Abstract
Purpose
Police officers face a unique and challenging occupational experience and report elevated mental disorder symptoms relative to the general population. While gender differences appear to be present in police mental health, this study aims to find which factors foster and promote resilience in these workers and how gender may relate to police resilience.
Design/methodology/approach
The present study was designed to explore how protective factors, sexual harassment and personality dysfunction impacted resilience among police officers (n = 380; 44% women). Furthermore, gender differences were also examined on these factors as well as on resilience rate.
Findings
Men and women police officers did not differ significantly in terms of resilience, protective factors and overall experiences of sexual harassment behaviors; yet, policewomen subjectively reported having experienced more sexual harassment in the past 12 months than policemen. Men reported greater personality difficulties than women, according to the alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) model for personality disorders. Personality dysfunction was the most robust predictor of poor resilience (ß = −0.465; p < 0.001).
Originality/value
Personality fragilities appear to have an important negative impact on the resilience of police officers, over and above protective factors and gendered experiences. Interventions targeting emotion regulation, self-appraisal and self-reflection could help promote resilience and foster well-being in this population.
Keywords
Citation
Angehrn, A., Jourdan-Ionescu, C. and Gamache, D. (2023), "Resilience among police officers: the role of personality functioning and protective factors", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 567-582. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-02-2023-0025
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
Individuals working in policing face a unique and challenging occupational experience. Indeed, police officers encounter a number of potentially traumatic events as part of their work (Carleton et al., 2019), experience routine organizational pressure (Carleton et al., 2020) and operate in a culture that is generally reluctant to change (Campeau, 2019). Yet, evidence remains sparse on which factors may foster and promote resilience in these workers while the theoretical definition and conceptualization of resilience in such studies varies (Janssens et al., 2021). Furthermore, gender differences appear to be present when considering police well-being. Women working in policing report, among others, have greater difficulties with work-life balance, gendered-discrimination and a gendered division of labor or tasks (Angehrn et al., 2021a; Langan et al., 2019). Yet, women police officers also appear to develop resilience and coping strategies in the face of these challenges, such as: forming a community of women, putting greater emphasis on their identity outside of policing and making greater use of positive coping strategies (Angehrn et al., 2021a; Bonner and Brimhall, 2022). A better understanding of police resilience and of the different factors that might foster or hinder resilience could therefore help in the creation of programs that promote police well-being.
Literature review
Theoretical conceptualization of resilience
Resilience can be broadly conceptualized as the capacity to adapt to adversity (Graber et al., 2015; Jourdan-Ionescu, 2001). Resilience is a dynamic phenomenon specific to the individual, resulting from the interaction of a number of protective factors which together produce a favorable adaptation in the face of hardships (Graber et al., 2015; Kalisch et al., 2019; Rutter, 2012). A dynamic interaction between one's inherent protective factors and one's environment, social relationships and personal characteristics will impact the interpretation of adversity and ultimately enable the individual to bounce back to the varying demands and circumstances (Graber et al., 2015; Jourdan-Ionescu, 2001; Kalisch et al., 2019). A resilient individual is thus able to exploit internal resources, such as defense mechanisms, personality traits and temperament while also utilizing external factors such as their psychosocial environment, social support and community resources in order to respond to the hardship experienced (Anaut, 2005). Protective factors in and of themselves do not equate to resilience; however, protective factors are known to promote the process of resilience (Anaut, 2005; Rutter, 2006). What is more, it is important to note that resilience is not a static personality trait and that one may be more vulnerable or more resilient depending in part on the adversity experienced, the resources available and the personal interpretation of the stressor (Rutter, 2006). Resilience is likewise not conceptualized as the summation of protective factors, since an individual may benefit from numerous protective factors yet may be unable to make use of these factors when faced with adversity.
Resilience and police
Empirical investigation of police resilience is often centered on resilience programs which aim to provide police officers with tools to adjust to the demands of their work (Andersen et al., 2015a; McCraty and Atkinson, 2012). While these programs are associated with a wide range of positive outcomes for officers (Andersen et al., 2015a; Christopher et al., 2016; McCraty and Atkinson, 2012); it is still unclear how police officer's inherent protective factors and individual characteristics may have impacted such improvements. In their investigation of police resilience, Galatzer-Levy et al. (2013) indicate that emotions have an important impact on resilience. Experiencing emotions such as shame, guilt and hostility less frequently during police training is associated with higher resilience during officers' subsequent careers. Conversely, experiencing pride, enthusiasm and determination less frequently is associated with lower resilience when working in policing post-training (Galatzer-Levy et al., 2013). Among police officers with similar exposure to critical incidents, officers who benefited from greater protective factors, namely higher social support and higher self-esteem, were found to be more resilient. Further, the above-mentioned police officers did not differ in terms of resilience (Prati and Pietrantoni, 2010). Among retired police officers, distance coping, avoidance and keeping work concerns to oneself were negatively associated with resilience (Arble et al., 2018; Pole et al., 2006).
Resilience and gender
The literature on gender differences in resilience remains sparse. As women in both the general population (Grant and Weissman, 2007) and in policing (Angehrn et al., 2021b; Carleton et al., 2018) are more vulnerable to mood (e.g. depression) and anxiety (e.g. general anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder) disorders, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), defining resilience as the absence of a mental disorder limits the extent of our understanding of the concept (Friborg et al., 2009). Resilience may also be contingent upon the different stressors that men and women experience. For example, research among military veterans initially suggested women appeared less resilient than men. However, gender differences were no longer present when the types of stressors men and women experience were accounted for (Portnoy et al., 2018). Men and women also differ when considering subjective interpretations of stressors experienced (Ellrich and Baier, 2017; Morash et al., 2006; van der Meer et al., 2017). It thus appears important to consider several factors when exploring resilience and potential gender differences.
Resilience and personality
The understanding of the relationship between resilience and personality has evolved over time. Indeed, resilience has occasionally been erroneously described as a static or fixed personality trait (Kalisch et al., 2019). As aforementioned, the current conceptualization defines resilience as a dynamic process that encompasses, among others, personality characteristics. Meta-analytic findings indicate that resilience is positively associated with extraversion (e.g. sociability), openness (e.g. open-mindedness), agreeableness (e.g. altruism) and conscientiousness (e.g. planning and organizing), while being negatively associated with neuroticism (e.g. negative emotionality) (John et al., 2008; Oshio et al., 2018). Additional research supports the protective role of extraversion and conscientiousness and the negative association of neuroticism with resilience (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006). Among retired police officers, neuroticism is negatively associated with resilience (Pole et al., 2006). While relatively few studies explore the relationship between personality dysfunction and resilience, Bateman et al. (2018) conceptualize a personality disorder as the absence of resilience in the face of stressors and an inability to lean on protective factors in order to bounce back from adversity. Research indicates that individuals with co-morbid depression and borderline personality disorders exhibit lower resilience than individuals with depression alone or healthy controls. These differences emerged on total resilience scores and on three subgroups of resilience: self-control, interpersonal relationship and positivity (Kim et al., 2018). Moreover, clinical personality assessments during police training is associated with subsequent work performance (Roberts et al., 2019; Simmers et al., 2003). Identifying fragilities at the level of personality may therefore help identify officers who are less likely to respond favorably to adversity and provide them with the necessary tools and training.
Gender and police
While policing involves universal challenges and demands, men and women appear to experience and respond to certain stressors differently. Men appear to address their challenges with a more cognitive approach as well as using denial and drinking as coping strategies, while women tend to utilize an emotional approach, using venting, social support and planning to address their occupational challenges (Acquadro Maran et al., 2015; Bonner and Brimhall, 2022). It remains unclear how men and women police officers may differ in their protective factors and individual characteristics and how this may impact their response to adversity. Research highlights the importance of social support and its association to resilience and favorable mental health outcomes among police officers (McCanlies et al., 2018). While research suggests that policewomen appear at greater risk of mental health difficulties, specifically being more vulnerable to mood disorders, anxiety disorder and PTSD and that they experience gender-specific challenges (Angehrn et al., 2021b; Langan et al., 2019), they also seem more prone to utilizing the coping strategies associated with greater resilience. The literature indicates that experiences of sexual harassment are more prevalent for women than men in policing (Langan et al., 2019). Yet, experiences of sexual harassment are negatively associated with mental and physical health regardless of gender (De Haas et al., 2009). Gender-specific challenges appear to have practical workplace implications. Indeed, policewomen are more likely to leave during training and during their policing careers relative to men. Women indicate that some reasons for this attrition are the male-dominated culture, recruitment strategies and the lack of support for family demands (Alecu and Fekjær, 2020; Cordner and Cordner, 2011). Research is limited on how experiences of sexual harassment may be related to resilience, especially in a policing population. Furthermore, personality dysfunction appears to limit the extent to which individuals are able to utilize interpersonal and intrapersonal resources and protective factors to cope from hardships (Bateman et al., 2018).
Hypotheses
The current study aimed to explore police resilience and its association to protective factors, sexual harassment and personality dysfunction, while also investigating gender differences. First, it is hypothesized that there will be a significant positive association between protective factors and resilience. Next, it is hypothesized that there will be a significant negative association between sexual harassment and resilience. Finally, it is hypothesized that there will be a significant negative association between personality dysfunction and resilience.
Materials and methods
Participants and procedures
An online survey assessing resilience, protective factors, experiences of sexual harassment and personality dysfunction was sent to police officers from the province of Quebec. To facilitate recruitment and reach a larger sample, recruitment strategies included concurrent emails sent through police services in Québec and social media posts informing police officers of the objectives for the study and inviting participation. Interested participants completed the measures detailed below. A total of n = 657 individuals began answering the survey and a total of n = 380 respondents answered all measures (44% women). Demographic information characterizing the participating police officers is presented in Table 1. Most participants were in a relationship or married (85%), were heterosexual (93%), had children (71%) and had collegial level education (57%). Participating police officers had worked in policing for 16 years on average (M = 16.13; SD = 8.30) and the average age was 40 years old (M = 40.04; SD = 8.64). The questionnaire was available online from August to October of 2022. The study was approved by the research ethics board at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (CER-21-280-07.09).
Self-report measures
The Resilience Scale (Wagnild and Young, 1993) was used to measure resilience. The questionnaire consists of 25 items (e.g. I can usually look at a situation in a number of ways) that are rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The overall scale is obtained by adding the responses to each item. The psychometric qualities are good in the general population (Wagnild, 2009) and in the current sample (α = 0.87). Individuals are categorized as being highly resilient if they obtain a score of 146 or above, while a score lower than 121 denotes low resilience. Individuals with a total score ranging from 122 to 145 fall in the average category (Jourdan-Ionescu, 2014; Wagnild, 2009).
The Protective Factors Scale (Jourdan-Ionescu et al., 2010) was used to measure the presence or absence of different protective factors. This questionnaire includes 35 items (e.g. I received an emotional and practical support from my parents) that are rated on a scale of 0 (absent) to 1 (present). The measure takes into account individual (e.g. When I need help, I know how to find some), family (e.g. I grew up in a warm family atmosphere) and environmental (e.g. I make myself useful to my community) protective factors. Total score on the scale is used to measure the overall presence of these various protective factors. In the current sample, the internal consistency was adequate (α = 0.74).
The Sexual Experience Questionnaire (SEQ) (Fitzgerald et al., 1995) was used to measure experiences of sexual harassment over the past year. This questionnaire includes 20 items (e.g. someone made unwelcome attempts to draw you into a discussion of sexual matters) rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (several times). The final item is a subjective measure of sexual harassment (i.e. Have you ever experienced sexual harassment?). Psychometric assessment revealed the SEQ to be a reliable and valid measure of sexual harassment experiences (α = 0.89; Fitzgerald et al., 1995), with good internal consistency in a police population (De Haas et al., 2009). The internal consistency was acceptable in the current sample (α = 0.77).
The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS) (Gamache et al., 2019) was used to measure personality dysfunction based on the dimensional operationalization put forth in the Alternative Model for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (AMPD) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The SIFS includes 24 items (e.g. Sometimes I don't understand why I behaved in a certain way or why I made some decisions) that are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (this does not describe me at all) to 5 (this describes me totally). A higher score is associated with higher dysfunction according to Criterion A of the AMPD. Results provide a score global personality dysfunction score as well as for four subscale, namely Identity (e.g. accuracy and stability of self-esteem; seven items), Self-Direction (e.g. ability to pursue coherent and meaningful goals; five items), Empathy (e.g. comprehension and appreciation of other's experiences and motivations; six items) and Intimacy (e.g. depth and duration of connections with others; six items; Gamache et al., 2019). In the current sample, the internal consistency was good for the global personality dysfunction score (α = 0.87) and adequate for the four subscales (αs ranging from 0.57 to 0.76).
Statistical analyses
Descriptive and bivariate Spearman's rank correlational analyses were calculated for resilience, protective factors, sexual harassment and personality dysfunction. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to discern differences among men and women on the same variables of interest. Linear hierarchical regression analyses were used to determine if gender, protective factors, sexual harassment and personality dysfunction explained statistically significant variance in resilience. The regression model included resilience as the dependent variable. First, gender was added as the independent variable since an objective of the current research is to explore if gender differences are present when considering police resilience. Next, total score on the protective factor scale was added as an additional independent variable. In the third entry, total score on the SEQ was added to the model. In the fourth and final entry, total score on the SIFS was added to the model. Another supplemental linear regression was computed to further explore the association between SIFS subscales only and resilience. Once again, resilience was included as the dependent variable, while scores on the SIFS subscales (i.e. Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy and Intimacy) were included as the sole independent variables. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was used as a measure of multicollinearity. The VIF related to each predictor ranged from 1.04 to 1.75 and tolerance was above 0.82, ruling out multicollinearity (Field, 2013).
Results
Correlations, descriptive statistics, gender differences and normative comparisons
Bivariate correlations among all measures of interest (i.e. resilience scale, protective factors scale, SEQ and SIFS total) are presented in Table 2. Descriptive statistics for all variables of interest are presented in Table 3. Results of the comparisons between men and women on variables of interest are presented on Table 4. Most participating police officers fell into the average resilience category (58%). A small portion of participants (7%) exhibited low resilience. A little more than a third of the sample (35%) exhibited high resilience. There were no significant gender differences on resilience scores t (377) = −0.43, p = 0.66, Cohen's d = −0.05 and on resilience category (p > 0.05). The mean score for protective factors was 27.80 (SD = 3.97). There were no statistically significant differences between men and women on protective factors t (377) = 0.51, p = 0.61, Cohen's d = 0.05. The current sample was compared to a college sample drawn from a previous research report (see Jourdan-Ionescu et al., 2015 for more information on the sample) on their resilience and protective factors scores. Participating police officers exhibited higher resilience (p = 0.003; Cohen's d = 0.28) than participants in the college sample; however, there were no differences between groups on protective factors (p > 0.05).
While 90% of participants reported having experienced at least one of the SEQ behavior, only 12% reported having experienced sexual harassment (item 20 of the SEQ). The most endorsed items reported in the workplace was the repeated exposure to sexual stories or jokes (84%), exposure to crude sexual remarks (71%) and an attempt by someone at work to engage them into a discussion of sexual nature (67%). There were no statistically significant differences between men and women on overall experiences of sexual harassment (SEQ sum) t (336) = −1.74, p = 0.08, Cohen's d = −0.18. There was however a statistically significant gender difference on item 20 of the SEQ (i.e. “Have you ever experienced sexual harassment”; t [179] = −6.02, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = −0.69). Specifically, women reported significantly higher scores on this question (M = 1.33, SD = 0.65) than men (M = 1.02, SD = 0.14). A quarter of policewomen endorsed this item, compared to 2% of policemen. The current rates of sexual harassment were compared to a police population (see De Haas et al., 2009 for more information on the comparison sample), by gender. Men in the current sample reported higher rates of SEQ behaviors compared to policemen in previous research (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 2.49; De Haas et al., 2009). Women in the current sample reported higher rates of SEQ behaviors compared to policewomen in previous research (p = 0.001; Cohen's d = 1.12; De Haas et al., 2009).
When considering personality dysfunction, most police officers in the current sample (92%) did not meet the clinical threshold for a personality disorder (cut-off score of 1.52 or greater on the SIFS) suggested by the authors of the instrument (Gamache et al., 2019). There was a statistically significant difference between men and women on total personality dysfunction, t (377) = 2.66, p = 0.008, Cohen's d = 0.28. Specifically, men had significantly higher scores on total personality dysfunction (M = 0.88, SD = 0.45) than women (M = 0.75, SD = 0.44). There were no statistically significant differences between men and women on the Identity subscale (p < 0.05, Cohen's d = −0.09) nor on the Self-direction subscale (p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.19). There was a statistically significant gender difference on the Empathy subscale, t (377) = 3.93, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.41. Specifically, men had significantly higher scores on the Empathy subscale, indicating greater dysfunction (M = 0.82, SD = 0.59) than women (M = 0.59, SD = 0.54). Finally, there was a statistically significant gender difference on the Intimacy subscale, t (377) = 3.75, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.39. Specifically, men had significantly higher score on intimacy (M = 0.84, SD = 0.62) than women (M = 0.60, SD = 0.59) indicating greater dysfunction. Participants in the current sample were compared to community samples from a previous research report (individuals without a personality disorders and individuals without a personality but exhibiting personality difficulties) on total SIFS scores (more information on the sample can be found in Gamache et al., 2021). Participating police officers reported significantly higher scores on the SIFS than community participants with no personality disorders (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.45), yet significantly lower scores than community participants with no personality disorders but who exhibited personality difficulties (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.33).
Linear regressions
Results from the linear regressions are presented in Table 5. First, as could be expected from the results of the t-tests, gender was not a significant predictor of resilience (R2 < 0.01, F [1, 377] = 0.19, p = 0.66). In line with our hypothesis, the model became a significant predictor of resilience upon the addition of protective factors (R2 = 0.04, F [2, 376] = 7.29, p < 0.001). The model accounted for 4% of the variance in resilience and total score on the protective factors scale was the only significant predictor of resilience (β = 0.19, p < 0.001). While the model remained significant when total score on the SEQ was added (R2 = 0.05, F [3, 375] = 5.84, p < 0.001), contrary to our hypothesis sexual harassment itself (both when using SEQ total score or question 20 of the SEQ) was not a significant predictor of resilience (β = −0.09, p = 0.092). Finally, the model remained a significant predictor of resilience when total SIFS score was added as a predictor (R2 = 0.25, F [4, 374] = 31.54, p < 0.001) and accounted for 25% of the variance in resilience. Consistent with our hypothesis, personality dysfunction had a robust negative association with resilience (β = −0.50, p < 0.001). Interestingly, protective factors were no longer a significant predictor of resilience when personality dysfunction was added to the model (β = 0.01, p = 0.991).
A subsequent supplemental regression model aimed to further explore how the different SIFS subscales were related to resilience. The model was statistically significant (R2 = 0.32, F [4, 375] = 43.12, p < 0.001) and accounted for 32% of the variance in resilience. Upon closer examination, the Identity (β = −0.37, p < 0.001) and Self-direction (β = −0.24, p < 0.001) subscales were the sole significant predictors of resilience. The Empathy (β = −0.04, p = 0.476) and Intimacy (β = −0.02, p = 0.783) subscales did not have a statistically significant association with resilience.
As sexual harassment experience differed in its subjective experience between men and women, a regression model was computed to investigate if sexual harassment predicted resilience for men as well as for women separately. Sexual harassment was not a significant predictor of resilience for men (R2 < 0.00, F [1, 209] = 0.07, p = 0.79). However, sexual harassment was a significant predictor of resilience when analyzing women separately (R2 = 0.05, F [1, 166] = 7.89, p = 0.006), accounting for 6% of the variance in resilience and being negatively associated with the construct (β = −0.21, p = 0.006).
Discussion
The current research sought to investigate the association of protective factors, sexual harassment and personality dysfunction on police resilience as well as explore gender differences. Personality appeared to be an important construct in terms of its association with both resilience and gender. In the current sample, personality dysfunction had a strong negative association with resilience. Further, gender differences indicated that men police officers were more likely than women police officers to have fragilities at the level of personality functioning. Understanding the impact of personality on resilience, and how vulnerabilities may differ between men and women, is an important step in guiding prevention and intervention efforts among these workers.
Resilience rates and gender differences
One of the primary goals of the current research was to better understand resilience rates among police officers and how these may differ across men and women. Our findings indicate that police officers exhibit good resilience and that resilience rates are comparable across genders. In fact, more than a third of the current sample fell into the high resilience category. The current sample of police officers demonstrated higher resilience relative to a university population (Jourdan-Ionescu et al., 2015) from the same province. Men and women in the sample also reported similar levels of protective factors. Interestingly, police officers did not differ from the university sample when considering protective factors. This further supports the notion that resilience is not merely captured through the absence or presence of certain protective factors, but by one's perception of having the necessary internal and external resources to bounce back in the face of hardships at a given moment (Kalisch et al., 2019). It appears that police officers may be more prone to perceiving themselves as having the capacity to adapt and respond to adversity, potentially due to their inherent personality characteristics, police training, or previous occupational experiences.
To our knowledge, few studies have explored gender differences and normative comparisons when considering resilience rates among police officers. Police officers are more at risk of exposures to potentially traumatic events (Carleton et al., 2019), are subsequently more vulnerable to various mental disorders (Carleton et al., 2018), and resilience is reported to be a protective factors against such mental health injuries (Lee et al., 2016). However, there may be important considerations when examining the relationship between resilience and mental disorders, such as longitudinal associations between the constructs (van der Meulen et al., 2018). Of note, while women in policing are more likely to experience gendered challenges and discrimination (Angehrn et al., 2021a; Langan et al., 2019; Morash and Haarr, 2012) as well as to report elevated mental disorder symptoms (Angehrn et al., 2021b; Carleton et al., 2018), this did not translate into lower resilience for policewomen relative to policemen. Therefore, in the face of challenges – both inherent to policing and to being a woman – policewomen appear to maintain their perception of having the resources and ability to respond positively. The current results are in line with previous findings, wherein policewomen are more prone to utilizing positive coping strategies, take advantage of social support and are less likely to use drinking or avoidance when facing occupational difficulties (Acquadro Maran et al., 2015; Bonner and Brimhall, 2022). Clinically, policewomen's high resilience may be an important tool when considering mental health interventions. While these women may be more likely than their men counterparts to develop symptoms of mood or anxiety disorders (Angehrn et al., 2021b), they also exhibit the ability to see themselves as having the resources needed to face hardships. Clinical frameworks that are framed around strengths and resilience in order to foster well-being and post-traumatic growth may be a useful strategy with this population both at the intervention and prevention levels (Tedeschi and Kilmer, 2005).
Sexual harassment
Our findings indicate that while policemen and policewomen encountered similar exposure to sexual harassment behaviors in their workplace, women were more likely to report having experienced sexual harassment themselves. One of the potential explanations may be that perceptions of what constitutes sexual harassment differs by gender. Research indicates that women generally are less likely to condone behaviors of sexual harassment and view such behaviors as being more serious (McDonald, 2012). Recent empirical evidence had also brought to light the gendered disparity in the perceptions of sexual harassment. In a previously researched sample of police officers, all policewomen surveyed had experienced a form of sexual harassment, while policemen did not report either experiencing or witnessing sexual harassment or discrimination (Angehrn et al., 2021a). In the current research, more than 80% of participants had reported some exposure to sexual stories or jokes in their workplace over the last year. One can assume that men were less likely to view such behavior as sexual harassment than women. Another hypothesis is that women might have been more likely to be on the receiving end of such behaviors, therefore being more prone to perceive it as sexual harassment. In fact, women are more likely than men to be the victim of sexual harassment and policewomen in particular are more vulnerable relative to women in the general population (De Haas et al., 2009; Heidensohn and Brown, 2000; McDonald, 2012). One out of four women in the current sample reported having personally experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. Contrary to our hypothesis, experiences of sexual harassment were not associated with resilience when examining the whole sample and policemen only. However, sexual harassment became a negative predictor of resilience when only the policewomen in the sample were examined. As policewomen were more likely than policemen to report having experienced sexual harassment themselves, one could understand that the impact of such behavior had a more robust impact on resilience and perception of themselves for the women than for the men. The literature on the impact of sexual harassment on resilience is sparse. Experiencing sexual harassment is associated with lower resilience (Ford et al., 2021). Further, when a workplace shows tolerance regarding sexual harassment, this negatively impacts resilience in victims of harassment (Ford and Ivancic, 2020). It thus appears paramount for workplaces such a police services to foster an environment where sexual harassment is condemned and wherein police officers feel supported if and when they decide to report such behavior.
Personality dysfunction, gender and resilience
In the present research, the most robust association was the relation between resilience and personality dysfunction. Specifically, higher personality dysfunction was associated with lower resilience, over and above protective factors. One can therefore assume that even when an individual benefits from numerous protective factors, their personality functioning appears to have a key role in being able to make use of these factors in order to showcase resilience. In the current study, personality dysfunction was based on Criterion A from the DSM-5's Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, in which personality functioning is operationalized dimensionally as a global level of severity index comprising four elements related to one's sense of self as well as one's interpersonal functioning (Oldham, 2015). The vast majority of police officers in the current sample (92%) did not show impairments at a clinical level with regards to their personality functioning and scored lower on the SIFS than community samples with personality difficulties. Yet, the current sample appeared to have higher personality dysfunction than community samples with no personality difficulties.
While overall personality dysfunction was a robust predictor of lower resilience, our analyses revealed that only elements related to the self were significantly associated with resilience. An intact sense of self is captured by two elements, namely Identity and Self-Direction. Identity is related to one's experience of being a unique person, with clearly defined boundaries between oneself and others, a stable self-esteem, accurate self-appraisal and the ability to regulate a wide range of emotional experiences (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Zimmermann et al., 2015). Self-Direction is related to one's pursuing of coherent and meaningful, the use of constructive and prosocial standards of behavior, as well as one's ability to self-reflect productively (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Zimmermann et al., 2015). Researchers have sought to better understand resilience in order to develop mental preparedness training among police officers (Andersen et al., 2015b). Our findings suggest that personality difficulties, specifically related to officers' sense of self, appear to be an important barrier to resilience. In fact, protective factors were no longer favorable to resilience when personality dysfunction was incorporated into the model. Training programs with police officers may benefit from incorporating a focus on emotion regulation, on boundaries and on development of meaningful and intrinsically motivated personal goals in order to foster resilience. Building the capacity to sustain productive reflective capacities about self and others, especially in affectively charged contexts, is also likely to be of paramount importance. Focusing on how officers respond to external adversity is an important part of routine police training; yet, it may be particularly valuable to take the time to invest in strengthening officers' sense of self so they can be confident they have the internal ability to face hardships.
Our findings highlight gender differences with regards to the interpersonal dimension of personality. Specifically, policemen reported higher dysfunction on these two scales relative to policewomen; yet, these scales were not significant predictors of resilience. Adequate interpersonal functioning is captured by two elements, namely Empathy and Intimacy. Empathy is related to one's understanding and appreciation of others' experiences and motivations, the ability to tolerate differing perspectives and the understanding of the impact of one's behavior on others. Intimacy is related to the ability to have deep and durable connections with others, the desire and capacity for closeness, as well as mutuality of regard which is reflected in relationships with others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Zimmermann et al., 2015). Previous research in police officers indicates that policewomen are more likely to utilize social support and emphasize the importance of closeness with others outside of work (Acquadro Maran et al., 2015; Angehrn et al., 2021a, b), which would support current results. Further, policemen may also be socialized, both through gender and occupational norms, to value independence and reliance on oneself (Wester and Lyubelsky, 2005). As social support has been widely associated with positive mental health outcomes in police officers (Nero et al., 2022), targeting interpersonal functioning and empathy in policemen could be beneficial. This may also be useful in the context of police work, for example as more policing services are noticing the benefits of community policing (Corsianos, 2011; Thurman, 2017).
Limitations
There are several limitations when considering the present study. First, the results are cross-sectional and we are unable to explore the directionality of these findings. Second, all measures were self-report measures. Stigma, both related to psychological measures and to sexual harassment measures, may have impacted respondents in their survey answers (i.e. underreporting of sexual harassment behaviors) and may vary depending on the larger cultural context; poor introspection about personality dysfunction cannot be excluded either. Third, while the study presents novel findings and aims to assess resilience as a concept outside of mental disorder diagnosis, it would be interesting for future research to investigate how the current results are related to both psychological and functional outcomes, namely assessing mental disorders and work performance, to have a thorough understanding of police resilience and its impacts. Fourth, the current sample consisted of police officers working across the province of Québec. Other populations might therefore differ and results should be replicated with a broader national sample in other countries.
Conclusion
Police officers are resilient individuals. Our findings reveal that while protective factors are beneficial to resilience, personality dysfunction, specifically with regards to an intact sense of self, is paramount when considering police resilience. While policemen reported greater difficulties with the interpersonal domains of personality, these difficulties were not related to resilience. Men and women police officers encountered similar behaviors related to sexual harassment. However, women were more likely to report having experienced sexual harassment. Resilience was negatively associated with subjective experiences of sexual harassment in women only. Resilience programs and police trainings should seek to integrate, among others, boundaries between self and others, emotional regulation, the ability to self-reflect, as well as incorporating constructive standards of behavior.
Demographic characteristics among police officers (n = 380)
| % (n) | |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Man | 55.8 (212) |
| Woman | 44.2 (168) |
| Age | |
| 20–29 | 14.2 (54) |
| 30–39 | 31.6 (120) |
| 39–49 | 39.2 (149) |
| 50–59 | 14.2 (54) |
| 60 and older | 0.8 (3) |
| Sexual orientation | |
| Heterosexual | 93.2 (354) |
| Other (e.g. bisexual and gay) | 6.8 (26) |
| Marital status | |
| In a relationship/married | 84.7 (322) |
| Single | 11.6 (44) |
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 3.7 (14) |
| Children | |
| Yes | 70.5 (268) |
| No | 29.5 (112) |
| Ethnicity | |
| White | 94.2 (358) |
| Other | 5.8 (22) |
| Education | |
| Collegial level degree (e.g. professional degree and police training) | 56.8 (216) |
| University degree (Bachelors or certificate) | 40.3 (153) |
| Postgraduate degree (Masters or PhD) | 2.9 (11) |
Source(s): Table by authors
Spearman's rank bivariate correlations between resilience, protective factors, sexual harassment and personality dysfunction total score
| Protective factors | Resilience | Sexual harassment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resilience | 0.19** | – | |
| Sexual Harassment | 0.02 | −0.09 | – |
| SIFS Total | −0.36** | −0.52** | 0.10 |
Note(s): SIFS = Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale. Sexual harassment refers to SEQ total score. ** = p < 0.001
Source(s): Table by authors
Descriptive Statistics
| Mean | SD | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resilience | 140.09 | 13.58 | 56–171 |
| Protective Factors | 27.80 | 3.97 | 14–35 |
| Sexual Harassment | 26.13 | 5.33 | 19–45 |
| Personality dysfunction | |||
| Identity | 0.94 | 0.57 | 0–3.86 |
| Self-Direction | 0.90 | 0.52 | 0–2.60 |
| Empathy | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0–3.83 |
| Intimacy | 0.73 | 0.62 | 0–3.00 |
| SIFS Total | 0.82 | 0.45 | 0–2.80 |
Note(s): SIFS = Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale. Sexual harassment refers to SEQ total score
Source(s): Table by authors
Differences between men and women on resilience, protective factors, sexual harassment and personality dysfunction
| Men | Women | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | t | Cohen's d | |
| Resilience | 139.82 | 12.78 | 140.44 | 13.36 | −0.43 | −0.05 |
| Protective Factors | 27.91 | 3.88 | 27.67 | 4.10 | 0.51 | 0.05 |
| SEQ sum | 25.83 | 5.11 | 26.51 | 5.60 | −1.74 | −0.18 |
| SEQ item 20 | 1.02 | 0.14 | 1.33 | 0.65 | −6.02 | −0.69 |
| Personality dysfunction | ||||||
| Identity | 0.92 | 0.54 | 0.98 | 0.61 | −1.05 | −0.09 |
| Self-Direction | 0.94 | 0.51 | 0.84 | 0.54 | 1.89 | 0.19 |
| Empathy | 0.82 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.54 | 3.93 | 0.41 |
| Intimacy | 0.84 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 3.75 | 0.39 |
| SIFS Total | 0.88 | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.44 | 2.66 | 0.28 |
Note(s): SEQ = Sexual Experiences Questionnaire; SEQ item 20 = “Have you ever experienced sexual harassment”; SIFS = Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale; sexual harassment refers to SEQ total score. Statistically significant results at the p = <0.001 level are italic
Source(s): Table by authors
Linear regression results for variance accounted for in resilience score
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | S.E. | β | B | S.E. | β | B | S.E. | β | B | S.E. | β | B | S.E. | β | |
| Gender | 0.61 | 1.40 | 0.022 | 0.75 | 1.38 | 0.027 | 0.96 | 1.39 | 0.035 | −1.22 | 1.25 | −0.044 | |||
| Protective factors | 0.66 | 0.17 | 0.192 | 0.66 | 0.17 | 0.192 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.001 | ||||||
| SEQ Total Score | −0.21 | 0.13 | −0.086 | ||||||||||||
| Sexual Harassment | −0.05 | 0.11 | −0.018 | ||||||||||||
| SIFS Total | −15.19 | 1.49 | −0.503 | ||||||||||||
| SIFS Identity | −8.91 | 1.26 | −0.373 | ||||||||||||
| SIFS Self-Direction | −6.09 | 1.35 | −0.235 | ||||||||||||
| SIFS Empathy | −0.94 | 1.32 | −0.040 | ||||||||||||
| SIFS Intimacy | −0.34 | 1.24 | −0.016 | ||||||||||||
| F | 0.19 | 7.29 | 5.84 | 31.54 | 43.13 | ||||||||||
| df | 377 | 376 | 375 | 374 | 375 | ||||||||||
| R2 | <0.001 | 0.037 | 0.045 | 0.252 | 0.315 | ||||||||||
Note(s): SEQ = Sexual Experiences Questionnaire; SIFS = Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale; sexual harassment refers to SEQ total score. Statistically significant results at the p = <0.01 level are italic. Models 1 through 4 are hierarchical models. Model 4 includes solely the SIFS subscales (Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy and Intimacy) as the independent variables and resilience as the dependent variable
Source(s): Table by authors
References
Acquadro Maran, D., Varetto, A., Zedda, M. and Ieraci, V. (2015), “Occupational stress, anxiety and coping strategies in police officers”, Occupational, Vol. 65, pp. 466-473.
Alecu, A.I. and Fekjær, S.B. (2020), “Female attrition from the police profession”, Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 375-389.
American Psychiatric Association (2013), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®), American Psychiatric Pub, Arlington, VA.
Anaut, M. (2005), “Le concept de résilience et ses applications cliniques”, Association de recherche en soins infirmiers, Vol. 82, pp. 4-11.
Andersen, J.P., Papazoglou, K., Arnetz, B.B. and Collins, P. (2015a), “Mental preparedness as a pathway to police resilience and optimal functioning in the line of duty”, International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, Vol. 17, pp. 624-627.
Andersen, J.P., Papazoglou, K., Nyman, M., Koskelainen, M. and Gustafsberg, H. (2015b), “Fostering resilience among police”, Vol. 51.
Angehrn, A., Fletcher, A.J. and Carleton, R.N. (2021a), “‘Suck it up, buttercup’: understanding and overcoming gender disparities in policing”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18, p. 7627.
Angehrn, A., Vig, K.D., Mason, J.E., Stelnicki, A.M., Shields, R.E., Asmundson, G.J. and Carleton, R.N. (2021b), “Sex differences in mental disorder symptoms among Canadian police officers: the mediating role of social support, stress, and sleep quality”, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Vol. 51, pp. 1-18.
Arble, E., Daugherty, A.M. and Arnetz, B.B. (2018), “Models of first responder coping: police officers as a unique population”, Stress and Health, Vol. 34, pp. 612-621.
Bateman, A., Campbell, C., Luyten, P. and Fonagy, P. (2018), “A mentalization-based approach to common factors in the treatment of borderline personality disorder”, Current Opinion in Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 44-49.
Bonner, H.S. and Brimhall, A. (2022), “Gender differences in law enforcement officer stress and coping strategies”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 59-89.
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S.L. and Stein, M.B. (2006), “Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults”, Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 44, pp. 585-599.
Campeau, H. (2019), “Institutional myths and generational boundaries: cultural inertia in the police organisation”, Policing and Society, Vol. 29, pp. 69-84.
Carleton, R.N., Afifi, T.O., Turner, S., Taillieu, T., Duranceau, S., LeBouthillier, D.M., Sareen, J., Ricciardelli, R., MacPhee, R.S. and Groll, D. (2018), “Mental disorder symptoms among public safety personnel in Canada”, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 63, pp. 54-64.
Carleton, R.N., Afifi, T.O., Taillieu, T., Turner, S., Krakauer, R., Anderson, G.S., MacPhee, R.S., Ricciardelli, R., Cramm, H.A. and Groll, D. (2019), “Exposures to potentially traumatic events among public safety personnel in Canada”, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, Vol. 51, p. 37.
Carleton, R.N., Afifi, T.O., Taillieu, T., Turner, S., Mason, J.E., Ricciardelli, R., McCreary, D.R., Vaughan, A.D., Anderson, G.S. and Krakauer, R.L. (2020), “Assessing the relative impact of diverse stressors among public safety personnel”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17, p. 1234.
Christopher, M.S., Goerling, R.J., Rogers, B.S., Hunsinger, M., Baron, G., Bergman, A.L. and Zava, D.T. (2016), “A pilot study evaluating the effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention on cortisol awakening response and health outcomes among law enforcement officers”, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 15-28.
Cordner, G. and Cordner, A. (2011), “Stuck on a plateau? Obstacles to recruitment, selection, and retention of women police”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 207-226.
Corsianos, M. (2011), “Responding to officers' gendered experiences through community policing and improving police accountability to citizens”, Contemporary Justice Review, Vol. 14, pp. 7-20.
De Haas, S., Timmerman, G. and Höing, M. (2009), “Sexual harassment and health among male and female police officers”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14, p. 390.
Ellrich, K. and Baier, D. (2017), “Post-traumatic stress symptoms in police officers following violent assaults: a study on general and police-specific risk and protective factors”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 32, pp. 331-356.
Field, A. (2013), Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, Sage, London.
Fitzgerald, L.F., Gelfand, M.J. and Drasgow, F. (1995), “Measuring sexual harassment: theoretical and psychometric advances”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 425-445.
Ford, J.L. and Ivancic, S.R. (2020), “Surviving organizational tolerance of sexual harassment: an exploration of resilience, vulnerability, and harassment fatigue”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 48, pp. 186-206.
Ford, J.L., Ivancic, S. and Scarduzio, J. (2021), “Silence, voice, and resilience: an examination of workplace sexual harassment”, Communication Studies, Vol. 72, pp. 513-530.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Martinussen, M. and Rosenvinge, J.H. (2009), “Empirical support for resilience as more than the counterpart and absence of vulnerability and symptoms of mental disorder”, Journal of Individual Differences, Vol. 30, pp. 138-151.
Galatzer-Levy, I.R., Brown, A.D., Henn-Haase, C., Metzler, T.J., Neylan, T.C. and Marmar, C.R. (2013), “Positive and negative emotion prospectively predict trajectories of resilience and distress among high-exposure police officers”, Emotion, Vol. 13, p. 545.
Gamache, D., Savard, C., Leclerc, P. and Côté, A. (2019), “Introducing a short self-report for the assessment of DSM–5 level of personality functioning for personality disorders: the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale”, Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, Vol. 10, p. 438.
Gamache, D., Savard, C., Leclerc, P., Payant, M., Berthelot, N., Côté, A., Faucher, J., Lampron, M., Lemieux, R. and Mayrand, K. (2021), “A proposed classification of ICD-11 severity degrees of personality pathology using the self and interpersonal functioning scale”, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 12, 628057.
Graber, R., Pichon, F. and Carabine, E. (2015), Psychological Resilience, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Grant, B.F. and Weissman, M.M. (2007), “Gender and the prevalence of psychiatric disorders”, in Narrow, W.E., First, M.B., Sirovatka, P.J. and Regier, D.A. (Eds), Age and Gender Considerations in Psychiatric Diagnosis, A Research Agenda for DSM-V. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc, Washington, D.C, pp. 31-45.
Heidensohn, F. and Brown, J. (2000), Gender and Policing: Comparative Perspectives, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Janssens, K.M., van der Velden, P.G., Taris, R. and van Veldhoven, M.J. (2021), “Resilience among police officers: a critical systematic review of used concepts, measures, and predictive values of resilience”, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 24-40.
John, O.P., Naumann, L.P. and Soto, C.J. (2008), “Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues”, in John, O.P., Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A. (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, The Guilford Press, New York City, NY, pp. 114-158.
Jourdan-Ionescu, C. (2001), “Intervention écosystémique individualisée axée sur la résilience”, Revue québécoise de psychologie, Vol. 22, pp. 163-186.
Jourdan-Ionescu, C. (2014), Cotation de l’Échelle de résilience de Wagnild et Young (VF) et des Échelles de facteurs de risque et de protection, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Département de psychologie, Trois-Rivières, QC.
Jourdan-Ionescu, C., Ionescu, S., Lauzon, M.-C., Tourigny, S.-C. and Ionescu-Jourdan, J. (2010), Échelle de facteurs de protection, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Département de psychologie, Trois-Rivières, QC.
Jourdan-Ionescu, C., Ionescu, S., Tourigny, S.-C.P., Hamelin, A. and Wagnild, G. (2015), “Facteurs de risque, facteurs de protection et résilience chez des étudiants universitaires québécois”, Résilience assistée, réussite éducative et réadaptation, Vol. 49, pp. 49-63.
Kalisch, R., Cramer, A.O.J., Binder, H., Fritz, J., Leertouwer, Ij., Lunansky, G., Meyer, B., Timmer, J., Veer, I.M. and van Harmelen, A.-L. (2019), “Deconstructing and reconstructing resilience: a dynamic network approach”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 14, pp. 765-777, doi: 10.1177/1745691619855637.
Kim, M.-K., Kim, J.-S., Park, H.-I., Choi, S.-W., Oh, W.-J. and Seok, J.-H. (2018), “Early life stress, resilience and emotional dysregulation in major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder”, Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 236, pp. 113-119.
Langan, D., Sanders, C.B. and Gouweloos, J. (2019), “Policing women's bodies: pregnancy, embodiment, and gender relations in Canadian police work”, Feminist Criminology, Vol. 14, pp. 466-487.
Lee, J.-K., Choi, H.-G., Kim, J.-Y., Nam, J., Kang, H.-T., Koh, S.-B. and Oh, S.-S. (2016), “Self-resilience as a protective factor against development of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in police officers”, Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 28, pp. 1-7.
McCanlies, E.C., Gu, J.K., Andrew, M.E. and Violanti, J.M. (2018), “The effect of social support, gratitude, resilience and satisfaction with life on depressive symptoms among police officers following Hurricane Katrina”, International Journal of Social Psychiatry, Vol. 64, pp. 63-72.
McCraty, R. and Atkinson, M. (2012), “Resilience training program reduces physiological and psychological stress in police officers”, Global Advances in Health and Medicine, Vol. 1, pp. 44-66.
McDonald, P. (2012), “Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: a review of the literature”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14, pp. 1-17.
Morash, M. and Haarr, R.N. (2012), “Doing, redoing, and undoing gender: variation in gender identities of women working as police officers”, Feminist Criminology, Vol. 7, pp. 3-23.
Morash, M., Kwak, D.-H. and Haarr, R. (2006), “Gender differences in the predictors of police stress”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 29, pp. 541-563.
Nero, J.W., Campbell, M.A., Doyle, J.N. and Meagher, J. (2022), “The link between social support and psychological vulnerability among Canadian police officers”, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 377-391.
Oldham, J.M. (2015), “The alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders”, World Psychiatry, Vol. 14, p. 234.
Oshio, A., Taku, K., Hirano, M. and Saeed, G. (2018), “Resilience and Big Five personality traits: a meta-analysis”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 127, pp. 54-60.
Pole, N., Kulkarni, M., Bernstein, A. and Kaufmann, G. (2006), “Resilience in retired police officers”, Traumatology, Vol. 12, pp. 207-216.
Portnoy, G.A., Relyea, M.R., Decker, S., Shamaskin-Garroway, A., Driscoll, M., Brandt, C.A. and Haskell, S.G. (2018), “Understanding gender differences in resilience among veterans: trauma history and social ecology”, Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 31, pp. 845-855.
Prati, G. and Pietrantoni, L. (2010), “Risk and resilience factors among Italian municipal police officers exposed to critical incidents”, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 27-33.
Roberts, R.M., Tarescavage, A.M., Ben-Porath, Y.S. and Roberts, M.D. (2019), “Predicting postprobationary job performance of police officers using CPI and MMPI–2–RF test data obtained during preemployment psychological screening”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 101, pp. 544-555.
Rutter, M. (2006), “Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1094, pp. 1-12.
Rutter, M. (2012), “Resilience as a dynamic concept”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 24, pp. 335-344.
Simmers, K.D., Bowers, T.G. and Ruiz, J.M. (2003), “Pre-employment psychological testing of police officers: the MMPI and the IPI as predictors of performance”, International Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 5, pp. 277-294.
Tedeschi, R.G. and Kilmer, R.P. (2005), “Assessing strengths, resilience, and growth to guide clinical interventions”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 36, p. 230.
Thurman, Q.C. (2017), “Community policing: the police as a community resource”, Reinventing Human Services, Routledge, pp. 175-188.
van der Meer, C.A., Bakker, A., Smit, A.S., van Buschbach, S., den Dekker, M., Westerveld, G.J., Hutter, R.C., Gersons, B.P. and Olff, M. (2017), “Gender and age differences in trauma and PTSD among Dutch treatment-seeking police officers”, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 205, pp. 87-92.
van der Meulen, E., van der Velden, P.G., Setti, I. and van Veldhoven, M.J. (2018), “Predictive value of psychological resilience for mental health disturbances: a three-wave prospective study among police officers”, Psychiatry Research, Vol. 260, pp. 486-494.
Wagnild, G. (2009), “A review of the resilience scale”, Journal of Nursing Measurement, Vol. 17, pp. 105-113.
Wagnild, G.M. and Young, H.M. (1993), “Development and psychometric”, Journal of Nursing Measurement, Vol. 1, pp. 165-17847.
Wester, S.R. and Lyubelsky, J. (2005), “Supporting the thin blue line: gender-sensitive therapy with male police officers”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 36, p. 51.
Zimmermann, J., Böhnke, J.R., Eschstruth, R., Mathews, A., Wenzel, K. and Leising, D. (2015), “The latent structure of personality functioning: investigating criterion a from the alternative model for personality disorders in DSM–5”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 124, p. 532.
Acknowledgements
The first author's work (AA) is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) through a Doctoral Fellowship.