The Police Officer Perception Project (POPP): An experimental evaluation of factors that impact perceptions of the police

A Correction to this article was published on 16 November 2017

This article has been updated



To experimentally evaluate the effects of attire and patrol strategy esthetics on participants’ perceptions of police officers.


Using a rigorously controlled experimental methodology, I present participants (N = 307) with images of police officers in different attire (i.e., uniform and civilian) and patrol strategies (i.e., on a bicycle, on foot, and in a vehicle) and measure their perceptions of these officers as aggressive, approachable, friendly, respectful, and accountable.


Participants express relatively positive perceptions of the police; however, their perceptions vary as a function of sociodemographics, attire, and patrol strategy. Police officers are generally perceived more favorably when presented in police uniform than when presented in civilian clothing. Police officers are also generally perceived more favorably when presented on a bicycle and/or on foot than when presented in a vehicle.


Merely observing police officers in different attire and patrol capacities produces substantial variation in perceptions of those officers. Given that most ‘police interaction’ occurs in relatively unceremonious settings without any exchange of formal dialogue between the public and the police (e.g., observing a police officer in passing), these findings are particularly fruitful for informing both research and practice. This is the first known study to use an experimental methodology to examine how esthetic factors of different patrol strategies can impact perceptions of the police.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

  • 16 November 2017

    As part of the production process, the numerical values for negative and positive police contact in Table 1 were erroneously swapped.


  1. 1.

    It is important to note that the differences in non-adversarial contact between these patrol strategies are likely underestimates due to the difficulties in measuring informal interactions between the public and the police.

  2. 2.

    Although informative, a couple of potential limitations of this particular study must be noted. First, Singer and Singer (1985) employed a between-subjects design that hindered their ability to make inferences regarding within-officer variability. Second, the authors did not take into account the diversity of patrol strategies frequently utilized by the police in a patrol context.

  3. 3.

    Joseph and Alex (1972) argued, “Since no other statuses, or any touch of individuality, are recognized in the uniformed individual by others, he is encouraged to act primarily as an occupant of his uniformed status” (726).

  4. 4.

    The human subject pool provides opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in research in order to obtain course credit.

  5. 5.

    This study’s procedures (including the use of deception) were all approved by the Institutional Review Board at the university where it was conducted.

  6. 6.

    The four different occupations are artificial and not of interest in the present research. They were simply included in the experiment’s methodology in order to minimize potential demand characteristics.

  7. 7.

    Consent was orally obtained from all participants prior to the commencement of the experiment.

  8. 8.

    Verbatim instructions: “ATTENTION: Please rate the following images as either [dependent variable] or not [dependent variable]. When making your decisions, please move as quickly as you can observe the image in its entirety.”

  9. 9.

    However, I only analyzed data for 40 of the 64 images for the purposes of the present analyses because the remaining 24 images (6 images/officer) varied as a function of the phase of the experiment, and, therefore, could not be included in analyses that utilized the full sample of participants from all phases (as done in this manuscript). With that being said, the poses featured in the images that were excluded from these particular analyses were identical for all officers, and, thus, removing them did not impact the integrity of the experiment and/or its conclusions; i.e., the composition of officers (gender/race/number) remained balanced (there were no expected differential impacts on the outcomes of any particular groups of officers as a result of this decision; see Table 2).

  10. 10.

    All of the images used in this experiment were collected during a choreographed photo shoot with local police agencies, and, therefore, feature real police officers, real police vehicles, and real police equipment.

  11. 11.

    No participants identified as other gender.

  12. 12.

    These racial categories were obtained from the United States Census Bureau.

  13. 13.

    There were only ten Black or African American, one American Indian and Alaska Native, and one Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander participants, and, therefore, these participants were categorized as other race for the purposes of my analyses.

  14. 14.

    First, I determined participants’ parents’ highest level of education and then standardized this variable. Next, I standardized the variable for participants’ parents’ annual income. Finally, I combined these two standardized variables in order to form a single socioeconomic status variable.

  15. 15.

    Although I collected images of eight different police officers for the purposes of this experiment, each participant only observed four of the eight officers during the experiment in order to manage the vast number of images associated with each officer.

  16. 16.

    All reasonable attempts were made to match the physical characteristics of the police officers featured in this experiment. All of the images of the officers were also digitally resized to the aforementioned proportions in order to further minimize any potential perceived differences in physical size.

  17. 17.

    All models were two-level, with individual image ratings nested within participants.

  18. 18.

    For these particular analyses, I generated proportion variables in order to calculate the percentage of images categorized as a given dependent variable (regardless of patrol strategy, attire, etc.).

  19. 19.

    Given that it is not technically appropriate to report correlations of binary variables, I recommend caution when interpreting such values.

  20. 20.

    Although examining the effects of the race of officer and participant separately were of interest in the present analyses, examining the interactions between the race of officers and participants were outside the scope of the present manuscript.

  21. 21.

    Although my findings provide strong evidence to suggest that these effects would exist in a broad range of populations, such conclusions still warrant further empirical validation in more diverse settings.


  1. Andresen, M. A., & Lau, K. C. (2014). An evaluation of police foot patrol in lower Lonsdale, British Columbia. Police Practice and Research, 15, 476–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balkin, S., & Houlden, P. (1983). Reducing fear of crime through occupational presence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, 13–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bell, D. J. (1982). Police uniforms, attitudes, and citizens. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowers, W. J., & Hirsch, J. H. (1987). The impact of foot patrol staffing on crime and disorder in Boston: An unmet promise. American Journal of Police, 6, 17–44.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bradford, B. (2014). Policing and social identity: Procedural justice, inclusion and cooperation between police and public. Policing & Society, 24, 22–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Stanko, E. A. (2009). Contact and confidence: Revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing & Society, 19, 20–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bradford, B., Murphy, K., & Jackson, J. (2014). Officers as mirrors: Policing, procedural justice and the (re)production of social identity. British Journal of Criminology, 54, 527–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brick, B. T., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2009). Juvenile attitudes towards the police: The importance of subcultural involvement and community ties. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 488–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bridenball, B., & Jesilow, P. (2008). What matters: The formation of attitudes toward the police. Police Quarterly, 11, 151–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cao, L., Frank, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). Race, community context and confidence in the police. American Journal of Police, 15, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dai, M., & Jiang, X. (2016). A comparative study of satisfaction with the police in the United States and Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49, 30–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Durkin, K., & Jeffery, L. (2000). The salience of the uniform in young children’s perception of police status. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Esbensen, F.-A. (1987). Foot patrols: Of what value? American Journal of Police, 6, 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Frank, J., Smith, B. W., & Novak, K. J. (2005). Exploring the basis of citizens’ attitudes toward the police. Police Quarterly, 8, 206–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Groff, E. R., Johnson, L., Ratcliffe, J. H., & Wood, J. (2013). Exploring the relationship between foot and car patrol in violent crime areas. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36, 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., Haberman, C. P., Sorg, E. T., Joyce, N. M., & Taylor, R. B. (2015). Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia policing tactics experiment. Criminology, 53, 23–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ivković, S. K. (2008). A comparative study of public support for the police. International Criminal Justice Review, 18, 406–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jesilow, P., Meyer, J. O., & Namazzi, N. (1995). Public attitudes toward the police. American Journal of Police, 14, 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones, B., & Tilley, N. (2004). The impact of high visibility patrols on personal robbery. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Joseph, N., & Alex, N. (1972). The uniform: A sociological perspective. American Journal of Sociology, 77, 719–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kelling, G. L., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A summary report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Koval, P., Laham, S. M., Haslam, N., Bastian, B., & Whelan, J. A. (2012). Our flaws are more human than yours: Ingroup bias in humanizing negative characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Leiber, M. J., Nalla, M. K., & Farnworth, M. (1998). Explaining juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. Justice Quarterly, 15, 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Loader, I. (1997). Policing and the social: Questions of symbolic power. British Journal of Sociology, 48, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lundälv, J., Gårder, P., Risser, R., & Leden, L. (2008). Police cycle-patrols in Finland: A qualitative study applying the diamond model. The Police Journal, 81, 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Maguire, E. R., Lowrey, B. V., & Johnson, D. (2016). Evaluating the relative impact of positive and negative encounters with police: A randomized experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology. doi:10.1007/s11292-016-9276-9.

  31. Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland community engagement trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51, 33–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Menton, C. (2008). Bicycle patrols: An underutilized resource. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31, 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paul, J., & Birzer, M. L. (2004). Images of power: An analysis of the militarization of police uniforms and messages of service. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 32, 121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Payne, D.M. & Trojanowicz, R.C. (1985). Performance profiles of foot versus motor officers. National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University.

  36. Piza, E. L., & O’Hara, B. A. (2014). Saturation foot-patrol in a high-violence area: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly, 31, 693–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Police Foundation. (1981). The Newark foot patrol experiment. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Prine, R. K., Ballard, C., & Robinson, D. M. (2001). Perceptions of community policing in a small town. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rantatalo, O. (2016). Using police bicycle patrols to manage social order in bicycle and pedestrian traffic networks: A Swedish case study. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 89, 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ratcliffe, J. H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E. R., & Wood, J. D. (2011). The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology, 49, 795–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Reisig, M. D., & Giacomazzi, A. L. (1998). Citizen perceptions of community policing: Are attitudes toward police important? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21, 547–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17, 607–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society Review, 32, 777–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Seron, C., Pereira, J., & Kovath, J. (2006). How citizens assess just punishment for police misconduct. Criminology, 44, 925–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12, 625–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Singer, M. S., & Singer, A. E. (1985). The effect of police uniform on interpersonal perception. The Journal of Psychology, 119, 157–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Skogan, W. G. (2005). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly, 8, 298–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Skogan, W. G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing & Society, 16, 99–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003a). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. (2003b). Moral solidarity, identification with the community, and the importance of procedural justice: The police as prototypical representatives of a group’s moral values. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Taylor, B., Koper, C. S., & Woods, D. J. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 149–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (1999). Race, class, and perceptions of discrimination by the police. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 494–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2004). Race and perceptions of police misconduct. Social Problems, 51, 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Weitzer, R., Tuch, S. A., & Skogan, W. G. (2008). Police–community relations in a majority-black city. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 398–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Worrall, J. L. (1999). Public perceptions of police efficacy and image: The “fuzziness” of support for the police. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wu, Y., Sun, I. Y., & Smith, B. W. (2011). Race, immigration, and policing: Chinese immigrants’ satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 28, 745–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yang, S. M., & Pao, C. C. (2015). Do we “see” the same thing? An experimental look into the black box of disorder perception. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 534–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The author would like to thank John Hipp, Michael Gottfredson, and Carroll Seron for their guidance, support, and feedback on this project; Tam Vu for his help running participants for this project; and David Maggard Jr., Mike Hamel, Julia Engen, Tim Knight, and the many officers and support staff from the Irvine and Newport Beach Police Departments for sharing their time and equipment in order to make this project possible. The author would also like to thank the editorial team and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments regarding this manuscript.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rylan Simpson.

Ethics declarations

Statement of human rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

A correction to this article is available online at



Table 4 Graphical depiction of the randomization embedded within the experiment’s methodology
Table 5 Composition of the master set of police officers featured in the experiment

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Simpson, R. The Police Officer Perception Project (POPP): An experimental evaluation of factors that impact perceptions of the police. J Exp Criminol 13, 393–415 (2017).

Download citation


  • Bicycle patrol
  • Experimental criminology
  • Foot patrol
  • Patrol strategies
  • Perceptions of police
  • Policing
  • Procedural justice
  • Social identity theory
  • Uniforms
  • Vehicle patrol