A Comparison of Taiwanese and American Police Supervisors’ Attitudes

Citation

Donovan, K. (2007), "A Comparison of Taiwanese and American Police Supervisors’ Attitudes", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm.2007.18130dae.003

A Comparison of Taiwanese and American Police Supervisors’ Attitudes

Doris Chu and Ivan SunPolice QuarterlyVol. 10 No. 12007pp. 63-86

Chu and Sun’s analysis of police supervisors’ attitudes in Taiwan and the USA lends to the understanding of how the police officer role is viewed across cultural contexts. Police supervisors from two departments in Taiwan and two departments in the US were surveyed to determine if they held different attitudes toward policing. Survey respondents from Taipei City Police Department (TCPD), Kaohsiung County Police Department (KTPD), Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) and St Petersburg Police Department (SPPD) were questioned about four dimensions of policing – role orientation, aggressive enforcement, legal restrictions and distrust of citizens.

Role orientation pertains to the officer’s belief regarding the range of activities police should be responsible for performing (Chu and Sun). The aggressive enforcement dimension tapped into the importance supervisors placed on formal aspects of policing such as citation writing, traffic stops and arrests. Respondents were also asked about their attitudes regarding legal restrictions perceived to impede their ability in carrying out their occupational duties. Lastly, supervisors were asked to indicate if they believed police personnel have good reasons to distrust citizens (Chu and Sun).

The data from the two US departments were collected as a part of the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) study during the summers of 1996 and 1997. The Taiwanese data were collected using the same instrument (albeit translated into Chinese) used during POPN data collection. Supervisors from the Taiwanese departments were surveyed during the summer of 2004. The authors report a response rate of 90-95 percent for all four departments. Their sample consisted of 106 supervisors from IPD and SPPD as well as 81 supervisors from TCPD and KTPD.

The supervisors’ attitudes toward role orientation and aggressive enforcement were assessed by creating additive scales comprised of several survey item responses, whereas their attitudes toward legal restrictions and citizen distrust reflected single item responses (Chu and Sun). Simple mean response comparisons between Taiwanese and American police supervisors indicated their attitudes differed across all four dimensions.

Multivariate analyses confirmed the initial findings that attitudinal differences existed between Taiwanese and US police supervisors while controlling for educational attainment, years of service and supervisor sex.

According to Chu and Sun’s analyses, supervisors in Taipei and Kaohsiung believe police officers should engage in a wider variety of activities compared to their US counterparts. Supervisors from Taiwanese departments also viewed aggressive enforcement differently than US supervisors. Taiwanese supervisors held more favorable attitudes toward aggressive enforcement than supervisors from IPD and SPPD. With regard to attitudes toward legal restrictions and citizen distrust, Taiwanese and US supervisors also differ significantly. More specifically, supervisors in TCPD and KTPD were more likely to hold negative attitudes toward legal restrictions and are less likely to trust citizens than supervisors in IPD and SPPD.

The fact that supervisors in Taiwan and the USA have different views of the policing role is not surprising given the cultural differences among the two countries. However, some of Chu and Sun’s findings are counterintuitive. For example, Taiwan is a homogenous society with a population primarily consisting of people of Asian descent. Thus the Taiwanese police officers have closer ties with the community than their American counterparts (Chu and Sun). Yet the finding that supervisors from TCPD and KTPD were less likely to trust citizens than their American counterparts is incongruent with the cultural ethos of Taiwanese society. The authors provide possible explanations for this finding, which focus on a shift from an agricultural to an industrial society and a contentious political climate.

It is unclear whether the cultural differences that exist between Taiwanese and US supervisors transcend all cultural boundaries or if these differences are unique to Asian societies. However, given the continued trend in globalization and a growing need for international security, understanding the cross-cultural roles and functions of police is increasingly vital.

Kathleen Donovan and Charles F. Klahm IV