Content uploaded by Rylan Simpson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rylan Simpson on Nov 13, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958231210991
Criminology & Criminal Justice
1 –20
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17488958231210991
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Situational context and
public perceptions of officer
appearance: A vignette-based
study of police uniforms and
accouterments
Rylan Simpson
Simon Fraser University, Canada
Elise Sargeant
Griffith University, Australia
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.
Keywords
Appearance, clothing, perception, police, policing, uniforms
Corresponding author:
Rylan Simpson, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A
1S6, Canada.
Email: rylan_simpson@sfu.ca
1210991CRJ0010.1177/17488958231210991Criminology & Criminal JusticeSimpson and Sargeant
research-article2023
Article
2 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
Introduction
Images of police continue to saturate media while debates about the aesthetics of police
officers continue to permeate public discourse. Questions surrounding the appearance of
officers, and, particularly, the arguably militarized appearance of some officers, have
generated tremendous attention in both news media (e.g. Filkins, 2016; Funnell, 2019;
Molina et al., 2020) and academic research (e.g. Bieler, 2016; Flores-Macias and Zarkin,
2022; Kraska, 2007). While some of this discourse has called for a “softer look” for
police, the uniforms and accouterments worn/carried by officers are often justified by
police in light of the risks inherent in certain elements of police work. Indeed, although
much police work may be mundane (Rowe and Rowe, 2021) and does not involve the
use of force (Bozeman et al., 2018), some demands on police can place officers in high
risk environments which present the risk of harm.1 In such circumstances, officers may
rely upon their equipment (e.g. ballistic vests, gloves, batons, less than lethal weapons,
firearms, etc.) to help uphold officer and public safety. Equipment can serve many differ-
ent functions for police, and at times, function may conflict with perception—the equip-
ment that may be perceived as necessary by police could generate negative public
perceptions (see Simpson, 2020; Simpson and Sargeant, 2023).
The diverse role of police can thus create a potential conundrum for police. Police
agencies typically issue a single, standardized uniform and associated set of accouter-
ments to be worn/carried by all patrol officers in all environments,2 including those
which present very little risk (e.g. attending a business to handle a historical theft report)
and those which present very high risk (e.g. attending a business for a report of an active
shooter). But, it is possible that uniforms could be interpreted differently by citizens
depending upon the situational context in which the officer is observed. Whereas a given
uniform may be perceived as satisfactory in one context, it may be perceived as unsatis-
factory in a different context. For example, an officer dressed in a more tactical-style
uniform may be perceived more negatively when engaged in a routine foot patrol com-
pared to when dealing with a barricaded person.3 The risk of harm varies in these con-
texts, and so too may the perceived appropriateness of the officer’s aesthetics. With that
being said, the possibility of context-specific effects of appearance manipulations has yet
to receive much empirical attention.
Drawing upon a sample of Queensland residents, we thus explore the effects of officer
appearance in the context of five different policing environments that vary in their level
of risk. Our results suggest that situational context can alter the nature of effects of some
appearance manipulations for some perceptual outcomes, but not others. We discuss our
results and their associated complexity with respect to research and practice.
The perceptual effects of officer appearance
The topic of officer appearance has received much attention among recent scholarship.
In lieu of a detailed review of all related studies, which would be neither possible nor
necessary here, we provide a brief summary of the aspects of officer appearance that
have been examined in previous research. We then discuss the effects of officer appear-
ance as they relate to perceptions of traits, effectiveness, and procedural justice and
legitimacy.
Simpson and Sargeant 3
Many studies examining the relationship between officer appearance and perceptions
of police have focused on the impact of attire. Within this genre, research has primarily
compared uniform versus civilian clothing on public perceptions of officers (Simpson,
2017; Singer and Singer, 1985; Thielgen et al., 2020). These studies tend to find that
officers are perceived more favorably when wearing their uniform compared to civilian
clothes. In addition, several studies have examined the composition of uniform clothing
(Mauro, 1984), uniform color (Johnson, 2005; Nickels, 2008), and uniform presentation
(Jenkins et al., 2021) and observed various perceptual effects.
Another set of studies have examined public perceptions of accouterments and related
equipment. This body of research is generally more diverse than the former, in large part
because there is substantial variation in the items worn/carried by police. For example,
previous research has explored the perceptual effects of vests (Blaskovits et al., 2022;
O’Neill et al., 2018; Simpson, 2020), hats (Johnson et al., 2015; Simpson, 2020; Volpp
and Lennon, 1988), sunglasses (Boyanowsky and Griffiths, 1982; Simpson, 2020), neck-
ties (Johnson et al., 2015), gloves (Sandrin and Simpson, 2022; Simpson, 2020), and
weapons (Flores-Macias and Zarkin, 2022; Simpson, 2020; Yesberg et al., 2021). Many
of these items have been found to impact perceptions in significant and meaningful
ways.
Finally, and as a more recent development, one study has examined the impact of
officer facial expression. Unlike equipment, facial expressions are directly manipulated
by officers via their bodies. Using an experimental methodology, Simpson (2021) found
that participants rated images of police officers more favorably along a range of percep-
tual outcomes when officers exhibited a smile compared to a neutral facial expression.
Perceptions of police
Positive perceptions of police—particularly perceptions of procedural justice, legiti-
macy, effectiveness, and satisfaction—enhance public cooperation and compliance with
police (e.g. Hinds and Murphy, 2007; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; Tyler and Fagan, 2008).
Given the importance of these outcomes, the focus of most studies regarding officer
appearance has been on the perceptual effects of appearance manipulations. Scholars
have operationalized and measured perceptions of police in a variety of ways. Given that
a detailed review of all possible outcomes is again not possible here, we instead sum-
marize three common outcomes related to public perceptions of police that are most
relevant to the present research: (1) traits, (2) effectiveness, and (3) procedural justice
and legitimacy.
Traits. One set of judgments that people may make about police officers regard their
traits. For example, citizens may observe a police officer and perceive them to be aggres-
sive and/or intimidating. Citizens may also observe an officer and perceive them to be
approachable and/or friendly. Assessing trait-based outcomes has formed the subject of
much previous research regarding policing, and, particularly, the perceptual effects of
officer appearance (Blaskovits et al., 2022; Boyanowsky and Griffiths, 1982; Jenkins
et al., 2021; Johnson, 2005; Johnson et al., 2015; Mauro, 1984; Nickels, 2008; O’Neill
et al., 2018; Simpson, 2017, 2020, 2021; Thielgen et al., 2020; Yesberg et al., 2021).
4 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
For example, Simpson’s (2017, 2020, 2021) line of experimental work assessed pub-
lic perceptions of officer aggression, approachability, friendliness, respectfulness, and
accountability. Johnson (2005) measured the effects of uniform color on public percep-
tions of police as friendly/unfriendly, gentle/forceful, nice/mean, and passive/aggressive
and Singer and Singer (1985) examined the effects of attire on public perceptions of
police as unaggressive/aggressive, kind/unkind, and tense/relaxed. Mauro (1984) also
connected officer appearance with public perceptions of police as friendly, valuable, and
warm. Research that has explored these kinds of outcomes generally suggests that an
indirect link may exist between perceptions and behavior, such that the appearance of the
officer may change the perceptions and behavior of the citizen, which can then impact
the behavior of the officer.
Effectiveness. Another set of perceptual judgments concern effectiveness. These outcomes
query participants about their beliefs regarding an officer’s actual or projected perfor-
mance. This frequently manifests in the dependent variable of competency (Simpson,
2021; Singer and Singer, 1985), but can also be measured via related variables, such as the
suitability of officers for the policing profession (Blaskovits et al., 2022), the expected
behaviors of officers (Flores-Macias and Zarkin, 2022; Jenkins et al., 2021), and the ability
for officers to fulfill the actions of police, like make an arrest (Durkin and Jeffery, 2000).
With respect to the latter, field studies that have tested uniform manipulations on public
behavior also arguably rely upon effectiveness-based outcomes (Bickman, 1974).
Procedural justice and legitimacy. A third category of perceptual judgments regard proce-
dural justice and legitimacy. Procedural justice and legitimacy, of which share theoretical
and applied connections, have been the subject of much research. Procedural justice
positions process at the epicenter of police interactions: arguing that people’s evaluations
of police vary as a function of their perception of treatment by officers (Mazerolle et al.,
2013a). Legitimacy can be defined as a “property of an authority or institution that leads
people to feel that [the] authority or institution is entitled to be deferred to and obeyed”
(Sunshine and Tyler, 2003: 514).
Despite the growing appeal of procedural justice and legitimacy, much of the research
that has explored these phenomena, including that of which has connected them together,
has been conducted without specific attention to officer appearance. Nonetheless, recent
research has begun to explore the connections between such phenomena and officer
appearance. For example, Sandrin and Simpson (2022) examined the relationship
between officers’ use of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic
and public perceptions of officers along the four dimensions of procedural justice: dig-
nity and respect, neutrality, trustworthy motives, and voice. Yesberg et al. (2021) also
tested the effects of arming officers on public perceptions of officers as legitimate and
Jenkins et al. (2021) teased apart the potential effects of legitimacy as it relates to officer
appearance.
Overview of the present research
Previous studies regarding officer appearance exhibit many similarities. For example,
many of these studies have employed similar methods, often analyzing participants’
Simpson and Sargeant 5
ratings of images of police officers under some form of hypothetical conditions. Many of
these studies have also centered around the American experience and focused on similar
perceptual outcomes. These similarities have been helpful for facilitating discussion
across studies as well as for establishing the validity of results regarding officer appear-
ance. However, the overlap in existing research has been less helpful for bolstering the
overall scope of this literature. For example, specific to our work, no known research has
explicitly assessed the potential impact of situational context on the effects of appear-
ance manipulations. Given that situational context could affect how some appearance
manipulations may be perceived by the public, this gap in the literature warrants
attention.
As part of the present research, we thus employ a vignette-based survey to explore the
perceptual effects of various police uniforms and accouterments along multiple out-
comes in the context of several different policing environments. We embed multiple
layers of nuance into our paradigm to help untangle these dynamics. For example, we
draw upon a sample of Queensland residents: the natural observers of the officers that we
present as stimuli during our study. We explore these residents’ perceptions of uniforms
and accouterments along outcomes related to traits, effectiveness, and procedural justice.
Finally, we manipulate the risk of the environments in which participants make their
perceptual judgments to identify the potential role of situational context in the perception
equation.
Data and methods
Participants
We used the Qualtrics sampling panel to recruit adults from Queensland, Australia. Our
final sample of 292 participants (all of whom passed at least four out of our five attention
check questions, as described below) included 171 self-identified women, 120 self-iden-
tified men, and one participant who preferred not to disclose their gender. Participants
ranged in age from 18 to 78 years, with a mean age of 40 years. Approximately 85% of
participants reported being born in Australia, with most reporting Australian and British
ancestries. More than half reported receiving at least some post-secondary education as
well as being employed part-time or full-time. Roughly half reported being in a relation-
ship of some form, with a modal household annual income of $50,000 to $99,999. Half
of our participants also reported having a contact with the police in Queensland in the
last 2 years, with 10% reporting three or more police contacts. See Table 1 for the descrip-
tive statistics.
As outlined below, participants were randomly assigned to one of three different
groups once enrolled in the study. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests indicated no sig-
nificant differences among the sociodemographic variables by group, suggesting that
randomization worked as intended.
Procedure
Using a between-subjects design with within-subject variation, we empirically explored
the perceptual effects of various police uniforms and accouterments in the
6 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for participants (N = 292).
Variable N% Mean
Gender
Female 171 59 ‒
Male 120 41 ‒
Prefer not to disclose 1 < 1 ‒
Age ‒ ‒ 40
Born in Australia 247 85 ‒
Education
Did not have any or much formal schooling 1 < 1 ‒
Primary school 2 1 ‒
Junior secondary/Year 10 37 13 ‒
Senior secondary/Year 12 78 27 ‒
Trade/technical certificate 41 14 ‒
Diploma or advanced diploma 45 15 ‒
Bachelor’s degree 55 19 ‒
Graduate certificate or graduate diploma 6 2 ‒
Postgraduate degree 14 5 ‒
Other 1< 1 ‒
Missing 12 4 ‒
Marital status
Never married 84 29 ‒
Married 113 39 ‒
Other “live-in” relationship 54 18 ‒
Separated but not divorced 4 1 ‒
Divorced 18 6 ‒
Widowed 3 1 ‒
Other 4 1 ‒
Missing 12 4 ‒
Employment
Working full-time 97 33 ‒
Working part-time or casually 66 23 ‒
Retired 35 12 ‒
Unemployed but seeking work 19 7 ‒
Unemployed but not seeking work 6 2 ‒
Home duties 27 9 ‒
Other 30 10 ‒
Missing 12 4 ‒
Income
Less than $24,999 32 11 ‒
$25,000–$49,999 63 22 ‒
$50,000–$99,999 104 36 ‒
$100,000–$149,999 48 16 ‒
$150,000–$199,999 28 10 ‒
$200,000 and above 5 2 ‒
Missing 12 4 ‒
(Continued)
Simpson and Sargeant 7
context of different policing environments. Our study paradigm comprised five blocks
(or “sections”). Each block asked participants to rate images of a self-identified female
officer and a self-identified male officer (presented independently) from the Queensland
Police Service4 (QPS) along several dependent variables in the context of a single polic-
ing environment (i.e. five blocks for five environments). Both officers could be described
as Caucasian in appearance and were of similar age, height, and build. Participants indi-
cated their ratings of each image via 5-point Likert-type scales, which ranged from
“Strongly Disagree” (−2) to “Strongly Agree” (2).
The pictured officers, dependent variables, and policing environments were the same
for all participants. The uniforms and accouterments of the pictured officers rated within
blocks, however, varied as a function of participant group, which was randomly assigned
to participants at the outset of the study. The order of the five blocks was also rand-
omized across participants as was the order of the images presented within each block.
These multiple levels of randomization helped to control for order effects and related
types of spuriousness that could have otherwise confounded our findings. All study
procedures were completed online and approved by the QPS Research Committee as
well as university ethics board. We discuss each segment of our paradigm in the sections
that follow.
Policing environments. As part of the present research, we sought to explore how situa-
tional context may affect participants’ perceptions of officer appearance. In particular,
we were interested in how the level of risk that may be inherent in a policing environ-
ment could affect participants’ perceptions of officers presented in different uniforms
and accouterments in that environment. Risk can be measured by the adversarial nature
of an event, which can include the amount of harm that could result for officers and/or
citizens from the event (i.e. a greater likelihood of harm would theoretically correspond
with a greater level of risk). Using this definition, we created five policing environments
that varied in their level of risk (presented from the lowest risk to the highest risk): (1) a
burglary where the suspect was not present, (2) a foot patrol, (3) a roadblock, (4) a bur-
glary where the suspect was present, and (5) a siege involving a barricaded person. The
first two environments present no obvious engagement with a person suspected of—or
engaging in—crime, and hence we classified them as lower risk. In contrast, the last two
environments present more obvious engagement with a person suspected of—or engag-
ing in—crime, and therefore, we classified them as higher risk. Although we acknowl-
edge that events can change quickly and without notice, which can make risk
Variable N% Mean
Number of police contacts in previous 2 years
0 144 49 ‒
1 68 23 ‒
2 52 18 ‒
3 14 5 ‒
4 or more 14 5 ‒
Table 1. (Continued)
8 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
classifications both fluid and dynamic, we had to commit to an assumed (static) level of
risk for the sake of our paradigm.
Consistent with other criminological research (e.g. Flippin et al., 2019; McLean,
2020), and as shown in Table 2, we manipulated these policing environments using tex-
tual vignettes. Before each block, and at the beginning of each question within each
block, participants were provided the situational context under which they should be
rating the image of the officer. Following completion of each block, participants were
Table 2. Textual vignettes presented during the study; formatting retained for emphasis.
Situational
context
Description Risk
Burglary,
suspect not
present
Imagine you have just returned home to find that your residence
has been burglarised. As you walk through your living room,
you notice that your closets have been ransacked and your
belongings have been strewn amidst the room. As you proceed
to your bedroom, you notice that your family jewellery has
been stolen. Although the suspect has left, you decide to call the
police for assistance. Shortly thereafter, THIS POLICE OFFICER
arrives . . .
1 (Low)
Foot patrol Imagine you are walking through an outdoor shopping district.
The footpaths are lined with storefronts, restaurants, and
bars. Large crowds of people congregate on both sides of the
street. Among the crowd, you observe THIS POLICE OFFICER
standing on the footpath . . .
2
Roadblock Imagine you are driving home from your friend’s residence
when you observe a police Random Breath Testing (RBT)
roadblock in your direction of travel. As you stop your vehicle
at the Random Breath Testing (RBT) roadblock, THIS POLICE
OFFICER approaches your window to inquire if you have been
drinking . . .
3
Burglary,
suspect
present
Imagine you have just returned home to find that your residence
has been burglarised. As you walk through your living room,
you notice that your closets have been ransacked and your
belongings have been strewn amidst the room. As you proceed
to your bedroom, you observe an unknown male stealing
your family jewellery. After witnessing the suspect inside your
bedroom, you run outside to call the police for assistance.
Shortly thereafter, THIS POLICE OFFICER arrives . . .
4
Siege Imagine you have just returned home to your residence when
you observe a police officer running down the footpath. As the
officer passes, they yell at you to “Get Inside!” because a burglar
has broken into the neighbouring residence and barricaded
themselves inside. Once safely inside your own residence, you
hear the police yelling commands to the suspect who sounds
agitated and uncooperative. As you peer out your window,
you observe THIS POLICE OFFICER preparing to arrest the
suspect . . .
5
(High)
Simpson and Sargeant 9
asked to confirm the situational context in which they rated the preceding set of images.
As noted above, all participants retained for our analyses responded correctly to four or
more of these attention check questions. The salience of the vignette’s presentation
within the paradigm as well as our use of attention check questions helped to ensure that
participants explicitly considered the environmental conditions that the officer would be
working when making each of their perceptual judgments.
Police uniforms and accouterments. To assess the perceptual effects of different police
uniforms and accouterments within different policing environments, we manipulated the
appearance of the pictured officers. As previously noted, the two pictured officers
remained the same across participant groups, however the uniforms and accouterments
worn/carried by such officers varied by group.
Upon enrollment in the study, participants were randomly assigned to view and rate
one of three different groups of images. Group A (n = 80) observed images of different
attire manipulations, including an (1) unobstructed dark blue polo shirt (no vest), (2)
light blue shirt (no vest), and (3) civilian clothing (i.e. white t-shirt and blue jeans).
Group B (n = 114) observed images of different equipment manipulations, including a (1)
body-worn camera, (2) high-visibility vest, and (3) hip firearm holster.5 Group C (n = 98)
observed images of different headwear manipulations, including a (1) baseball hat, (2)
forage cap, and (3) sunglasses. All three groups also observed a fourth image of the
standard operational uniform of the QPS (i.e. control image), which included a dark blue
shirt, dark blue pants, dark load-bearing vest, operational duty belt, thigh firearm holster,
and black patrol boots. See Appendix 1 for all images of the female officer.
Aside from the specific manipulations mentioned above, all elements of the pictured
officer’s presentation, including their body posture and facial expression, were held con-
stant across the images. All images were presented to participants against a white back-
ground in a randomized order. Randomly assigning participants to groups of images was
necessary to minimize the total number of images presented to each participant, and
hence, reduce participant fatigue.
We note that the uniform and accouterment manipulations tested as part of our para-
digm are consistent with related research. All of the equipment presented during the
study were also issued by the QPS and therefore are genuine equipment that participants
may have been exposed to in their observations of local police.
Outcomes. As outlined earlier, perceptions of police can be measured in many different
ways. Previous research has frequently operationalized perceptions of police via inde-
pendent but related variables. As part of our research, we combine various dependent
variables to create three indices, each of which corresponds to a perceptual outcome of
policing interest, to use as our outcomes. The first, “traits,” is measured via five varia-
bles: (1) accountability, (2) aggressiveness (reverse-coded), (3) approachability, (4)
friendliness, and (5) intimidation (reverse-coded). This index reflects how participants
may feel about the pictured officer’s traits. The second, “effectiveness,” is measured via
three variables: (1) competency, (2) helpfulness, and (3) professionalism. This index
reflects how participants may feel about the abilities of the pictured officer. The third,
“procedural justice,” is measured via four variables: (1) fairness, (2) politeness, (3)
10 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
respectfulness, and (4) trustworthiness. This index reflects how participants may feel
about the pictured officer’s treatment of people (noting that we were unable to explicitly
test the dimension of voice).
Where possible, we rooted the construction of our indices in existing literature. We
generated them by summing the scores for each of the respective variables within the
index. In all instances, higher scores represent more favorable assessments on that index.
Cronbach’s α for all indices generally exceeded 0.75. We note that while the indices are
correlated, they regard different constructs. As we demonstrate below, they also exhibit
variation in their relationships with our appearance manipulations of interest.
Analytic strategy
We employed several different techniques to analyze our data. To assess participants’
aggregate perceptions of different uniform and accouterment manipulations, we
employed a series of t-tests. Each test compared the collapsed mean (i.e. acontextual) of
each uniform and accouterment manipulation against the standard uniform (i.e. control
image). To assess the effects of situational context on participants’ perceptions of such
manipulations, we then employed a series of one-way repeated measures ANOVA tests.
Each test compared the mean of each uniform and accouterment manipulation for each
outcome by situational context. Here, we note that we do not have a control context for
comparative purposes (as no such context arguably exists), and so we compared all con-
texts against each other using pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction applied). All
scales are centered around 0 and all tests are assessed against the p < 0.05 standard.
Results
Uniforms and accouterments (acontextual)
As part of this first section of results, we assess participants’ aggregate perceptions of
different uniforms and accouterments. These analyses are acontextual and, therefore,
similar to those conducted as part of previous research. All uniform and accouterment
manipulations are again compared against the standard uniform (i.e. without the speci-
fied manipulation). As shown in Table 3, the results reveal a number of significant
findings.
First, we explore attire manipulations (Group A). Here we find that different styles of
attire can impact perceptions. For example, collapsing across situational contexts, par-
ticipants perceived officers more favorably in terms of traits when wearing the unob-
structed dark blue polo shirt (no vest) or light blue shirt (no vest), although the latter
capacity corresponded with lower ratings of effectiveness. Participants also perceived
officers to be less effective and less procedurally just when wearing civilian clothing.
Next, we examine equipment manipulations (Group B). In this group, we only find an
effect for the high-visibility vest. Collapsing across situational contexts, participants per-
ceived officers more favorably in terms of traits when wearing the high-visibility vest.
With that being said, participants perceived officers wearing such vest to be less
effective.
Simpson and Sargeant 11
Finally, we turn our attention toward headwear manipulations (Group C). Similar to
the equipment manipulations, we only find a single effect in this group. However, this
effect is unidirectional: participants perceived officers to be less effective, less procedur-
ally just, and less favorable in terms of traits when wearing sunglasses.
Consistent with related research, these initial findings provide additional evidence to
suggest that officer appearance—and manipulations to such appearance—can impact
public perceptions of officers. As noted at the outset of our article, though, it is possible
that the effects of some uniform and accouterment manipulations may be impacted by
situational context. To explore this otherwise understudied question, we next transition
to our context-specific analyses.
Uniforms and accouterments (by situational context)
As part of this second section of results, we assess participants’ perceptions of uniform
and accouterment manipulations in the context of different policing environments.
Rather than comparing differences in perceptions of each uniform and accouterment
Table 3. Results of t-tests comparing participants’ ratings of images of officers wearing
different uniforms and accouterments; values represent means or differences between means
(as specified).
Group Variable Traits Effectiveness Procedural Justice
A Standard uniform (control) 0.25 0.85 0.62
Polo shirt 0.43 0.81 0.63
Difference from control 0.18** 0.04 0.01
Light blue shirt 0.46 0.73 0.59
Difference from control 0.21** 0.12* 0.02
Civilian attire 0.32 −0.22 0.03
Difference from control 0.06 1.06** 0.59**
B Standard uniform (control) 0.33 0.82 0.65
Body-worn camera 0.32 0.82 0.65
Difference from control 0.01 0 0
High-visibility vest 0.48 0.74 0.66
Difference from control 0.15** 0.08* 0.01
Hip firearm holster 0.35 0.82 0.66
Difference from control 0.02 0 0.01
C Standard uniform (control) 0.58 0.85 0.75
Baseball hat 0.56 0.83 0.75
Difference from control 0.01 0.02 0
Forage cap 0.58 0.86 0.76
Difference from control 0 0.01 0.01
Sunglasses 0.28 0.63 0.54
Difference from control 0.29** 0.22** 0.21**
Differences calculated via raw means, and so any perceived discrepancies are the result of rounding.
*p < 0.01; **p < 0.001.
12 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
manipulation against the standard uniform, we now explore variation in perceptions of
each manipulation across different policing environments. These analyses allow us to
test if, for example, an appearance manipulation is perceived differently depending upon
whether the pictured officer would be conducting a foot patrol, working at a roadblock,
dealing with a barricaded person, and so on. As shown in Table 4, the results reveal a
number of significant findings. Note that for brevity, we only narratively describe key
differences observed via follow-up pairwise comparisons for ANOVA tests with signifi-
cant results.
Attire manipulations (Group A). We begin, again, with attire manipulations. As we outline
below, we find contextual variation for perceptions of officers when wearing the stand-
ard uniform (which we present first for continuity purposes), polo shirt, and light blue
shirt.
For example, participants perceived officers differently by context along all outcomes
when wearing the standard uniform. In this capacity, participants perceived officers least
favorably in terms of traits when evaluated in the context of a roadblock. Participants
also perceived officers in this capacity as most effective and procedurally just when
evaluated in the context of a burglary where the suspect was present.
Transitioning to manipulations, participants perceived officers differently by context
along all outcomes when wearing the unobstructed dark blue polo shirt (no vest). In this
capacity, participants perceived officers least favorably in terms of traits when evaluated
in the context of a siege involving a barricaded person. Participants also perceived offic-
ers in this capacity as most effective and procedurally just when evaluated in the context
of a burglary where the suspect was present.
Participants sometimes perceived officers differently by context when wearing the
light blue shirt (no vest). In this capacity, participants perceived officers least favorably
Table 4. Results of one-way repeated measures ANOVA tests comparing participants’
ratings of images of officers wearing different uniforms and accouterments in different policing
environments; where “Y” = significant variation among situational contexts at the p < 0.05 level.
Group Variable Traits Effectiveness Procedural Justice
A Standard uniform (control) Y Y Y
Polo shirt Y Y Y
Light blue shirt Y ‒Y
Civilian attire ‒ ‒ ‒
B Standard uniform (control) Y Y Y
Body-worn camera Y ‒Y
High-visibility vest Y ‒Y
Hip firearm holster Y ‒Y
C Standard uniform (control) Y ‒ ‒
Baseball hat Y ‒Y
Forage cap Y ‒ ‒
Sunglasses Y ‒ ‒
Simpson and Sargeant 13
in terms of traits when evaluated in the context of a siege involving a barricaded person.
Participants also perceived officers in this capacity as less procedurally just when evalu-
ated in the context of a roadblock. No contextual variation emerged for perceptions of
effectiveness.
In our last manipulation of this genre, we removed the uniform from the officer
entirely and presented them in civilian clothing. Here we observed no significant varia-
tion by context: participants perceived officers wearing civilian clothing similarly
regardless of the environment in which they were presented. Consistent with previous
research, and our own acontextual findings presented above, participants provided lower
ratings of effectiveness and procedural justice when officers were wearing civilian cloth-
ing as opposed to their uniform.
Equipment manipulations (Group B). Similar to Group A, we find contextual variation for
perceptions of officers when wearing the standard uniform among this group of partici-
pants. We also find variation for perceptions of officers when wearing the body-worn
camera, high-visibility vest, and hip firearm holster.
In terms of the standard uniform, participants perceived officers least favorably in
terms of traits when evaluated in the context of a siege involving a barricaded person.
Participants also perceived officers in this capacity as less effective and less procedurally
just when evaluated in the context of a foot patrol.
In terms of manipulations, participants sometimes perceived officers differently by
context when wearing the body-worn camera. For example, participants perceived offic-
ers in this capacity most favorably in terms of traits when evaluated in the context of a
burglary where the suspect was not present and least favorably in the context of a siege
involving a barricaded person. Participants also perceived officers in this capacity as
most procedurally just when evaluated in the context of a burglary where the suspect was
present. No contextual variation emerged for perceptions of effectiveness.
A similar pattern emerged for the high-visibility vest. Participants perceived officers
wearing the high-visibility vest most favorably in terms of traits when evaluated in the
context of a burglary where the suspect was not present and least favorably in the context
of a siege involving a barricaded person. Participants also perceived officers in this
capacity as most procedurally just when evaluated in the context of a roadblock: the most
proactive enforcement initiative represented in our vignettes and where procedurally just
dialogue has been experimentally tested (Mazerolle et al., 2013b). Once again, no con-
textual variation emerged for perceptions of effectiveness.
Finally, participants sometimes perceived officers differently by context when wear-
ing the hip firearm holster. Participants perceived officers in this capacity most favorably
in terms of traits when evaluated in the context of a burglary where the suspect was not
present and least favorably in the context of a siege involving a barricaded person.
Participants perceived officers in this capacity as most procedurally just when evaluated
in the context of a burglary where the suspect was present. No contextual variation
emerged for perceptions of effectiveness.
Headwear manipulations (Group C). Unlike in the former groups, we only find evidence
of a contextual effect for the standard uniform in terms of traits among this group:
14 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
participants perceived officers wearing the standard uniform least favorably in the con-
text of a siege involving a barricaded person and most favorably in the context of a bur-
glary where the suspect was not present.
The manipulations presented to this group also generally exhibited less contextual
variation than those presented to the former groups. Of such manipulations, the baseball
hat exhibited the greatest variation. For example, participants perceived officers wearing
the baseball hat least favorably in terms of traits in the context of a siege involving a bar-
ricaded person and most procedurally just in the context of a burglary where the suspect
was not present.
Although more subtle, participants also perceived the traits of officers differently by
context when wearing the forage cap or sunglasses, with least favorable perceptions in
the context of a siege involving a barricaded person. No contextual variation emerged for
perceptions of effectiveness or procedural justice for either of these headwear
manipulations.
Discussion
Many public observations of police occur in physical settings without ceremonious or
formal contact between citizens and officers (Simpson, 2017). Officer appearance exhib-
its relevance for all such observations of police. In line with related research, we find that
simply seeing officers in different aesthetic capacities is enough to elicit changes in pub-
lic perceptions of them. As previously identified, some of these effects emerge regardless
of situational context. For example, participants perceived officers as more effective and
procedurally just when they were wearing uniform as opposed to civilian attire. When in
uniform, participants perceived officers differently as function of their accouterments.
These acontextual findings indicate that similar trends regarding officer appearance exist
among Australians, an understudied population within this literature, as elsewhere in the
world. Given that our study included new factors not generally tested among appearance-
related research, our findings also shed substantive insight into the effects of officer
appearance. Specifically, they suggest that appearance manipulations can affect public
perceptions of officers’ projected behavior, including as it relates to effectiveness and
procedural justice. This is consequential given that public perceptions induced by an
officer’s appearance occur even before a formal public-police encounter begins.
The perceptual effects of some appearance manipulations, though, appear to be
affected—in at least some capacity—by the situational context in which the perceptual
judgment of the officer is made. For example, the standard uniform (i.e. likely the most
common capacity observed by residents) exhibited some perceptual variation by situa-
tional context. Manipulations to such uniform, including via the addition or removal of
certain accouterments, like external vests, similarly exhibited variation. However, these
contextual effects did not exist for all appearance manipulations, and even when they did
exist, they were often marginal in size and arguably complicated to untangle.
The high-visibility vest provides one illustration of the complexity that may be inher-
ent to situational context. Our results revealed that officers were perceived most favora-
bly in terms of traits when wearing the high-visibility vest in all five policing
environments. With that being said, participants’ overall rating of this outcome
Simpson and Sargeant 15
significantly varied by context, with the largest difference in perceptions relative to the
standard uniform in the context of a roadblock. Our results also revealed significant vari-
ation for participants’ perceptions of procedural justice by context when officers were
wearing the high-visibility vest: officers were perceived as most procedurally just when
wearing the high-visibility vest in the context of a roadblock, where it also exhibited the
largest difference in perceptions relative to the standard uniform. However, wearing the
high-visibility vest exhibited negative effects for perceptions of effectiveness relative to
the standard uniform in the reactive crime contexts (i.e. both burglary vignettes and the
siege vignette), although the overall perception of effectiveness of officers did not sig-
nificantly vary by context.
Whereas some perceptual variation emerged by situational context when the pictured
officers were presented in uniform attire, no such effect was observed when the pictured
officers were presented in civilian attire. Here we found that participants perceived offic-
ers similarly regardless of environment. This is a particularly interesting finding as it
helps to establish the parameters under which situational context may matter. In instances
of extreme alterations, like the complete removal of the police uniform, situational con-
text may no longer impact public judgments of the officer. This finding speaks to the
salience of the uniform as an important symbol of police legitimacy (Durkin and Jeffery,
2000; Joseph and Alex, 1972; Simpson, 2017).
In terms of outcomes, we found differences in the amount of variation observed by
situational context. This is interesting as well given that it provides insight into what
might matter for participants when evaluating officers in various environments. It would
appear that the effects of appearance manipulations vary the least by situational context
for perceptions of effectiveness. It is possible—perhaps even probable—that participants
simply expect a police officer “to do their job” in any environment, regardless of their
aesthetics. However, the effects of appearance manipulations vary more by situational
context for perceptions of traits. In this case, wearing a different style of vest, as one
example, may affect how participants perceive the traits of an officer when such officer
is presented in a low versus high risk environment.
In light of our findings, it is possible that acontextual analyses may sometimes mask
a degree of contextual variation for some appearance manipulations and some outcomes.
Withal, we do not feel as if this observation alters the conclusions of existing literature
much. As described earlier, we identified no contextual variation in many instances. In
instances where we identified contextual variation, such variation was quantifiably
small. Moreover, the direction of such variation was generally consistent with the argu-
ments of acontextual research. Thus, people seem to exhibit—at least under these hypo-
thetical conditions—generally similar attitudes toward the tested manipulations, even
when they rate such manipulations in different policing environments.
Before proceeding to a discussion of limitations, we revisit an important caveat
regarding our research. At this time, research regarding the effects of situational context
on public perceptions of officer appearance remains very much in its infancy. From this
perspective, the goal of this article was not to try and narratively describe the nuance of
each contextual effect, as doing so would require much greater qualitative insight into
the mechanisms that link participants’ judgments about each manipulation to each situ-
ational context. Doing so would also require significantly more length than an article of
16 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
this nature could reasonably provide. Instead, our goal was to assess if situational context
may matter, and, if so, to what possible extent. Future research may wish to explore this
contextual variation in more detail, addressing questions about why it exists when it
does, the specific implications of such variation, and what mechanisms might connect
context to judgments of officer appearance.
Limitations
Similar to related research, the present research exhibits several limitations. In addition
to the controlled environment in which participants made their perceptual judgments, the
situational context of such judgments was hypothetical. Indeed, we asked participants to
imagine the pictured officer in each situational context as opposed to physically immers-
ing them in that context, which could have created a dosage problem. Relatedly, we
acknowledge that people’s perceptions of risk may be subjective and not everyone may
agree with the specifics of our ordinal risk classification scheme.
We also experienced some challenges in interpreting the variation that emerged among
our results by situational context. This was, in part, because of the lack of qualitative data
regarding participants’ judgments. However, as noted above, unpacking the nuance of the
mechanisms surrounding context was not the focus of this article. In light of the dearth of
research on officer appearance as it specifically relates to situational context, our work
was largely exploratory. Follow-up research may wish to employ more qualitative analy-
ses to better unravel explanatory questions related to situational context.
As a function of including numerous different contexts within our design, we also had
to limit the number of appearance manipulations that each participant observed during
the study. Assigning participants to groups was necessary to reduce participant fatigue
that could otherwise have occurred from asking participants to respond to so many ques-
tions. Employing random assignment as part of this process, however, helped to alleviate
concerns of group-level differences.
Finally, we note two limitations regarding our stimuli. First, we only presented images of
officers who could be described as Caucasian in appearance. It is possible that officers of
other demographics may have been perceived differently. Second, given the scope of this
article, we did not tease apart the specific effects of officer gender within our analyses.
Conclusion
As part of the present research, we sought to explore the potential variation that may
exist among the effects of officer appearance manipulations by situational context.
Drawing upon a vignette-based survey, we were able to test the effects of several such
manipulations within and across policing environments that varied in their level of risk.
Our results, which derived from a sample of Queensland residents, provided multiple
important insights. For example, they corroborated the findings and arguments of previ-
ous (acontextual) research that has identified the effects of officer appearance on percep-
tual outcomes. They also supplemented such studies by exploring the effects of
appearance manipulations on less tested outcomes within this genre of research, such as
effectiveness and procedural justice. Finally, they demonstrated that situational context
Simpson and Sargeant 17
can in some instances impact the nature of effects for some appearance manipulations
and some outcomes, but that such variation is quantifiably small and generally consistent
with the arguments of acontextual studies. These results add to the complexity surround-
ing public perceptions of police uniforms and accouterments, and suggest that it would
be unlikely that all people would ever be fully satisfied with the appearance of all police
officers at all times.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Sergeant Amber Muscat and our anonymous photography models
from the Queensland Police Service for their invaluable assistance with this project. The authors
also wish to acknowledge the support and assistance from the Queensland Police Service in under-
taking this research. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the
Queensland Police Service and any errors of omission or commission are the responsibility of the
authors.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was funded by a Griffith University-Simon Fraser
University Collaborative Travel Grant, Griffith University Arts, Education, and Law Strategic
Grant, and the Griffith Criminology Institute.
ORCID iDs
Rylan Simpson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3214-3797
Elise Sargeant https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0158-176X
Notes
1. For a discussion of injuries to police in the Australian context—where the present research
originates—see Hine et al. (2018) and Hine and Carey (2021).
2. Police specialty units, such as special weapons and tactics units as well as canine units, may
be issued special uniforms that vary from the standard-issue patrol uniform.
3. We acknowledge that the specific equipment worn/carried by officers can vary. For example,
patrol officers are routinely armed in Australia, Canada, and the United States, but not in the
United Kingdom. Whereas some patrol officers carry a conducted energy weapon as part of
their uniform, others do not. The presence of different equipment on an officer could affect
public perceptions of that officer. The placement of such equipment—if worn/carried—could
also affect perceptions (see Simpson, 2020).
4. The QPS are the state police in Queensland, Australia, employing more than 15,000 employ-
ees and providing police services throughout the state.
5. In this image, the officer’s thigh firearm holster was removed so that they were not wearing
two holsters at one time.
18 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
References
Bickman L (1974) The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4(1): 47–61.
Bieler S (2016) Police militarization in the USA: The state of the field. Policing: An International
Journal 39(4): 586–600.
Blaskovits B, Bennell C, Baldwin S, et al. (2022) The thin blue line between cop and soldier:
Examining public perceptions of the militarized appearance of police. Police Practice and
Research 23(2): 212–235.
Boyanowsky EO and Griffiths CT (1982) Weapons and eye contact as instigators or inhibitors of
aggressive arousal in police-citizen interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 12(5):
398–407.
Bozeman WP, Stopyra JP, Klinger DA, et al. (2018) Injuries associated with police use of force.
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 84(3): 466–472.
Durkin K and Jeffery L (2000) The salience of the uniform in young children’s perception of
police status. Legal and Criminological Psychology 5(1): 47–55.
Filkins D (2016) “Do not resist” and the crisis of police militarization. The New Yorker, 13 May.
Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/do-not-resist-and-the-crisis-of-
police-militarization
Flippin M, Reisig MD and Trinkner R (2019) The effect of procedural injustice during emergency
911 calls: A factorial vignette-based study. Journal of Experimental Criminology 15(4):
651–660.
Flores-Macias G and Zarkin J (2022) Militarization and perceptions of law enforcement in the
developing world: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Mexico. British Journal of
Political Science 52(3): 1377–1397.
Funnell A (2019) Why the creeping militarisation of our police has experts worried. ABC News, 19
September. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-20/creeping-militarisation-
of-police-why-experts-are-concerned/11517266
Hinds L and Murphy K (2007) Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve
police legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 40(1): 27–42.
Hine KA and Carey S (2021) The current nature of police officer fatalities in Australia and oppor-
tunities for prevention. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 33(2): 191–210.
Hine KA, Porter LE, Westera NJ, et al. (2018) The understated ugly side of police-citizen encoun-
ters: Situation, suspect, officer, decision-making, and force predictors of officer injuries.
Policing and Society 28(6): 665–683.
Jenkins B, Semple T, Bennell C, et al. (2021) Examining the impact of uniform manipulations
on perceptions of police officers among Canadian university students. Police Practice and
Research 22(7): 1694–1717.
Johnson RR (2005) Police uniform color and citizen impression formation. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology 20(2): 58–66.
Johnson RR, Plecas D, Anderson S, et al. (2015) No hat or tie required: Examining minor changes
to the police uniform. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 30(3): 158–165.
Joseph N and Alex N (1972) The uniform: A sociological perspective. American Journal of
Sociology 77(4): 719–730.
Kraska PB (2007) Militarization and policing—Its relevance to 21st century police. Policing: A
Journal of Policy and Practice 1(4): 501–513.
Mauro R (1984) The constable’s new clothes: Effects of uniforms on perceptions and problems of
police officers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 14(1): 42–56.
Mazerolle L, Antrobus E, Bennett S, et al. (2013b) Shaping citizen perceptions of police legiti-
macy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology 15(1): 33–63.
Simpson and Sargeant 19
Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, et al. (2013a) Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A system-
atic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology 9(3): 245–274.
McLean K (2020) Revisiting the role of distributive justice in Tyler’s legitimacy theory. Journal
of Experimental Criminology 16(3): 335–346.
Molina D, Zurik L and Grey J (2020) Geared up: Questions about police militarization arise again.
NBC15, 23 June. Available at: https://www.nbc15.com/2020/06/23/geared-up-questions-
about-police-militarization-arise-again/
Nickels E (2008) Good guys wear black: Uniform color and citizen impressions of police. Policing:
An International Journal 31(1): 77–92.
O’Neill J, Swenson SA, Stark E, et al. (2018) Protective vests in law enforcement: A pilot survey
of public perceptions. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 33(2): 100–108.
Rowe M and Rowe M (2021) Understanding the quiet times: The role of periods of “nothing much
happening” in police work. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 50(6): 751–774.
Sandrin R and Simpson R (2022) Public assessments of police during the COVID-19 pan-
demic: The effects of procedural justice and personal protective equipment. Policing: An
International Journal 45(1): 154–168.
Simpson R (2017) The Police Officer Perception Project (POPP): An experimental evaluation of
factors that impact perceptions of the police. Journal of Experimental Criminology 13(3):
393–415.
Simpson R (2020) Officer appearance and perceptions of police: Accoutrements as signals of
intent. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 14(1): 243–257.
Simpson R (2021) When police smile: A two sample test of the effects of facial expressions on
perceptions of police. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 36(2): 170–182.
Simpson R and Sargeant E (2023) Connecting officer appearance with officer safety: A survey of
police officers’ perceptions of uniforms and accoutrements. In: Farmer C and Evans R (eds)
Policing & Firearms: New Perspectives and Insights. Springer, pp. 385–403.
Singer MS and Singer AE (1985) The effect of police uniform on interpersonal perception. The
Journal of Psychology 119(2): 157–161.
Sunshine J and Tyler TR (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public
support for policing. Law & Society Review 37(3): 513–548.
Thielgen MM, Schade S and Rohr J (2020) How criminal offenders perceive police officers’
appearance: Effects of uniforms and tattoos on inmates’ attitudes. Journal of Forensic
Psychology Research and Practice 20(3): 214–240.
Tyler TR and Fagan J (2008) Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight
crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6: 231–275.
Volpp JM and Lennon SJ (1988) Perceived police authority as a function of uniform hat and sex.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 67(3): 815–824.
Yesberg JA, Bradford B and Dawson P (2021) An experimental study of responses to armed police
in Great Britain. Journal of Experimental Criminology 17(1): 1–13.
Author biographies
Rylan Simpson, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser
University. His research interests include policing, perceptions of police, police organizations,
theories of crime, and social psychology. He has recently published his work in Criminology &
Public Policy, PLoS ONE, Crime Science, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Justice
Evaluation Journal, and Women & Criminal Justice.
Elise Sargeant, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer and Researcher at the School of Criminology and Criminal
Justice and the Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University. Elise’s research explores public
20 Criminology & Criminal Justice 00(0)
attitudes to police with a particular focus on procedural justice, police legitimacy, cooperation, and
compliance. Elise considers the way that attitudes to police vary according to neighborhood con-
text, ethnic minority group, and immigrant status.
Appendix 1
Images of the female police officer in different uniforms and accouterments (male officer not
pictured).
