Introduction

Policing as a profession and police work as a practice are meant to be secular activities free from the influence of religious ideals and religious doctrine. Police work is situated within secular guidelines of professionalism set out by police institutions, and individuals entering policing are expected to place their religious beliefs and religious practices into a secondary role; thereby putting the ideologies of policing (as well as the ideals of the institution) over and above their identity as a citizen (Gervais and Norenzayan 2012). Yet religion, religious beliefs, and religious ideologies are considered the most widely used systems of reasoning when ethical decision-making is conducted, or when moral rationalisation is applied (McCartney and Parent 2015). Whilst it is argued that there is a great deal of ambiguity relating to interpretation of religious beliefs and ideologies (particularly when religion is used to provide the direction of an ethical outcome or moral reasoning), the impact this may have on policing practice is problematic, particularly if officers use their religious beliefs and ideologies as a moral guideline for law enforcement, over and above operational codes of conduct or police training. Many religions uphold irreducible beliefs, but whether high levels of religiosity (particularly those associated with literalism to scripture) are associated with differential policing of certain groups is unclear because studies examining this in relation to policing are non-existent in the extant policing literature.

Whilst many Western societies are becoming increasing secular, and the place of religion in public and private life may be decreasing (see McFadyen and Prideaux 2014; Habermas 2008; Calhoun et al. 2011), police organisations in the West still espouse policing policies based on Christian morals and values. The clustering of religious beliefs within authoritarian groups such as police organisations correlates with distinctive concepts of power, which historically, in Australia, were supported by religious codes of behaviour established during colonisation (Enders and Dupont 2001). Religious codes of behaviour underpin much of the social structure in Australian society. Codes of behaviour uphold the notion that a dominant group in society has the potential to enforce its own value systems and ideologies upon others for its own purpose. This determines notions of normative behaviour and how groups of people and individuals interact with one another (Pratto et al. 2013; Sidanius et al. 2004). In Australia, perceptions of normative behaviour are also constructed by social norms and legislation, and like many other Western nations, each is underpinned formally or informally by Protestant Christian and or Catholic ideals. In Australia, normative expectations regarding police behaviour are underpinned by the notion that police are expected to convey a level of professionalism with all members of society despite the potential for personal bias to interplay during engagement with citizens. Yet research is lacking regarding Australian officers (such as those in this study) who are strongly influenced by religion and the impact this may have on their professional life.

An individual’s level of religiosity is multidimensional, covering cultural, organisational, personal, and behavioural constructs, which interact with other social phenomena such as family, community, and cultural heritage, as well as a person’s attitudes, values, and behaviour (Prideaux and McFadyen 2013). Levels of religiosity are expressed in conscious and subconscious ways, and whilst expression of religiosity may vary depending on different contextual situations such as during work, home or leisure activities, the level of religiosity an individual has underpins much of a person’s attitudes, beliefs, and opinion towards different aspects of their life (McCartney and Parent 2015). It is also argued that a person’s level of religiosity shapes their interaction with others, and therefore, a person’s expectations regarding how situations may evolve (McAndrew and Voas 2011). Levels of religiosity are also thought to influence implicit or explicit bias and ensuing expectations regarding interaction or engagement (McAndrew and Voas 2011; Prideaux and McFadyen 2013).

Whether police officers who possess high levels of religiosity can police all citizens in an equitable manner need systematic enquiry because impartial policing requires officers to carefully consider the needs of all community members in relation to policing guidelines before all other directives, principles, or beliefs are considered (Miles-Johnson 2020). An officer’s inability to address the needs of all citizens because of their personal level of religiosity may, therefore, increase the likelihood that they will engage in discriminatory policing practices. Yet information regarding officers’ level of religiosity and its influence on policing practice is also missing from much of the extant policing literature and has not been researched in the context of Australia policing. It is also reasonable to suggest that biased policing practices or differential policing of citizens who do not fit within normative religious ideals regarding behavioural practices or identities advocated by a religion may also be subject to unfair treatment. However, this information is also missing from the extant policing literature and from Australian policing studies. As such, this research sought to address this knowledge gap in policing literature to better understand how an officer’s level of religiosity in Australia influences police practice and interaction with people from minority groups (citizens who do not fit within normative religious ideals identified by differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender-identity). Using an online survey specifically tailored to capture perceptions of policing, this study sought to determine whether Australian police officers working in one of the largest state police organisations identify as religious, and if so, whether they would follow their religion's teachings and doctrines closely and apply them in different contexts at work.

Literature review

The effects of religion on police practice are often discounted in much of the wide body of literature examining police work because it is argued that religion should not be used to uphold criminal justice practices and should, therefore, be relegated to private–personal space (Rawls 2005). But the extent to which an officer allows their religiosity to influence practice cannot be ignored simply because an individual has joined an organisation, wears a uniform, follows training documents, and adheres to operational commands (McFadyen and Prideaux 2011). An individual’s level of religiosity is a highly complex phenomenon. It is argued that the level of religiosity a person has does not simply disappear or become reduced in relation to other aspects of life such as during employment or in a work-related situation (McAndrew and Voas 2011).

Across the globe, most police organisations’ policing guidelines or ethical codes of behaviour state that officers must police citizens in an equal manner free from bias (Miles-Johnson 2020). For example, in Australia, national policing guidelines set out by the Police Federal Police Act 1979 (Australian Government 1979, amended 2020) state that police officers should act or make decisions that are compatible with human rights, thereby impartially policing individuals and groups (see police codes of conduct Sects. 14D/4 and 14 J/6, subsection 1). Equitable guidelines such as these are captured by many police organisations in their ‘pledge of service’ or ‘oath of office’, which police recruits make at the start of their professional careers. Yet research posits that joining an organisation such as the police and pledging an oath of service does not necessarily nullify an individual’s religious beliefs or practices (see Clark-Miller and Brady 2013).

Depending on the level of religiosity, research determines that people will place their loyalty to the moral and religious values that are associated with a particular religion, over and above other tenets or practices espoused by different institutions or organisations unless they are directly associated with a particular religion that is being followed (Kelman and Hamilton 1989). It is also argued that when individuals pledge their loyalty to religious beliefs it further supports behavioural practices that reinforce the religious values espoused by a religion (Rawls 2005), which often shape the way a person behaves or interacts with others (Napier and Tyler 2008). This is challenging for secular institutions such as the police because there is an expectation that upon joining the police, a recruit (who then becomes an officer) will adhere to policing guidelines, wear a police uniform (unless they are a plain clothes officer), use a police badge, or drive an official police vehicle, and such collective forms of police identity (and identifiers), which establish and uphold the professional identity of a police officer (De Camargo 2016; Johnson 2017; Sefton 2010). Use of such identifiers are meant to override or negate the officer’s civilian identity and other beliefs and practices associated with civilian life (De Camargo 2016; Johnson 2017; Sefton 2010).

Almost all police work involving police–citizen engagement requires officers to determine the outcome of a situation based on their recollection of training, the information contained within police operational guidelines, as well as their own discretional decision-making regarding how they think a situation should or could be resolved (Miles-Johnson 2020). Yet outcomes in policing are highly affected by an officers’ discretion, which, in turn, is influenced by an officer’s levels of implicit or explicit bias towards others (Miles-Johnson and Pickering 2018). An officer who makes decisions based on their level of religiosity and loyalty to religious beliefs which exceed organisational policing guidelines or practices is likely to police citizens differentially (De Camargo 2016; Johnson 2017; Sefton 2010). Religions are often intolerant, discriminatory, and condemning of people who do not follow the same religion or who are not considered acceptable by the religion and are usually prejudiced towards people who present a threat to the religion or religious ideals espoused by the group (Voas 2007). This argument is formed under the idea of a divine command theory, whereby the direction of an ethical outcome is provided by the presence of a ‘wilful and rational god’ who offers rewards and punishments which reinforce the idea that ethical decisions should be made based on religious tenets set out by (and espoused by) the commands of the ‘god’ (McCartney and Parent 2015). The idea of divine influence in relation to an officer’s level of religiosity also represents a challenge to the notion of police work and the expectation that officers will police people in an equitable manner.

The nature of police work means it frequently happens away from public view and, at times, occurs without the presence, influence, or control of superior officers who may monitor the professionalism of officers and adherence to codes of conduct (Miles-Johnson 2019; Porter and Prenzler 2017). When officers police the public in high-stress situations or if an officer feels threatened by members of the public or are challenged by the policing of members of the public who do not fit with normative expectations of behaviour, or when an officer works alone without direct supervision, previous research determines background characteristics (which may include an officer’s religion) frequently form significant predictors (or risk factors) associated with misconduct, and in these types of situations police misconduct can occur (Miles-Johnson 2019). Whilst this may only be relevant to behaviour which emerges in context or specific policing situations, when officers are confronted with situations that require discretionary policing practices or decision-making processes, it is argued that the likelihood of officers being influenced by background characteristics over and above operational guidelines increases (McFadyen and Prideaux 2011; Miles-Johnson 2019). For example, lack of discretion during police citizen encounters (such as stop and search) and excessive use of force can be influenced by an officer’s background characteristics, particularly if an officer has levels of explicit bias (based on hostile stereotypes) or implicit bias (stereotyping certain groups in relation to crime or related traits such as violence or hostility) towards certain groups (Fridell 2016; Miles-Johnson 2019).

Whilst religion may have a negative influence on policing practice, it may also have positive effects on police–citizen interaction and professional engagement. Police work is about promoting prosocial behaviours to achieve the well-being of society, and a police officer’s relational positionality to citizens is about upholding and maintaining the rules and regulations that guide citizen’s behaviour (Miles-Johnson et al. 2021). Research by Bennet and Einolf (2017) suggests that religion and religious beliefs form an important part of social solidarity and informal social capital, and that religious people, members of minority religious groups, and people living in religiously diverse countries are more likely to help others, particularly strangers. Certainly, under this premise, police officers with religious beliefs may be more likely than those without religious beliefs to promote prosocial norms and values and may be more inclined to police all citizens in an equitable manner. Therefore, the possible effect of altruism or solidarity stemming from religion beliefs or religious practices on police–citizen interaction should not be discounted. Bennet and Einolf (2017) also argue that religion influences people’s internal norms and values and subsequently may help develop an individual’s internal motivation to help others. Given that most police organisations train officers to respond to citizens during times of victimisation and crisis, it is likely that officers possessing religious beliefs would have high levels of motivation and professionalism and would be more likely than non-religious officers to police equitably.

Yet previous research also determines that policing of minority groups adds a level of complexity to the provision of services Australian police organisations are expected to offer when interacting with the public (Miles-Johnson 2016). The expectations and the needs of multiracial and multicultural communities in Australia places Australian police organisations in an underlying state of tension because the array of challenges officers face when engaging in policing work change and grow as the composition of Australian communities alter in racial, ethnic, religious, social, and cultural structures (see Goodman-Delahunty 2010; Hebbani and McNamara 2010; Miles-Johnson 2016, 2019). How police officers engage with the public conveys messages about equitable and procedurally fair policing within defined normative expectations associated with policing practice. But in Australia, poor treatment of people identified as members of minority groups who enter the criminal justice system is an ongoing issue.

Individuals identified by differences in race, ethnicity, and religion, such as Aboriginal Australians, Sudanese African Australians, and Muslim Australians, and individuals identified by differences in sexual or gender-identity, such as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) community, have consistently poor relations with police, often complaining about differential policing and disparate treatment during police–citizen encounters (see Goodman-Delahunty 2010; Hebbani and McNamara 2010; Miles-Johnson 2016, 2019; Miles-Johnson and Death 2020; Walker and Archbold 2013). This is not to suggest that policing of minority groups has not improved in Australia, there are numerous Australian police organisations which implement positive community engagement strategies or who employ liaison officers specifically to work with minority groups. Minority groups, however, consistently complain about poor police relations and a lack of understanding from officers regarding their communities, identities, and the specific needs minority groups have when interacting with police (Miles-Johnson and Death 2020).

Whilst there is a wide body of research which determines that differential policing of minority groups occurs frequently in Australia (see Goodman-Delahunty 2010; Hebbani and McNamara 2010; Miles-Johnson 2016, 2019; Miles-Johnson and Deaath 2020; Walker and Archbold 2013), what is unknown is how members of minority groups are policed by officers who have high levels of religiosity or how officers police minority people when their religious beliefs clash with citizens whose lifestyles or cultural practices are deemed at being at odds or in opposition to those espoused by a religion, particularly behaviours or cultural practices or identity/identifiers that may oppose normative ideals or expectations of behaviour or identity which underpin religious philosophies or beliefs. Studies examining policing and religion, and professionalism of officers in relation to level of religiosity, are, however, scarce in the extant policing literature. Yet research suggests that there are growing numbers of officers who are religious, who identify with a religion or espouse varying levels of religiosity (Prideaux and McFadyen 2013). This is interesting given that Australian police organisations (like many other Western police organisations) have historically been heavily influenced and underpinned by social practices, morals, beliefs, cultural practices, and laws underpinned by religious ideologies, as well as the level of religiosity expressed by those in charge (McFadyen and Prideaux 2011).

Although the most recent census conducted in Australia suggests that religious identity or religious affiliation may play a reduced role for many Australian people (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016), research by Pepper and Powell (2018) suggests that Australian attitudes towards religion are mixed, with most people in Australia identifying as either Protestant Christian or Roman Catholic. According to the Cultural Atlas (2019), religion and religious institutions also continue to play a large role in Australian society and within the Australian criminal justice system. Many Australian schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, and charity organisations, for example, are owned and or funded by religious organisations, and many public and or privately run sectors of the Australian criminal justice system (such as drug rehabilitation centres, social service agencies, and probationary services) are contracted or subcontracted to religious organisations. Consequently, at the core of the Australian criminal justice system is religious ideologies, which have shaped social, cultural, and/or legal responses to crime, and or police performance.

This is challenging because the effects of these religions on people working in policing and the level of religiosity an officer have may influence their perceptions of policing and police work. Typically, normative boundaries which shape intergroup perceptions and interaction between officers and citizens are based on the levels of implicit and explicit bias that police and citizens have towards each other as well as positive or negative perceptions of previous interaction, trust, personal experience, and perceptions of normative behaviour associated between different groups of people (Miles-Johnson and Death 2020). Mistrust between police and citizens is not a new phenomenon. Mistrust between police and citizens, particularly between police and minority groups, is underpinned by histories of abuse and differential policing, and although police organisations across the globe have initiated strategies to build good relations with all citizens, high levels of cynicism, bias and prejudice, and social rejection of behaviours and cultural practices associated with minority groups have not helped the often poor and unstable relationships between police and members of minority groups (Goodman-Delahunty 2010; Hebbani and McNamara 2010; Miles-Johnson 2016, 2019; Miles-Johnson and Death 2020; Walker and Archbold 2013).

Even though inclusion of officers from minority groups into policing is strongly encouraged by all Australian police organisations, the reality of Australian policing in the twenty-first century is that most Australian police organisations employ officers who identify as white, and heterosexual, whose religious identities are predominantly Protestant Christian or Catholic (Miles-Johnson and Death 2020; Novich et al. 2018). This has not gone unnoticed by police organisations across Australia, with some organisations such as Victoria Police, and the Queensland Police Service developing platforms which focus on the diversification of employment of personnel in a substantial effort to improve their workforce diversity and the culture of policing. It is argued that the strategic inclusion of minority groups into policing under initiatives to increase the numbers of minority officers within organisations may actually reduce the social distance that is often perceived between police and citizens from both perspectives, but this is an argument that is debated in much of the policing literature with conversing views supporting or negating this practice (see Dobbin and Kalev 2016; Linos 2017; Miles-Johnson and Pickering 2018; Rowe and Ross 2015).

Diminishing perceptions of social distance between police and citizens is not easy, especially if police and citizens have a history of poor relations or mistrust of each other (Miles-Johnson and Pickering 2018). It is also challenged by varied social problems created by the shifting composition of neighbourhoods and the diversity of citizenry, which creates an underlying state of tension because the array of challenges police face when engaging in policing work, change and grow as the composition of communities alter in racial, ethnic, religious, social, and cultural structures (see Goodman-Delahunty 2010; Hebbani and McNamara 2010; Miles-Johnson 2016, 2019; Walker and Archbold 2013). The strategic inclusion of officers with minority identities into policing, however, does not guarantee the ability of that officer to police all citizens fairly or appropriately, or that a recruited officer from a minority group will be any more or less likely than another officer who is not identified as minority to police citizens in an unbiased way (Hydén and Ljungberg 2009; Miles-Johnson 2019). Biased or unbiased policing may occur because of the influences of an officer’s religious identity, which may contradict the dominant religion of a particular nation or a group of citizens. Conversely, officers who identify with a majority group religion such as Protestant Christian or Catholic may not necessarily police members of their own or other religions or non-religious people differentially just because they have a religious identity. It is, however, reasonable to determine that the inclusion of more minority groups into policing may alter the overall composition (and or perception) of police organisations but whether increased numbers of minority officers improve policing practices generally is debatable (see Hydén and Ljungberg 2009; Miles-Johnson 2016; Shjarback et al. 2017).

In addition, unlike other groups who may share collective physical identifiers such as those based on race and or ethnicity, or organisations who may share collective interests (such as hobbies) or who engage in specific physical activities (such as sporting groups or clubs), religious groups invoke membership by adherence to specific behavioural practices based on religious scripture or sacred text. Interpretation of such texts describes and proscribes attributes and behavioural practices, which if not adhered to automatically categorise people as non-members and subsequently in negative ways. Although the framing of normative practices relating to daily life vary in terms of the application of the sacred or divine principles which underpin the religion, the foci of normative life practices are based on everyday life choices and behavioural routines (McFadyen and Prideaux 2014). The choices are supported by notions of reward (to those who adhere to the principles) and punishment (those who do not) (McFadyen and Prideaux 2014). Historical evidence shows that negative perceptions of those who do not adhere to the principles of a majority religion results in persecution, punishment and at times, death.

Summation of the literature, however, shows that there is little research in Australia and across the globe which examines whether perceptions of policing are shaped by an officer’s level of religiosity. There is also a lack of research examining how level of religiosity may influence decision-making processes when police interact with members of minority communities, and little knowledge regarding whether officers can police all citizens (regardless of identity or identifier) impartially in relation to the influence of religion or level of religiosity; particularly if lifestyles or cultural practices may differ from those supported by an officer’s religion. The present study, therefore, contributes new knowledge to the extant literature on religion and perceptions of policing practice, particularly regarding policing of minority groups and how an officer’s level of religiosity may influence their perceptions of police–citizen interaction. Starting with the research question “how does an officer’s level of religiosity shape their perceptions of policing of people from minority groups?” this research sought to better understand how level of religiosity shapes Australian officers’ perceptions of policing of people from minority groups (citizens who do not fit within normative religious ideals identified by differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender-identity). Whilst this type of research has not been conducted in an Australian context, research analysing how officers with differing levels of religiosity engage with members of minority groups in Australia is needed, because it will better understand how officers in Australia perceive notions of equitable and procedurally fair policing that should be implemented towards all citizens regardless of identity.

Methods

Level of religiosity is characterised by the extent to which a person self-identifies with the ideology, worldview or normative practices associated with or sustained by a religion (Hogg et al. 2010). Whilst it may be argued that religious groups may vary in their levels of religiosity and belief, self-categorisation of religious identity as well as level of religiosity often places the individual within a religious ingroup, thereby setting them (and others who follow the same religion or who possess the same level of religiosity) apart from other members of society (Tajfel 2010). Often measured using five core dimensions (religious belief, religious knowledge, religious experience, religious practice, and religious consequence), an individual’s level of religiosity is underpinned by their ‘belief’ in the core components of a religion. When an individual possesses a high level of religiosity and strongly identifies as a follower of a particular religion, typically the subsequent belief in the religious ideology provides the individual with ideological and behavioural guidelines that set out in structured, organised ways, normative prescriptions regarding behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes (Hogg et al. 2010).

Participation

An email was sent by one of Australia’s largest police organisations (de-identified for ethics reasons) to its officers working in general duties policing to participate in an online survey regarding their perceptions of policing and religion. The email explained that this study was only interested in officers who follow a particular religion and if they consider themselves religious. The officers were informed that the survey would include items asking about perceptions of policing practice and if they follow a particular religion's teachings and doctrines, whether they would apply these teachings and doctrines in different contexts at work, and how this may shape their judgement of people from minority groups during police–citizen interaction. The email included an online link to the survey and outlined that the research was being conducted independently of the police organisation. Participants were informed that individual survey responses were anonymous and would not be disclosed to the organisation, and participation would not impact on their professional relationship with (or standing within) the organisation.

The police organisation is one of the largest Australian state police organisations with over 18 thousand employees; however, exact participant response rates could not be calculated because the initial number of officers contacted by the police organisation to complete the online survey was not disclosed by the police organisation. The final sample of participants included in this study comprised N = 1172 officers who answered ‘yes’ to the first two ‘conditional branching’ or ‘skip-logic’ items, which filtered participant responses to questions regarding religion.Footnote 1 The two items specifically asked participants if they chose to follow a particular religion, and, if yes, do they consider themselves religious. In accordance with the ethics agreement, identifying information such as badge number or rank of officer was not collected to ensure participant anonymity. The participants’ demographic information is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Participant demographic information
Full size table

The survey items

The survey items specifically asking about religion and level of religiosity were adapted from previous research by Glock (1962) and Pearce et al. (2017) and each item was strategically placed to determine how the religious identity and level of religiosity of an officer shapes perceptions of police–citizen interaction with minority groups. The items in the survey that asked participants about their recognition of involvement in a religion used yes/no responses whilst all other items in the survey used standardized Likert-type scale responses ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. Scales were created from the responses to each of items in the survey, and all the scales used in the final model had either acceptable, good, or excellent Cronbach’s Alphas (see Table 2 and Appendix 1).

Table 2 Cronbach’s alphas, minimum and maximum scores, and mean and standard deviations for each scale
Full size table

Level of religiosity items in the survey covered key components of belief and experience that are known to determine level of religiosity and these included items asking the participants about their recognition of their involvement in a religion and religious practices, their views on key aspects of the religion they follow, their level of religious belief, their level of religious knowledge, their religious experiences, their religious practices, and the consequences of following their religion. Level of religiosity items in the survey also asked participants about their perceptions of the salience of the religion they follow, their religion’s institutional practices, their living and work choices in relation to living alongside or working alongside people with specific identifiers, and how their religion may shape their judgement of other people during police–citizen interaction. Eight items in the survey asked participants to disclose demographic items.

To better understand how religion and level of religiosity shapes officers' perceptions of police–citizen interaction with minority groups identified by differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender-diversity, in the survey, ‘race’ was defined as a representation of a human population distinguished by physical characteristics, ‘ethnicity’ as a term to represent minority groups with a shared history, identity, geography and cultural roots (which occur despite racial difference), ‘religiosity’ as a level of belief in a collection of cultural systems, principles, philosophies, and worldviews, which relate humanity to spirituality and sometimes to moral values, differences in ‘sexuality and gender-identity’ to non-heteronormative or non-heterosexual expressions of sexuality and gender such as those expressed by gay and lesbian communities and transgender communities.

A dichotomous categorical dependent variable ‘Applying Religion at Work’, Yes/No, coded 0 (yes) 1 (no) was created from responses by participants to the statement “I follow my religion's teachings and doctrines as closely as possible and frequently apply them in different contexts at work”. Predictor (independent) variables were also created as scales from items in the survey, and these included scales built from the officer’s responses to items asking about their level of religious belief, their religious knowledge, their religious experience, their religious consequences, their religious salience, their religious judgement of people specified by differences in identity during police–citizen interaction, and their perceptions of living/working alongside people specified by differences in identity. Starting with the research question—‘what religious factors predict the likelihood that officers’ will follow their religion's teachings and doctrines as closely as possible and frequently apply them in different contexts at work’, it was determined that the predictor variables would provide an indication of the relative importance of each on shaping the officer’s level of religiosity and how this shapes their perceptions of police–citizen interaction with minority groups.

Variables relating to the characteristics of the participants were also included in the final model, and these were the participants’ Gender (male = 0, female = 1) and Age that was clustered into two groups (18–30 years of age = 0 and 31+ years of age = 1). Given that 96.6% of the sample identified as heterosexual, 99.8% of the sample identified as Caucasian, and only 0.8% of the participants considered themselves to be a member of a minority racial or ethnic group, the participants’ sexuality, ‘race’, and ethnicity were not included in the final model. A logistic regression was built from this information to identity the variables (predictors) most closely related to the outcome or dependent variable. Analysis of the bivariate correlations for each of the independent variables indicated that there was a strong positive correlation between the participants religious knowledge and the choices they make regarding living and working alongside people from minority groups (r = 0.83, p =  < 0.01), which explained 68.6% of the variance in the participants scores. There was also a strong positive correlation between the participant’s perceptions of the salience of the religion they follow and their perceptions of the consequences of following (or not following) their religion (r = 0.60), which explained 36.5% of the variance in the participants scores (see Table 3).

Table 3 Religiosity scale–bivariate correlations
Full size table

Methodological limitations

Whist this research offers an important and original contribution to the field of policing studies regarding perceptions of policing practice, particularly whether officers who follow a religion's teachings and doctrines frequently apply them in different contexts at work, and whether possessing high levels of religiosity shapes perceptions of policing of people from minority groups during police–citizen interaction, this research has several limitations. First, the research in this study was interested in better understanding how officers choosing to follow a particular religion and their subsequent level of religiosity has on their perceptions of policing of people from minority groups. As such it only included participants who answered ‘yes’ in their response to the first two ‘conditional branching’ or ‘skip-logic’ items, which filtered participant responses to questions regarding religion. Inclusion of officers who do not follow a particular religion or who do not possess religious beliefs may, however, offer further insight into this under researched area, and add comparable data determining how all officers (regardless of religion or religious beliefs) perceive policing of minority groups. This may be important to consider in the future studies because not following a religion or not having a religious identity may positively or negatively affect how officers perceive policing of minority groups, and may therefore, increase or decrease the likelihood that officers will treat members of minority groups fairly or unfairly during police–citizen interaction. Inclusion of a control group of participants not affiliated with a religion will also determine the impact of non-religious beliefs on policing as well as the impact of participants who may have religious or spiritual beliefs yet may not follow a particular religion (see Davie 2007; Pollack and Olson 2007). Second, although the research was conducted with one of the largest Australian state police organisations, further research with other Australian police organisations could determine if the results of this study are representative of all Australian officers regarding influence of religious identity and levels of religiosity on policing. In addition, this research did not examine aspects of police culture as an influence on perceptions of policing of minority groups identified by differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender-identity, and how underlying and often negative components of operational police culture may affect police officer attitudes and perceptions towards police–citizen interaction (see Stanko et al. 2012; Myhill and Bradford 2013). Third, the results from this study may be skewed by the dominance of officers who identify as male, and heterosexual, and who identify as Protestant Christian or Catholic. Certainly, the inclusion of more female officers, officers who do not identify as a member of a majority religion or sexual identity, as well as the inclusion of officers who identify as non-religious may offer further insight into the influence of religion and level of religiosity on policing, and how this shapes policing of people from minority groups. Yet the sample included in this study, however, is reflective of many police organisations in Australia (and in the West) who are dominated in number by officers who identify as male, Protestant Christian or Catholic, White, and heterosexual. Finally, it is acknowledged that participation in an online survey may increase the likelihood of socially desirable responses from participants. It would be prudent therefore to replicate this study in the future to remove any effects of social desirability and to conduct a comparison study with officers in the field. To increase the generalisability of the results, repeating the study during various times throughout the officer’s careers could also add further knowledge to this area.

Results

Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity had affected the final model. The results were analysed for the occurrence of high intercorrelation between the independent variables to determine the effect of the reliability of independent variables in the model. Whilst the possible effects of multicollinearity could affect the interpretation of the model, the model fit containing all the predictors was statistically significant χ2 (9, N = 1172) = 26.93, p < 0.001. The model was also able to distinguish whether an officer’s level of religiosity influences the likelihood that they will follow their religion's teachings and doctrines as closely as possible, and frequently apply them in different contexts at work, and how this may shape their judgement of people from minority groups during police–citizen interaction. The model explained between 2.3% (Cox and Snell R square) and 3.6% (Nagelkerke R square) of the variance in the outcome variable and correctly classified 100% of cases. Whilst the results suggest that an officer’s level of religiosity has a significant effect on the likelihood that they will follow their religion's teachings and doctrines closely and apply them in different contexts at work, only one of the independent variables made a statistically significant contribution to the model (an officer’s religious judgement of people specified by differences in identity during police–citizen interaction). Controlling for other factors in the model, this independent variable recorded an odds ratio of 0.899, which suggests that officers with low scores regarding whether they would follow their religion's teachings and doctrines as closely as possible and frequently apply them in different contexts at work, would be 0.9 times less likely than officers with high scores to judge people specified by differences in identity during police–citizen interaction. Having low levels of religiosity (not being very religious), particularly in relation to low levels of religious judgement placed on others, therefore significantly decreases the likelihood that officers will judge members of minority groups (identified by differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender-identity) unfairly during police–citizen interaction. The logistic regression analysis is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Level of religiosity and officer’s interaction with minority groups
Full size table

Discussion/Conclusion

Influenced strongly by their level of religiosity, the results in this research show that Australian police officers from one of the largest state police organisations perceive that they are less likely to respond positively and police appropriately members of minority groups identified by differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender-identity during police–citizen interaction. The results also suggest that officers with low scores regarding whether they would follow their religion's teachings and doctrines closely and apply them in different contexts at work, would be less likely than officers with high scores to judge people from minority groups during police–citizen interaction.

Research by MacVean and Cox (2012) and Reiner (2010) argue police attitudes towards minority groups and the judgement officer’s often give to minority group members are formed by occupational attitudes gained over time during different facets of police work, distinct experiences gained in the workplace, associations with different types of people, and the influence of police culture. Whilst these are important in determining how police officer attitudes are formed towards minority group members, McFadyen and Prideaux (2014) argue that the significance of religion and an officer’s level of religiosity in contemporary policing should be examined in context of the operational police officer to fully understand or appreciate the breadth of religious influence on individual and group practice of officers and the subsequent judgement they place on others. Interestingly, the results of this research support this idea and illustrate how religion and level of religiosity impacts on the way police officers perceive policing of minority groups identified by differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender-identity and the judgement placed upon minority group members.

Whilst religious bias has been researched in different contexts and situations regarding public services and the criminal justice system (see Pfaff et al. 2018). It has been argued that bias, per se, formulated and constructed by other forms of prejudice and discriminatory practices (and not religious-influenced bias) should only be examined in the context of policing practice, and not in the context of an officer’s religious beliefs because religion is irrelevant to policing practice (Albrecht 2019). But the results of this research indicate that the levels of religiosity an officer may bring to policing determine whether or not an officer will provide the same level of service to all members of the community, particularly if their religious ideals and or level of religiosity negatively judges or condemns individuals or groups of people whose lifestyles, behaviours, cultures, race, or religions overstep the acceptable boundaries or rules set out by an officer’s religion (Miles-Johnson 2016, 2019; Miles-Johnson and Pickering 2018). Given that there was a strong correlation between the participants religious knowledge and the choices they make regarding living and working alongside people from minority groups, and the participant’s perceptions of the salience of the religion they follow and their perceptions of the consequences of following (or not following) their religion, it is clear from this study that the majority of officers following a religion are strongly influenced by it in their day-to-day lives and may, therefore, not provide an equitable service to all members of the public when working as a police officer.

Conveying a level of professionalism always is challenging for officers because research determines that policing and police work is affected by officers’ discretion, which is influenced by implicit and explicit bias (Miles-Johnson 2019). Lack of positive discretion during police–citizen encounters can be influenced by an officer’s level of explicit bias (based on hostile stereotypes) and or implicit bias (stereotyping of certain groups in relation to identity) (Fridell 2016). In Australia, this has been an ongoing issue for minority groups identified by differences in race and ethnicity (Aboriginal Australians and Sudanese African Australians), by sexuality (members of the LGBTIQ+ community), and by religion (members of the Muslim community), who have been subject to differential policing (see Goodman-Delahunty 2010; Hebbani and McNamara 2010; Miles-Johnson 2016, 2019). When officers police the public in high-stress situations or if an officer feels threatened by members of the public or are challenged by the policing of members of the public who do not fit with normative expectations of behaviour, police misconduct can occur (Miles-Johnson 2019). This may only be relevant to behaviour which emerges in context or specific policing situations, however, the perceptions of officers in this research towards policing of minority groups, suggest that officers having a religious identity and possessing high levels of religiosity (being very religious) significantly decreases the likelihood that officers will treat members of minority groups fairly during police–citizen encounters. This is problematic because it suggests that the influence of religion acts as a moral guideline (over and above operational codes of conduct) shaping or influencing officers’ perceptions of policing of minority groups.

If officers are religious and have high levels of religiosity, exposure to different groups of people, cultures, and positive interaction between such officers and members of minority groups may help positively shape religious officers’ perceptions of communities whose identities, lifestyles, culture, and or religion may not fit within the moral codes of a religion or an officer’s level of religiosity. Police organisations, however, cannot dictate whom officers socialise with outside of work and are only able to implement or foster community outreach programmes or initiatives which involve minority groups. Whilst this may not change or alter religious levels of bias officers have towards members of minority groups, it may remind officers that their first duty of care is to police the public in an equitable manner under the law.

A lack of adherence to operational guidelines regarding equitable policing has serious outcomes for police organisations. If officers with high levels of religiosity are unwilling to adhere to the operational guidelines and professional standards and decision-making processes set out by the organisation regarding police–citizen interaction and put religious ideals and philosophies before official policies and procedures, then the differential policing they administer to members of the public is likely to diminish confidence in police to effectively engage with all members of society. Most Australian police organisations also recognise that whilst the officers are expected to comply with the contents of operational manuals and follow rules and regulations regarding professional conduct, they also acknowledge that during police–citizen interaction many decisions made (and subsequent actions taken) occur in relation to different circumstances. As such, many of the general policies and procedures may be discretionally applied as officers respond to situations and different contexts involving policing. If an officer with high levels of religiosity acts in accordance with their religious ideals and makes a policing decision based on their religious beliefs, he or she may feel justified in their actions, yet the duties they discharge may not be lawful, ethical or comply with the regulations or professional standards set out by their respective police organisation. When officers fail to comply with professional practices espoused by the organisation, police and citizens alike pay the price (Miles-Johnson et al. 2021).

When police officers fail to interact with citizens professionally, mistrust between citizens and police occurs (Miles-Johnson 2019). As agents of social control, police officers have the power to intervene in many situations, with relative amounts of independence, which makes understanding the way officers with high levels of religiosity interact with members of minority groups an important component of policing discretion when understanding police behaviour (Miles-Johnson 2020). To overcome discretionary policing many Australian police organisations have embraced the idea of training their officers to recognise when their decision-making processes are not in accordance with operational procedures or professional practice guidelines but as previously stated, when ethical decision-making is conducted, or when moral rationalisation is applied, religion, religious beliefs, and religious ideologies are frequently used as systems of reasoning (McCartney and Parent 2015). Decision-making regarding police–citizen interaction constitutes a core part of police work and forms a considerable proportion of the reasoning processes officer’s use when determining outcomes of police–citizen engagement (Miles-Johnson et al. 2021). Yet policing is fraught with an array of multifarious issues that place officers in situations where they are expected to remember every detail of training, operational guidelines and professional practice stipulations set out by police organisations.

In many policing situations, previous research determines that when officers personally oppose the values of the law or fail to uphold the ethical practices of the police organisation, they are more likely than other officers to engage in misconduct (Albrecht 2019). It is unsurprising therefore, that incidents of poor policing have consistently undermined the relationship between police and citizens, and it is reasonable to consider that differential policing of citizens and misconduct has occurred as officers have failed to comply with operational guidelines (Albrecht 2019; Miles-Johnson 2019). What this may mean for officers with high levels of religiosity needs careful consideration, particularly if an officer’s religious beliefs also oppose the values of the law or those of the police organisation, then there is a conflict between an officer’s assimilation of the religious beliefs they uphold and the policing practices they are meant to follow. How officers with high levels of religiosity overcome potential bias which arises from such a conflict needs careful consideration, particularly so that differential policing or poor police intervention does not occur, and miscarriages of justice are reduced.

To date, however, there is a paucity of literature regarding how level of religiosity shapes perceptions of policing and discretionary practices when police interact with citizens. What is needed is targeted research which examines the influence of religion as well as the lack of religious influence on police officer behaviour. This is important because the results of this study do suggest that police officers with high levels of religiosity are likely to follow their religion's teachings and doctrines closely and apply them in different contexts at work. It follows therefore, that much of the decision-making by these officers when interacting with citizens from minority groups will be inconsistent with the operational guidelines or acceptable policing practices espoused by their police organisation, and that the actions they take when interacting with citizens from minority groups may be at risk of becoming inappropriate. The need for police officers to recognise when their levels of religiosity is affecting or influencing their decision-making processes or perceptions of policing of people from minority groups is vital because the interaction religious officers may have with people from minority groups may be shaped by an inaccurate perspective of the individual or group based on religious beliefs. These in turn may negatively shape the officer’s perception of the situation or may make the officer misinterpret the situation from the citizen’s perspective, and consequently, the officer will be highly unlikely to correctly frame their interpretation of the situation or person accurately and will be less likely to respond appropriately.

Given that police organisations in Australia are very focussed on training police officers to respond to minority groups appropriately, it is important that part of this training includes self-awareness or bias training relating to religious or non-religious beliefs, and level of religious belief, as well as all the other different background characteristics officers bring with them as they enter policing as a profession. If self-awareness and bias training include specific components relating to an officer’s religion and level of religiosity (and this becomes an ongoing endeavour), it is likely that these training programmes will help to address potential biases which may arise as religious or non-religious officers, as well as officers with high levels of religiosity, interact with citizens from minority and majority groups. A deeper understanding and acknowledgement of bias stemming from level of religiosity will enable all officers regardless of religious belief or level of religiosity to perform professionally and will increase the likelihood that officers will interact professionally and appropriately with members of minority groups. It will increase citizen’s confidence in police, particularly citizens from minority groups that they will be treated equitably by police during police–citizen interaction.