2To ADD names From ADD name Date ADD date Subject ADD ti.docx

2
To: ADD names From: ADD name Date: ADD date Subject:
ADD title
Introduction
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Vestibulum et nisl ante. Etiam pulvinar fringilla ipsum facilisis
efficitur. Maecenas volutpat risus dignissim dui euismod auctor.
Nulla facilisi. Mauris euismod tellus malesuada dolor egestas,
ac vulputate odio suscipit.
Sed pellentesque sagittis diam, sit amet faucibus diam lobortis
quis. Sed mattis turpis ligula, in accumsan ante pellentesque eu.
Quisque ut nisl leo. Nullam ipsum odio, eleifend non orcinon,
volutpat sollicitudin lacus (Cuddy, 2002). Identify Changes
Donec tincidunt ligula eget sollicitudin vehicula. Proin pharetra
tellus id lectus mollis sollicitudin. Etiam auctor ligula a nulla
posuere, consequat feugiat ex lobortis. Duis eu cursus arcu,
congue luctus turpis. Sed dapibus turpis ac diam viverra
consectetur. Aliquam placerat molestie eros vel posuere.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
Figure 1. Title (Source: www.source-of-graphic.edu )Product
Offerings
Sed facilisis, lacus vel accumsan convallis, massa est
ullamcorper mauris, quis feugiat eros ligula eget est. Vivamus
nunc turpis, lobortis et magna a, convallis aliquam diam. Lorem
ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Figure 2. Title (Source of data citation)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Vestibulum et nisl ante. Etiam pulvinar fringilla ipsum facilisis
efficitur. Maecenas volutpat risus dignissim dui euismod auctor.
Nulla facilisi. Mauris euismod tellus malesuada dolor egestas,

ac vulputate odio suscipit. Capabilities
Donec tincidunt ligula eget sollicitudin vehicula. Proin pharetra
tellus id lectus mollis sollicitudin. Etiam auctor ligula a nulla
posuere, consequat feugiat ex lobortis. Duis eu cursus arcu,
congue luctus turpis. Sed dapibus turpis ac diam viverra
consectetur.
References
Basu, K. K. (2015). The Leader's Role in Managing Change:
Five Cases of Technology-Enabled Business Transformation.
Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 34(3), 28-42.
doi:10.1002/joe.21602.
Connelly, B., Dalton, T., Murphy, D., Rosales, D., Sudlow, D.,
& Havelka, D. (2016). Too Much of a Good Thing: User
Leadership at TPAC. Information Systems Education Journal,
14(2), 34-42.
Rouse, M. (2018). Changed Block Tracking. Retrieved from
Techtarget Network:
https://searchvmware.techtarget.com/definition/Changed-Block-
Tracking-CBT
Change the Chart Title to Fit Your Needs
Series 1 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Category 4 4.3 2.5 3.5 4.5 Series 2 Category 1
Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 2.4
4.4000000000000004 1.8 2.8 Series 3 Category 1
Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 2 2 3
5

Assessing Similarities and Differences in Self-Control
between Police Officers and Offenders
Ryan C. Meldrum1 & Christopher M. Donner2 & Shawna
Cleary3 &
Andy Hochstetler4 & Matt DeLisi4
Received: 2 August 2019 /Accepted: 21 October 2019 /
Published online: 2 December 2019
# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2019
Abstract
Research provides consistent evidence that non-offenders have
greater self-control than
offenders. While such differences exist across a range of
samples, the ability of
measures of self-control to discriminate between different
groups merits additional
attention. We advance research on this topic by comparing the
self-control of police
officers to offenders. Results indicate police officers score
higher than offenders do on
global self-control. Results also indicate that, when analyzing
differences across the six
dimensions of self-control conceptualized by Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990), police
officers consistently score lower in impulsivity, self-
centeredness, and anger than
offenders. At the same time, police officers have a greater
preference for physical
activities than offenders do, and the risk-seeking and simple
tasks dimensions are
inconsistently associated with being a police officer relative to
an offender across the

different models estimated. Discussion centers on the
implications of these findings for
theory and for the screening of potential police recruits.
Keywords Self-control . Police officers . Prisoners . Grasmick
et al. (1993) Scale
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:167–189
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09505-4
* Ryan C. Meldrum
[email protected]
Christopher M. Donner
[email protected]
Shawna Cleary
[email protected]
Andy Hochstetler
[email protected]
Matt DeLisi
[email protected]
Extended author information available on the last page of the
article
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s12103-019-
09505-4&domain=pdf
mailto:[email protected]
Introduction
Self-control is a core individual-level construct that has
profound implications for behavior
transcending multiple contexts across the life course
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2019; Hay &
Meldrum, 2015; Moffitt, Poulton, & Caspi, 2013; Pratt, 2016).
Toward the right tail of the

self-control distribution, reflecting individuals with higher self-
control, there are numerous
behavioral benefits. Persons with greater self-control are, on
average, better students, have
greater work performance, have higher incomes and accumulate
more wealth, and experi-
ence generally low psychopathology evidenced by fewer
psychiatric symptoms, less use of
alcohol, and abstention from drugs and risky behaviors. Those
with greater self-control also
enjoy more cohesive, agreeable relationships, have higher self-
esteem and self-efficacy, and
experience heightened wellbeing and happiness (e.g.,
Baumeister & Alquist, 2009; DeLisi,
2013; Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt, White, & Stouthamer-Loeber,
1996; Moffitt et al., 2011;
Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). To illustrate, in a recent
study using decades of data
from a prospective birth cohort, Caspi et al. (2016) found that
persons characterized by high
self-control left little to no adverse societal footprint in terms
of their involvement in social
problems, social burden, and crime.
Toward the left tail of the self-control distribution, reflecting
individuals with lower
self-control, there are numerous behavioral liabilities.
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990)
theoretical construct nicely instantiates low self-control with its
presentation of a person
who is impulsive, risk seeking, self-centered, easily angered,
prefers simple tasks, and
action-oriented. In sharp contrast to their peers with higher self-
control, those with low
self-control impose a disproportionate and substantial societal
burden in terms of their

involvement in unhealthy behaviors and attendant medical costs,
accidents, substance
use, and dysfunctional behaviors (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2019;
Caspi et al., 2016;
DeLisi, 2011; Hay & Meldrum, 2015; Moffitt et al., 2011).
Moreover, low self-control
is associated with the full spectrum of criminal, externalizing,
and antisocial behaviors
evidenced by multiple meta-analytic reviews (de Ridder,
Lensvelt-Mulders,
Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012; Pratt & Cullen, 2000;
Vazsonyi, Mikuška, &
Kelley, 2017). As Vazsonyi et al. (2017, p. 59) recently stated,
“self-control theory has
established itself as one of the most influential pieces of
theoretical scholarship during
the past century, as it continues to stand up to a plethora of
rigorous empirical tests.”
Against this backdrop of the established importance of self-
control and evidence
supporting the core argument of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
(1990) general theory of
crime, the current study contributes to the self-control literature
by comparing self-
control levels of offenders to non-offenders (e.g., Turner &
Piquero, 2002). Though this
topic has received considerable attention in the literature, to
date no studies have
evaluated such differences when juxtaposing the self-control
levels of police officers
and offenders, and we believe such a study is worthy of
empirical investigation. As we
will discuss, there are several reasons to suspect that police
officers would, on average,
have substantively higher levels of global self-control than

offenders, though there is
also reason to suspect exceptions may exist for certain
dimensions of self-control
emphasized by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). Consequently,
this study will contrib-
ute to the existing literature on the generality and
dimensionality of self-control, while
also providing important implications for police policy and
practice.
In the following sections, we first provide a brief overview of
self-control theory and
its arguments concerning differences in self-control between
offenders and non-
168 American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:167–189
offenders. Next, we draw attention to the policing literature,
noting the traits that police
agencies desire among officers and the manner in which these
traits overlap with
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) conceptualization of self-
control. In the process, we
also review research investigating how self-control relates to
officer behavior. After
outlining the goals of the current study and stating our
hypotheses, we present an
empirical analysis that compares the self-control of offenders
against police officers.
Theory and Prior Research
Self-Control Theory

In an effort to provide a general theory of crime, Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990)
proposed low self-control is “… the individual-level cause of
crime” (p. 232, original
emphasis). Their theory assumes that people make rational
decisions and that crime
does not require any special motivation; it is simply an
expression of one’s natural
predisposition to pursue pleasure and avoid pain (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990). The
authors further contend that those who lack self-control are
more likely to pursue the
immediate pleasure of criminal behavior when presented with an
opportunity to do so.
In conceptualizing self-control, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
define it as “the differen-
tial tendency of people to avoid criminal acts whatever the
circumstances in which they find
themselves” (p. 87). Individuals with low self-control tend to
engage in crime and behaviors
analogous to crime because they lack the capacity to consider
the long-term consequences of
their behavior (see also Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2019). They go
on to posit that crime and its
analogous acts are immediately gratifying, simple, and exciting,
and they presume that
people involved in these types of behaviors will exhibit similar
characteristics. Specifically,
they argue that individuals lacking self-control (1) have a here-
and-now orientation, so that
they seek immediate gratification; (2) prefer easy and simple
endeavors and tend to dislike
activities that require diligence, tenacity, and persistence; (3)
engage in risky and exciting,
rather than cautious and cognitive, behaviors; (4) are quick-

tempered; (5) are attracted to
endeavors that entail little skill or planning; and (6) are unkind,
insensitive, and self-centered.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) further assert that, “There is
considerable tendency for these
traits to come together in the same people, …it seems
reasonable to consider them as
comprising a stable construct useful in the explanation of
crime” (pp. 90–91).
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theoretical premise advances
the hypothesis that
offenders should have lower self-control relative to non-
offenders (pp. 130–131). Prior
research has consistently supported this assertion, and these
self-control differences are
across a range of different samples (e.g., Beaver, DeLisi, Mears,
& Stewart, 2009; Carroll
et al., 2006; Turner & Piquero, 2002; Winfree Jr, Taylor, He, &
Esbensen, 2006).1 For
example, Turner and Piquero (2002) compared self-control
levels of 393 offenders and 120
1 In previous research, the determination of differentiating
‘offenders’ from ‘non-offenders’ has been based, for the
most part, on the participant’s own self-reported involvement in
crime and delinquency. For example, Turner and
Piquero (2002), using NLSY data of adolescents, categorized
‘offenders’ as those who self-reported engaging in at
least one of 14 delinquency items within the preceding 3 years.
Similarly, Winfree Jr et al. (2006), using adolescent
self-report data from a national evaluation of the GREAT
program, classified ‘offenders’ as those who self-reported
engaging in at least one of 17 delinquency items within the
preceding year.

American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:167–189 169
non-offenders over seven waves of data collection. Across the
first four waves, using a
behavioral measure of self-control, they found significant mean-
differences in self-control in
three of the four waves. In each of these, non-offenders had
statistically lower means, which
indicated higher self-control. Across the last three waves, using
an attitudinal measure of
self-control, they found significant mean-differences in self-
control in all three waves.
Again, non-offenders had statistically lower means, which
indicated higher self-control.
In a similar manner, Winfree Jr et al. (2006) examined self-
control differences
among a sample of 2921 offenders and 1650 non-offenders. To
measure self-control,
they utilized the four impulsivity and four risk seeking items
from the Grasmick et al.
(1993) scale to create an impulsivity scale, a risk seeking scale,
and an eight-item global
self-control scale. Their results demonstrated significant mean-
differences across all
three self-control measures, with non-offenders consistently
yielding higher self-con-
trol. Moreover, results from a multivariate regression model
indicated that being in the
offender group was significantly related to higher impulsivity,
higher risk seeking, and
lower global self-control. While such findings are illuminating,
the generality of self-
control can be further demonstrated by comparing offenders not

simply to a general
population sample of non-offenders but to a sample of
individuals that should be (but
not always are) high in self-control: police officers.
Policing and Self-Control
Police officers interact with the public on a daily basis, and, as
law enforcers and
peacekeepers, they have an obligation to “serve and protect.”
Whether they are
attempting to diffuse a domestic violence situation, conducting
a traffic stop, rendering
first aid at an accident scene, assisting a disabled motorist, or
maintaining order at a
civil protest, they are entrusted by society to behave with
steadfast professionalism and
integrity. The nature of the profession, including regular
encounters with rude, defiant,
and sometimes violent individuals, does not make this
commitment easy. Further, with
the job comes a tremendous amount of authority and discretion
(e.g., Bittner, 1970;
Brooks, 1993; Skogan & Frydl, 2004; Reiss, 1971; Walker,
1993). Officers have the
legally prescribed power to deprive a citizen of his/her freedom
of movement, and they
can use legally appropriate physical force to do so. Within this
context, officers have to
‘wear many hats,’ and the job frequently places them in
stressful situations where quick
decisions need to be made. Moreover, they, particularly patrol
officers, often perform
job duties outside of direct supervision.
Given the uniqueness of the policing profession, it is easy to

understand why there
are certain personality traits/characteristics that police officers
are expected to
possess—and that agencies try to identify in their applicants
through the hiring
processes. In line with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990)
conceptualization of self-
control, both scholarly and professional sources emphasize that
officers should be
thoughtful and deliberate (rather than impulsive), courteous and
caring (rather than
self-centered), and slow to anger (rather than having a volatile
temper) (e.g., Capps,
2014; Morison, 2017; Ohio Law Enforcement Foundation,
2001).
Police departments across the United States are in general
agreement that self-
control—and/or its underlying elements—is a desirable
characteristic of police officers.
For example, Larry Capps, a former assistant chief of the
Missouri City (TX) Police
Department, identified having a controlled temper as a key trait
that police officers
should possess (Capps, 2014). He suggests that a controlled
temper involves self-
control (or self-discipline), and that it requires an abundance of
competence, confi-
dence, and emotional maturity. This is particularly important
when officers encounter
citizens who have lost their tempers, as trying to resolve a

volatile situation becomes
exponentially more problematic if officers respond by losing
their own temper.
Other examples also illustrate the centrality of different
elements of self-control in
the policing profession. According to California’s Commission
on Peace Officer
Standards and Training (2014), there are certain behavioral
traits that departments
should evaluate when selecting/hiring applicants for law
enforcement positions.
Among these are impulse/anger control, even temper, stress
tolerance and recovery,
thoroughness, attention to detail, situational/problem analysis,
and decision-making/
judgment. Similarly, the Ohio Law Enforcement Foundation
(2001) identified self-
control and discipline as key characteristics that departments
should consider during
their hiring process. In their own recruiting efforts, the
Bainbridge Island (WA) Police
Department (Bainbridge Island Police Department, 2012)
recognized being analytical,
having a calming demeanor, having compassion and empathy,
being detail-oriented,
being emotionally resilient, having frustration tolerance, being
non-impulsive, being
patient, and having self-control as key characteristics that are
sought in their applicants.
More recently, a forum of approximately 50 law enforcement
practitioners from
around the country convened to discuss challenges and
strategies for twenty-first
century law enforcement hiring practices. Recruiters selected

the practitioners for this
forum, in large part, because their agencies had implemented
innovative hiring pro-
grams that have shown promise in their communities and that
may be useful models for
other jurisdictions (Morison, 2017). The forum identified seven
key traits of the “21st
century police officer.” Among these were empathy, self-
control, and problem-solving
skills. Moreover, community residents advocate for these same
qualities. According to
research from Whetstone, Reed, and Turner (2006), community
members expect a high
degree of competency from police officers, and their findings
revealed that community
members expect officers to possess—among other qualities—
self-discipline, patience,
and attention to detail.
In essence, self-control and several of its underlying dimensions
articulated by
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) are key traits that police
administrators (and the
community) look for in their recruits/officers. To corroborate
this assertion, policing
scholars have identified aspects of self-control in several
studies as predictors of
“successful” officers. For example, research from Hargrave and
Berner (1984) found
that police supervisors in California generally agreed effective
officers were, among
other things, emotionally controlled. Similarly, Hogue, Black,
and Sigler’s (1994)
research of Alabama police officers identified several preferred
characteristics, such

as emotional stability, patience, and being slow to anger. Using
the NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI), Detrick and Chibnall (2006) found that the
best entry-level
officers (as rated by Field Training Officers) were low in
neuroticism and high in
conscientiousness, the latter being a concept that correlates
highly with self-control
(e.g., De Vries & Van Gelder, 2013; Jones, 2017). Looking
deeper into the subscales,
however, revealed more nuanced results. The best officers were
low in the angry-
hostility subscale, but were on par with their “average officer”
counterparts on the
impulsiveness subscale (both subscales under neuroticism). The
best officers also rated
higher on the self-discipline subscale, but were on par with
their counterparts on the
deliberation subscale (both subscales under conscientiousness).
Interestingly, the best
officers rated higher in extraversion and had higher scores on
the excitement seeking
subscale. Overall, the sample of training officers concluded that
the best officers were
emotionally controlled, slow to anger, highly conscientious, and
disciplined.
Related research also links low self-control and related
constructs to negative police
behavior. For example, Hiatt and Hargrave (1988) demonstrated
officers that departments

disciplined for misconduct scored significantly higher on the
Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory (MMPI) hypomania scale, indicating that
these officers had higher levels
of disinhibition and lack of restraint. Additionally, Hargrave
and Hiatt (1989) found that
problem officers had significantly lower scores on the self-
control subscale of the California
Personality Inventory (CPI). Likewise, Girodo (1991) found that
high extraversion, high
neuroticism, and disinhibition were significant NEO-PI
predictors of on-the-job misconduct
among a sample of federal undercover drug agents. Sarchione,
Cuttler, Muchinsky, and
Nelson-Gray’s (1998) research further identified that officers
who had been formally
disciplined for misconduct scored significantly lower on three
subscales of the CPI (respon-
sibility, socialization, and self-control). While not directly
assessing the effects of self-control
on police misconduct, Pogarsky and Piquero (2004) used the
impulsivity items from the
Grasmick et al. (1993) scale to assess whether impulsivity
mediated the relationship between
deterrence and police misconduct, finding that impulsivity had a
direct effect on misconduct.
Recent findings also reveal that low self-control predicts
officers’ citizen complaints (behav-
ioral self-control measure; Donner & Jennings, 2014) and
officers’self-reported engagement
in misconduct (Grasmick et al., 1993 measure; Donner, Fridell,
& Jennings, 2016).
The Current Study
Past research comparing self-control levels of offenders to non-

offenders finds non-
offenders possess greater self-control. Likewise, the policing
literature consistently
identifies self-control—and several of its elements—as traits
that police officers should
embody. Given the unique position that police officers occupy
and the legally pre-
scribed authority, discretion, and tools (e.g., firearms) that
accompany the profession,
high self-control appears to be a natural prerequisite. Taken
together, these observations
lead to the conclusion that police officers, on average, should
possess significantly
higher levels of self-control than offenders.
To our knowledge, no study has made this direct comparison.
While it might seem
obvious to expect that police officers would have more self-
control than offenders
would, we view this gap in the literature as something worthy of
empirical investigation
for several reasons. First, comparing the self-control of police
officers to offenders
offers a unique test of the ability of measures of self-control to
discriminate between
individuals who should, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi
(1990, pp. 130-131),
occupy opposing ends of the self-control distribution. Second, if
minimal differences in
self-control between police officers and offenders are observed,
this would potentially
raise important concerns about existing screening procedures
used in the recruitment
processes of potential officers. Third, being able to glean
further insight into the self-
control of police officers is of great importance, particularly at

a time of increased
public scrutiny of officer behavior and concerns over officer
misbehavior.
Accordingly, the current study compares the self-control levels
of a sample of police
officers to offenders by combining multiple existing datasets,
each of which includes the
Grasmick et al. (1993) self-control scale. Based on theory and
prior research (e.g.,
Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Turner & Piquero, 2002; Winfree
Jr et al., 2006), the primary
hypothesis tested is that police officers will score, on average,
substantively higher on global
self-control relative to offenders. In addition, our review of the
policing literature consistently
identifies that police officers should be low in impulsivity, slow
to anger, considerate (i.e.,
low in self-centeredness), and able to navigate a complex and
stressful job (i.e., low in
preference for simple tasks). Yet, in considering the other two
dimensions of self-control
(risk seeking, physically oriented) emphasized by Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990), the police
recruitment literature seemingly places less emphasis on these
two aspects. This may
partially reflect the fact that the nature of police work involves
an acceptance of risk (e.g.,
Herbert, 1998; Maskaly & Donner, 2015; Skolnick & Fyfe,
1993; Van Maanen, 1975) and
an expectation of physicality (e.g., Anderson, Plecas, & Segger,

2001; Bissett, Bissett, &
Snell, 2012; Hunter, Bamman, Wetzstein, & Hilyer, 1999;
Shephard & Bonneau, 2003).
Police officers must sometimes run towards danger: they pursue
fleeing suspects, rescue
citizens from burning cars and buildings, and use hand-to-hand
combat to disarm suspects
and intervene in fights. Further, officers must be able to react
instantly to whatever crisis is at
hand—this requires a certain level of physical fitness. In fact,
evaluations of police recruits
include physical fitness, and officers must increase physical
fitness through training and,
while in police academies, they learn strategies for dealing with
risks inherent to police work
(e.g., Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).
Given these realities, it is possible—and perhaps even likely—
that differences in levels of
risk seeking and being physically oriented between police
officers and offenders could be
minimal, even as significant differences are observed for global
self-control and its other
four dimensions. Thus, our secondary hypothesis is that, when
comparing self-control levels
of police officers to offenders at the dimension-level, we expect
offenders will score higher
than police officers will in impulsivity, simple tasks, self-
centeredness, and anger, but that
there will be minimal or perhaps no differences in scores
between officers and offenders for
the risk-seeking and physical-oriented dimensions.
Method
Participants and Procedure

To examine similarities and differences in the self-control
levels of police officers and
offenders, we combined four different datasets. Two of these
datasets provide
information on offenders, while the other two provide
information on police officers.
Below, we briefly describe these four different data sources.2
Readers interested in
2 Authors of the current study played a principal role in the
design and collection of the data for each of the four data
sources. With regard to the selection of these four specific data
sources, they were included in the current study
because they each contained the Grasmick et al. (1993) self-
control scale. To our knowledge no other data sources
outside of the two we utilize in the current study exist that
include data on the self-control levels of police officers for
each of the six dimensions included in the Grasmick et al.
(1993) scale. Similarly, very few datasets on prisoners exist
that include the Grasmick et al. (1993) scale other than the two
data sources used in the current study (e.g., Mitchell &
MacKenzie, 2006). Existing relationships among the authors of
the current study facilitated the utilization of the two
offender datasets and two police officer datasets.
more detailed information concerning the methodologies
employed to produce each of
the four datasets are referred to existing studies cited in the
below descriptions.
To create our sample of offenders, we first made use of survey

data collected in 2001
from male prison parolees located at four work-release facilities
located in a Midwest-
ern state.3 All of the participants had been released from a state
prison within the prior
six months and were serving conditional parole sentences. To
collect the survey data,
brochures were first distributed at all four work-release
facilities letting potential
participants know researchers were administering questionnaires
in small groups. It
was made clear to all individuals that participation was
voluntary, confidential, and that
they had the right to refuse to answer any of the questions on
the survey. Of the 480
parolees who were invited, 208 participated, yielding a
participation rate of 43%.
Research staff were present when surveys were administered in
small groups (from
September through December 2001) in order to answer
questions and provide clarifi-
cation about items on the survey. Compensation in the amount
of $30 was provided to
participants. Of the parolees who participated in the original
study, 29% were incar-
cerated for violent crimes (murder, rape, assault, robbery), 22%
were incarcerated for
drug crimes (possession and selling), and the remaining 49%
were incarcerated for a
variety of other offense types (burglary, motor vehicle theft,
fraud, etc.). For additional
information about this data source, see DeLisi, Hochstetler, &
Murphy (2003).
Next, we utilized survey data collected in 2000–2001 from 295
male prison inmates

located at two prison facilities (one medium security and the
other a facility that housed
both medium and maximum-security inmates) in Oklahoma.
Three separate random
samples were drawn at the time of the original study: (1)
inmates convicted of sex
offenses participating in a sex offender treatment program, (2)
inmates convicted of a
sex offense not participating in a sex offender treatment
program, and (3) inmates with
no record of having committed a sex offense. After random
selection, potential
participants were informed by memoranda they were chosen to
participate in a study
about the social, economic, and criminal history backgrounds of
inmates.4 All individ-
uals were provided a cover letter attached to a survey
questionnaire outlining informed
consent, and it was made clear that participation was voluntary
and that no compen-
sation was being provided for participation. The overall
participation rate across the
three inmate groups was 40%. Of the 295 participants, 68%
were incarcerated for a sex-
related offense (top three by frequency: rape, lewd molestation,
sodomy) and the
remaining 32% were incarcerated for crimes other than sex
offenses (top three by
frequency: 1st degree murder, armed robbery, felony drug
possession). For additional
information about this data source, see Cleary (2014). After
combining the information
for two offender data sources, verifying the presence of
common indicators of self-
control and demographic characteristics (described below), and
removing cases with

missing data, complete data on each of the items used in the
current study was available
for 457 of the 503 male prison inmates and parolees.
To create our sample of police officers, we first made use of
survey data collected
via an online platform—Qualtrics—in 2012 from a
geographically diverse, multi-
3 Following the IRB protocols of the original study, the name of
the state is blinded.
4 All memoranda were generated by the individual prisons,
which in addition took on the responsibility for
scheduling data collection within each prison (the principal
researcher and assistants were present for all data
collection). Questionnaires were self-administered in the
visitation rooms of the two prison facilities.
agency sample of 101 first-line police supervisors in the United
States who were partici-
pating in the National Police Research …

2To ADD names From ADD name Date ADD date Subject ADD ti.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2To ADD names From ADD name Date ADD date Subject ADD ti.docx

Similar to 2To ADD names From ADD name Date ADD date Subject ADD ti.docx (18)

More from novabroom

More from novabroom (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2To ADD names From ADD name Date ADD date Subject ADD ti.docx