1. ABSTRACT According to the theory of procedural justice, the act of law enforcement communicating with the public in an aggressive or coercive manner (e.g. yelling, cursing or threatening to use force) may lead a person to believe they are being treated unfairly. This may result in an increased aggressive action toward law enforcement, which has a correlation with the use of force used during that encounter (PPCS, 2008). To date, few studies have attempted to examine this relationship. The present study explores the relationship between coercion (violations of procedural justice) and instances of force used by law enforcement. The findings were modestly supportive that some types of coercion may actually serve to suppress use of force by law enforcement. RESEARCH QUESTION What effect does law enforcement officers’ coercion techniques (yelling, cursing & threatening) have on use of force and perceptions of procedural justice? FINDINGS All correlations are significant Ordinary Least Squares Regression accounts for 20% of the variation in use of force Negative Relationships (activities leading to decreased frequency of force): Public working within last week(-.19) Feeling police behaved properly(-.22) Police shouting during contact(-.13) Positive Relationships (activities leading to increased frequency of force): Public arguing, threating, etc. (.18) Police cursing at public(.22) Police pointing gun at public(.25) The findings are mixed. Cursing is related to higher use of force while shouting resulted in lower instances of force. Those who had force used against them were more likely to feel the police acted properly. METHODOLOGY Data: 2008 Police-Public Contact Survey (57,978 persons) weighted to national population estimate of 236 million persons. Variables: Dependent – Force (Combined : push, grab, kick, hit, weapon) Independent – Coercion (Police: shout, curse, point gun, threaten) Independent – Procedural Justice (Public: perception of police) Analysis: 1.Presentation of survey demographics & perception (Table 1) 2.Examine bivariate correlations for significance 3.Inspect coefficients from OLS regression & beta weights (Table 2) Definitions: Force - any physical police-public contact, which is likely to result in injury (see list above under dependent variable) Coercion – a means of controlling the conduct of others through threat or aggressive verbal tactics (see above) CONCLUSIONS When police use shouting (a coercive aggressive communications tactics) during public contact use of force incidents are less likely to occur. Policy Implications: Law enforcement agencies should understand that shouting, when used appropriately may reduce force used by officers Increase education on how and when to use coercive techniques to gain voluntary compliance Officers should be encouraged to record citizens comments after a use of force encounter Table 1 Demographic profile and public perception Measure% Gender: Male49 Female51 Race/Ethnicity: White71 Black11 Hispanic12 Other6 Public perception of police contact: Police acted properly90 Police were respectful92 Public to police aggressive behavior: Public argue, insult, curse, threaten1.2 Use of Force Physical Force Used0.02 (Weighted N= 236,511,832) Police Shouting Use of Force Table 2 Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients ModelBStd. ErrorBetatSig.Tolerance (Constant).90.004249.55.000 Did you have a job or work at a business in last week?-.38.003-.19-136.14.000.86 Do you feel the police behaved properly?-.60.005-.22-132.39.000.61 Do you feel the police treated you respectfully?.14.003.0530.53.000.59 Did you argue, curse, insult, or verbally threaten the police?.44.003.18133.98.000.92 Did the police shout at you?-.30.003-.13-93.38.000.83 Did the police curse at you?.45.003.22145.03.000.70 Did the police threaten to use force against you?.14.003.0643.01.000.88 Did the police actually point a gun at you?.57.003.25166.64.000.73 R squared = 0.20 F = 15,004 Cronback's Alpha = 0.380