, J. & Gelles, M. (1998). “The Role of the Psychologist in Crisis/Hostage Negotiations.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 16: 455-472.

Hiatt, D., & Hargrave, G. (1988). “Predicting Job Performance Problems with Psychological Screening.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 16:122-125.

Kassin, S. (1997). “The Psychology of False Confession.” American Psychologist 52: 221-233.

Kurke, M. & Scrivner, E. (Eds.) (1995). Police Psychology into the 21st Century. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lanceley, F. (2003). On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators, 2e. Brookfield, CT: Rothstein Associates.

Mills, C., & Bohannon, W. (1980). “Personality Characteristics of Effective State Police Officers.” Journal of Applied Psychology 65: 680-684.

Murphy, J. (1972). “Current Practices in the Use of Psychological Testing by Police Agencies.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 63: 570-576.

National Institute of Justice. (1991). On the Front Lines: Police Stress & Family Well-Being. Wash DC:US GPO.

Poland, J. (1978). “Police Selection Methods and the Prediction of Police Performance.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 6: 374-393.

Ramsland, K. (2002). The Criminal Mind: A Writer’s Guide to Forensic Psychology. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books. [author’s website]

Reese, J. & Goldstein, H. (Eds.) (1986). Psychological Services for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

Reese, J. (1995). “A History of Police Psychological Services.” Pp. 31-44 in M. Kurke, & E. Scrivner (eds.). Police Psychology into the 21st Century. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reiser, M. (1972). The Police Psychologist. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Reiser, M. (1982). Police Psychology: Collected Papers. Los Angeles: Lehi Publishing.

Reiser, M. (1983). “A Reply: The Abuse of Hypnosis in the Legal System.” American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 1982-83 Vol. III: 81-84.

Reiser, M. & Klyver, N. (1987). “Consulting with Police.” In J. Weiner & A. Hess (eds.) Handbook of Forensic Psychology. NY: Wiley.

Reiser, M. (1994). “An Evaluation of the Use of Psychics in the Investigation of Major Crimes.” In J. Nickell (ed.) Psychic Sleuths. NY: Prometheus Books.

Rostow, C. & Davis, R. (2004). A Handbook for Psychological Fitness-For-Duty Evaluations in Law Enforcement. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

Scrivner, E. (1994). The Role of Police Psychology and Control of Excessive Force. Washington DC: NIJ. [online version]

Stone, A. (1995). “Law Enforcement Psychological Fitness for Duty,” In M. Kurke & E. Scrivner (eds.) Police Psychology into the 21st Century. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Talley, J., & Hinz, L. (1990). Performance Prediction of Public Safety and Law Enforcement Personnel: A Study in Race and Gender Differences and MMPI Subscales. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Towl, G. & D. Crighton. (1996). The Handbook of Psychology for Forensic Practitioners. NY: Routledge.

Walker, L. & Shapiro, D. (2004). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Clinical and Social Psychological Perspectives. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Wrightsman, L., M. Taflinger & M. Linsenman. (2000). Forensic Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Online Resources