Situational context and public perceptions of officer appearance: A vignette-based study of police uniforms and accouterments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has documented the effects of uniforms and accouterments on public perceptions of police in acontextual settings. Drawing upon a vignette-based survey, we explored the perceptual effects of various police uniforms and accouterments in the context of five different policing environments: (1) a burglary where the suspect was present, (2) a burglary where the suspect was not present, (3) a foot patrol, (4) a roadblock, and (5) a siege involving a barricaded person. As part of our research design, a sample of Queensland adults ( N = 292) rated images of police officers from the Queensland Police Service in different aesthetic capacities in each aforementioned environment along three perceptual outcomes: (1) traits, (2) effectiveness, and (3) procedural justice. The analyses reveal that appearance manipulations can impact public perceptions of officers. The analyses also indicate that the effects of some manipulations can sometimes vary by situational context. We discuss our results with respect to past and future research as well as operational policing practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".