Guardian versus warrior cops: predicting officers' support for procedural justice and coercive policing.

In response to incidents of police brutality perpetrated against ethnic/racial minorities, there have been calls worldwide for reform in the way policing is done in minority communities. As part of this reform process, police agencies have been encouraged to examine the policing styles (or orientations) that different officers adopt when carrying out their duties. Prior research finds that 'warrior' and 'guardian' policing orientations are associated with officers' support for either coercive or procedural justice policing, respectively. Warrior-oriented officers tend to support using coercive policing more than guardian-oriented officers, while guardian-oriented officers tend to support using procedural justice policing more than warrior-oriented officers. What remains understudied is why this is so. Drawing on survey data of 306 Australian police officers working in ethnically diverse and disadvantaged communities, this study tests whether officers' cynicism toward the public and their confidence in their own legitimacy (i.e. self-legitimacy) might explain the tendency of warrior-oriented and guardian-oriented officers to support either coercive or procedural justice policing, respectively. Our findings confirm that the two policing orientations are conceptually distinct, and that warrior-oriented officers are more likely to support coercive policing, while guardian-oriented officers are more likely to support procedural justice policing. Importantly, we find that officers' cynicism and self-legitimacy partially mediate some of these relationships. The implications of these findings for both policing scholarship and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]