ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Facing the COVID-19 pandemic, police officers are confronted with various novel challenges, which might place additional strain on officers. This mixed-method study investigated officers' strain over a three-month-period after the lockdown. METHODS: In an online survey, 2567 police officers (77% male) from Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Spain participated at three measurement points per country in spring, 2020. Three-level growth curve models assessed changes in strain and its relation to stressor appraisal, emotion regulation, and preparedness through training. To add context to the findings, free response answers about officers' main tasks, stressors, and crisis measures were coded inductively. RESULTS: On average, officers seemed to tolerate the pandemic with slight decreases in strain over time. Despite substantial variance between countries, 66% of the variance occurred between individuals. Sex, work experience, stressor appraisal, emotion regulation, and preparedness significantly predicted strain. Risk of infection and deficient communication emerged as main stressors. Officers' reports allowed to derive implications for governmental, organizational, and individual coping strategies during pandemics. CONCLUSION: Preparing for a pandemic requires three primary paths: 1) enacting unambiguous laws and increasing public compliance through media communication, 2) being logistically prepared, and 3) improving stress regulation skills in police training.
ABSTRACT
The social desirability bias can be considered a two-dimensional construct, consisting of impression management and self-deception. Although social desirability is often considered a threat to the validity of intimate partner violence (IPV) reports, little is known about which dimension is most responsible for this distortion. Furthermore, it is unclear whether social desirability distorts the report of relationship satisfaction. In this study, two instruments that claim to measure social desirability are investigated on their ability to measure impression management and self-deception. Afterward, which dimension (if any) is responsible for a distortion in IPV and relationship satisfaction reports is examined. The survey consisted of the following measures: the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales for IPV, the Couples Satisfaction Index for relationship satisfaction and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding, the Limited Disclosure Scale, and the Idealistic Distortion Scale for social desirability. The Limited Disclosure Scale was found to predominantly measure impression management. The Idealistic Distortion Scale did not measure social desirability well and appeared to be a bad measure for relationship satisfaction. Both the reports of IPV and relationship satisfaction were influenced by impression management, but not by self-deception. However, impression management and self-deception only accounted for a small portion of the variance in IPV and relationship satisfaction reports. These results indicate that the social desirability bias, when reporting IPV and relationship satisfaction, is a conscious process, but that its influence on IPV and relationship satisfaction reports might be overrated.
