Personality differences between women police recruits, their male counterparts, and the general female population

Presently police manager and their recruiting staff are using an increasing number of screening tools including psychological testing during the hiring processes. Prior research suggests that gender is often ignored in the review of testing results. This could lead to problems in the interpretation of results. This research investigates the existence, if any, in the pre-socialization personality differences between male and female police recruits as well as between female police recruits and the general population of females. Subjects (N=104) were from a multi-agency training facility in a southern state. Subjects completed the MMPI-2 at the beginning of their police academy training to control for any socialization effects the training may have. The diagnostic clinical scales, the content scales, and the gender scales of the MMPI-2 were subjected to independent discriminant function analyses to determine if differences between male and female recruits exist. Scale 5 (Mf), GM, and GF were analyzed via t-tests to determine if differences between the female recruits and women in the normative sample exist. All discriminant functions were significant at the .05 level. Scales that differentiated male and female recruits were: Ma (Scale 9), ASP, FRS, BIZ, Mf (Scale, 5), and GF. Female recruits differed from the female normative sample on only GF (recruits were lower). It is suggested that future research focus on the predictive power of the content scales for continuation in the police field. It is also suggested that future research investigate the flexibility of the gender constructs throughout the policing career. Author Notes: Send all enquires to Larry A. Gould, Ph.D., Dept. of Criminal Justice, Northern Arizona Univerity, Box 15005, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5005. 1. A special thank you is given to Northern Arizona University for providing the funding of the parent project from which this research was accomplished. I also wish to extend my gratitude to those whose time and effort went into the collection and computer entry of the data—Dr. Larry Gould and Rachel Rowland. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Clay Moore for the statistical “chats”.