Law enforcement encounters: The effects of officer accommodativeness and crime severity on interpersonal attributions are mediated by intergroup sensitivity

Communication Studies

Volumn 59, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 291-305

  Myers, Paul ^a   Giles, Howard ^b   Reid, Scott A ^b   Nabi, Robin L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Communication Accommodation Theory; Crime; Intergroup Sensitivity; Law Enforcement; Legitimate Authority; Police Civilian Interactions; Policing; Public Opinion

Indexed keywords

EID: 85048686753     PISSN: 10510974     EISSN: 17451035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10510970802467361     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A., (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
2. Bodenhausen, G. V., Mussweiler, T., Gabriel, S., & Moreno, K. N., (2001). Affective influences on stereotypes and intergroup relations. In J. P., Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 319–343). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., & Lambert, W. E., (1975). Social consequences of accommodating one's style of speech: A cross-national investigation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 6, 55–72.
4. Burgoon, J. K., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J., (1992). Interpretations, evaluations and consequences of interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19, 237–263.
5. Cloninger, D. O., (1991). Lethal police response as a crime deterrent: 57-city study suggests a decrease in certain crimes. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 50, 59–70.
6. Cox, C. T., & White, M. F., (1988). Traffic citations and student attitudes toward the police: An examination of selected interactive dynamics. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 105–121.
7. Dixon, T. L., Schell, T., Giles, H., & Drogos, K., (2007). The influence of race in police-civilian interactions: A content analysis of videotaped interactions taken during Cincinnati police traffic stops. Manuscript under review.
8. Doise, W., Sinclair, A., & Bourhis, R. Y., (1976). Evaluation of accent convergence and divergence in cooperative and competitive intergroup situations. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 247–252.
9. Eschholz, S., Blackwell, B. S., Gertz, M., & Chiricos, T., (2002). Race and attitudes toward the police: Assessing the effects of watching “reality” police programs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 327–341.
10. Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H., (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In W., Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Giles, H., (Ed.). (2002). Law enforcement, communication and community. New York: John Benjamins.
12. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J., (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context and consequences. In H., Giles, J., Coupland, & N., Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation (pp. 1–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Giles, H., Fortman, J., Dailey, R., Barker, V., Hajek, C., et al. (2006). Communication accommodation: Law enforcement and the public. In R. M., Dailey & B. A., Le Poire (Eds.), Interpersonal communication matters: Family, health, and community relations (pp. 241–270). New York: Peter Lang.
14. Giles, H., Hajek, C., Barker, V., Chen, M.-L., Zhang, B. Y., Hummert, M. L., & Anderson, M. C., (2007). Accommodation and institutional talk: Communicative dimensions of police-civilian interactions. In A., Weatherall, B., Watson, & Gallois, C., (Eds.), The social psychology of language and discourse (pp. 131–159). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Giles, H., & Ogay, T., (2006). Communication accommodation theory. In B., Whaley & W., Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Giles, H., & Smith, P. M., (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal level of convergence. In H., Giles & R. St., Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45–65). Oxford: Blackwell.
17. Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Anderson, M. C., (2007). Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In K., Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 129–162). New York: Psychology Press.
18. Giles, H., Zwang-Weissman, Y., & Hajek, C., (2004). Patronizing and policing elderly people. Psychological Reports, 95, 754–756.
19. Hajek, C., Barker, V., Giles, H., Louw, J., Pecchioni, L., et al. (2006). Communication dynamics of police-civilian encounters: American and African interethnic data. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 161–182.
20. Hajek, C., Giles, H., Barker, V., Demirtas-Madran, A., Pecchioni, L., & Choi, C., (2008). Perceptions of trust, compliance, and officer accommodation in police-civilian intergroup encounters: A Russian, Turkish, and American cross-national analysis. Russian Journal of Communication, 1, 127–148.
21. Hennigan, K., Maxson, C., Sloane, D., & Ranney, M., (2002). Community views on crime and policing: Survey mode effects on bias in community services. Justice Quarterly, 19, 565–587.
22. Hewstone, M., Hopkins, N., & Routh, D. A., (1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: I. Generalization and subtyping in young people's views of the police. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 219–234.
23. Heydon, G., (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
24. Hornsey, M. J., de Bruijn, P., Creed, J., Allen, J., Ariyanto, A., & Svensson, A., (2005). Keeping it in-house: How audience affects responses to group criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 291–312.
25. Hornsey, M. J., & Imani, A., (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 365–383.
26. Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svenson, A., (2002). “It's OK if we say it but you can't”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 293–307.
27. Hornsey, M. J., Trembath, M., & Gunthorpe, S., (2004). “You can criticize because you care”: Identity attachment, constructivness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 499–518.
28. Johnson, R. R., (2004). Citizen expectations of police traffic stop behavior. Policing, 27, 487–497.
29. Jones-Brown, D. D., (2000). Debunking the myth of officer friendly. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 209–229.
30. Klyman, F. I., & Kruckenberg, J., (1974). A methodology for assessing citizen perceptions of police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 219–233.
31. Langan, P. A., Greenfeld, L. A., Smith, S. K., Durose, M. R., & Levin, D. J., (2001). Contact between police and the public. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
32. Olsen, K., (2005). School of law. Teaching Tolerance, Spring, 40–45.
33. Perlmutter, D. D., (2000). Policing the media: Street cops and public perceptions of law enforcement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Riley, K. J., Turner, S., MacDonald, J., Ridgeway, G., Schell, T., et al. (2005). Police-community relations in Cincinnati. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
35. Rosenbaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Costello, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K., (2005). Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quarterly, 8, 343–365.
36. Simard, L., Taylor, D. M., & Giles, H., (1976). Attribution processes and interpersonal accommodation in a bilingual setting. Language and Speech, 19, 374–387.
37. Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M., (2005). Speaking of crime. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
38. Sykes, R. E., & Clark, J. P., (1975). A theory of difference exchange in police-civilian encounters. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 584–600.
39. Thompson, G. J., (1983). Verbal judo: Words for street survival. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
40. Tyler, T. R., (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 215–235.
41. Tyler, T. R., (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J., (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Sage.
43. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A., (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect. The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
44. Williams, A., Giles, H., Coupland, N., Dalby, M., & Manasse, H., (1990). The communicative contexts of elderly social support and health: A theoretical model. Health Communication, 2, 123–143.
45. Womack, M. M., & Finley, H. H., (1986). Communication: A unique significance for law enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
46. Yates, D. L., & Pillai, V. K., (1996). Attitude toward community policing: A causal analysis. The Social Science Journal, 33, 193–209.
47. Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R., (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 113–123.